(no subject)
Prop 8 Decision: Gay Marriage Ban Upheld By California Supreme Court In California, gay rights activists argued that the ban was improperly put to the voters and amounted to a revision _ which required legislative approval _ not an amendment. But the justices disagreed. The court said that while the ban denies gay couples use of the term "marriage," it does not fundamentally disturb their basic right to "establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one's choice and to raise children within the family." California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships. In their 136-page majority ruling, the justices said it not their job to address whether the ban is wise public policy, but to decide whether it is constitutionally valid, while "setting aside our own personal beliefs and values." Justice Carlos Moreno, who had been under consideration as President Barack Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, was the lone dissenter. He said denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change." "Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," Moreno said. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."
Didn't we already address the whole concept of "separate but equal" being a crock? Or did I miss that particular memo? The idea that a separate category of partnership for gays and lesbians is utterly stupid. If indeed people are worried about their precious religious tenets being violated then shouldn't there also be separate types of domestic partnerships for those who are unable to have children, atheists, pagans, etc.? Ok maybe I am being difficult here but I am truly tired of people telling me that their particular religious beliefs are allowed to inform civil matters which is a blatant disregard for the separation of church and state. I am especially tired of having those people tell me that my sister's partnership is not as valid as theirs simply because her partner is a woman. She just happens to be an amazing woman and I am happy to call her family and their partnership is a damn sight better then a lot of the "opposite marriages" I've seen.
Didn't we already address the whole concept of "separate but equal" being a crock? Or did I miss that particular memo? The idea that a separate category of partnership for gays and lesbians is utterly stupid. If indeed people are worried about their precious religious tenets being violated then shouldn't there also be separate types of domestic partnerships for those who are unable to have children, atheists, pagans, etc.? Ok maybe I am being difficult here but I am truly tired of people telling me that their particular religious beliefs are allowed to inform civil matters which is a blatant disregard for the separation of church and state. I am especially tired of having those people tell me that my sister's partnership is not as valid as theirs simply because her partner is a woman. She just happens to be an amazing woman and I am happy to call her family and their partnership is a damn sight better then a lot of the "opposite marriages" I've seen.