Finally, Homosexuals Get What They Deserve...

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage...

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

- Source

Will somebody please hand this court a gold-f'ing-medal for the exemplary display of common sense, in the face of utter idiocracy (for those of you that think that "idiocracy" is my feeble attempt at making up a word, it's not; it comes from the movie Idiocracy, which if you haven't seen, you should).  In all seriousness; I never have and never will, agree with the idea that the government should have a say in the right for two consenting adults to get married.  Homosexual couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples (and if I see one comment about homosexual couples having the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as hetero-couples, I will pray tonight before I lay my head down on my pillow that you get punched in the mouth).  That includes the right to marry the person you love, have it recognized by the state you live in and enjoy all the automatic benefits that come with a "legal marriage." 

Your thoughts?  Should homosexual couples enjoy the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples?  If you believe that they shouldn't, post a relevant legal argument backing up your point and not some religious or moral BS, because while I try to respect all peoples' religious and moral beliefs, that doesn't mean they should legally have the right to impose them on others... so come strong, or go home!

- Zac Papantoniou (Guest Writer)   

Comments

[Phelps]

The government should not be in the marriage business. If the government was not in the business of providing "special" benefits for people who enter into preferred relationships, this would be a moot point.

And I hope you get punched in the mouth for wishing it on someone else. Ugly people don't get to marry who they want, either. Suck it up or buy a helmet.

[Merry K]

I object to the government being involved with marriage at all...I'd prefer that they only deal with the legal side of people's partnerships. But since that isn't going to happen soon, yeah, let everyone marry!

[Zac Papantoniou]

Phelps such harsh words. Ugly people do get to marry who they want... they may sometimes need an incentive (have you not seen pictures of Melania Trump?) or just be really smooth (case in point Christina Aguilera's husband Jordan whats-his-name).

Even though we disagree, I'm glad that I am in your thoughts... and I will make sure to go to Wal-Mart and try on some helmets this evening, thanks for the suggestion!

However, nowhere in your comment did you address this issue at hand; I agree, the government should not be in the "business" of marriage, nor do I believe that they (being the government) should provide married couples with "special" benefits; but they are and they do... hence my proposal that government should distribute those "special benefits" (or rights, as I like to call them) equally whether a couple wanting to marry be homosexual or heterosexual...

[Martin Owens]

It may be heresy, but let me propose an argument in favor of the old order. The first thing any government needs is people. Heterosexuals tend to get married and produce children. These children then grow up to be the workers, soldiers, taxpayers, preachers, teachers, farmers, doctors, ballplayers, etc. of the nation. This is of obvious benefit to the nation: it’s how you keep the roads open, the shelves full, and the lights on.

So from the government’s point of view, it’s only good sense to load the dice a little bit in favor of families. And the plain fact of the matter is that homosexual unions are much less likely to produce children. For this, heterosexuals are the go-to guys and gals. They can get ‘em literally by accident, literally while trying not to.

It’s a fine point, but favoring one sector actually may not amount to disfavoring another. Think about it: if only a minority of homosexuals produce children, where will they get their own next generation? It is true that governments are generally stupid, but once in awhile, mostly by accident, they get it right

Now the $64 question here is this: does allowing homosexual unions the same legal recognition as heterosexual unions act against the interest of the state? I wonder if that is not the case.

Take the example of Europe. The Caucasian people who live there now have by and large abandoned the notion that they have a duty to propagate their race (ethnic group, whatever). They can pursue their own interests, fashion their own destinies with no duties to the past or future- such as generating the next generation. What’s the result? The birth rate has fallen below replacement, and the only reason that Europe’s population will not decline in the next few decades is that immigrants from the Middle East will make up the difference.

These Middle Easterners are precisely the people we all worry about when the talk turns to recognizing civil liberties, civil discourse, the rights of women, individual liberty, the life of the mind, and so on, because they come from a culture that has either forgotten how to value these things, or never did. But one thing they have definitely got right: the majority rules. And they are well on their way to establishing a de facto majority. This majority will be composed of people who are taught that the legitimacy of a given government comes not from the will of the governed, but how well it executes the will of Allah as interpreted by a gang of perverted old men who think the world is flat, and that it is perfectly fine to marry off a nine-year-old girl. Dissenters can be killed out of hand, as may anyone who opposes the imposition of this perfect system anywhere the true believers happen to live.

Here’s a question to toss out to you all: how can our value system survive if there is no one left to uphold it?

[Paul]

Martin, your point is interesting, and is definitely a lot more valid than the religious crap I hear a lot. However, I'm not convinced that letting gay people marry will suddenly result in the American people becoming more selfish (if that's even possible) and begin disregarding the goals of the nation. I mean, unlike all other minorities, there is really no way for the amount of gay people to grow- they only remain a certain size relative to population. I'm not sure exactly what it is about Europe that has made the people care much less about having children, but I don't think legalizing gay marriage will stop Americans from wanting to have them.

[Token]

Of course gays should have the right to marry. Equal rights should be had by all, and if people think gays should be excluded they should have their governmental representatives re-write the portions of their respective constitutions that mention equal protection. Not that I think that would work, but it's a lot more logical of a method than continually writing addenda to specifically exclude gays. As an added bonus, I present the following:

Think about it - weddings are one of the most expensive plans one can make; the average wedding costs well over $10,000. What better way to stimulate a recessing economy than to pump millions and millions of dollars into it via an increase in wedding spending? As a means of stimulating the economy, it's got a hell of a lot more potential than the ridiculous "economic stimulus checks" we've all been getting. And it won't cost the government millions of dollars to send out letters telling everyone it's coming.

[Robert]

My issue is not why the government is invovled in marriage (I understand the arguement about the benefit of families to government) but since when has marriage become a "right". Everything now is a right as opposed to normal relations between people. And since we have elevated marriage to a right how can we in good faith limit said right in any meanigful manner? (i.e. pleural marriages, cousin marriages, etc.) It is after all a "right". I truely could care less who marries who, not my business who is or is not doing what to whom between consenting adults. My concern is this trend to everything that you may desire is now a right.

[Zac Papantoniou]

Robert,

In order to answer your question(s) fully, I would have to type a ridiculously long and detailed answer... unfortunately, I am a law student with too much to do and generally, not enough free time to do it in. Though I thoroughly enjoy my time spent "guest writing" on this blog, I fear that I, personally, don't have the time (or a complete grasp of the matter, as I am still not a licensed attorney for, at minimum, another 13 months.)

But, you're in luck, I did do a little background reading and I will post the links here for anyone (especially and hopefully you) to read...

In short, begin with this concept:

The "right" to marry, while not necessarily discussed in the U.S. Constitution, has been implied thorough legislatively passed Acts, with one of the more recent being, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction. Some see this as a move to ban same-sex marriage as well as a disregard of the equal rights afforded all U.S. citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

From there, read (in this order):

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

and

2.http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

I hope this helped.

- Zac Papantoniou (Guest Writer)

[Hermes Ten]

Zac, you gave Martin way too much credit. His argument is just the religious argument minus an evocation of the accompanying religious dogma. Furthermore, even minus any religious basis it is an entirely authoritarian and anti-Republican argument --and racist to boot. My god man he says the white people in Europe have a "duty to propagate their race" --a "duty" they have given up. Then he talks about the Muslim hordes overrunning Europe.

I think you got lost in his doublespeak about liberties. He starts off by saying "the first thing any government needs is people." So, in his view, people exist to serve the interests of the State. This is the exact opposite of the principle on which this country was founded.

Furthermore, he again misses the principles on which this country was founded when he talks about "majority rule." This country was not founded on the basis of majority rule; and in fact, the original franchise extended to only about 20% of the population. It has NEVER been based on majority rule, and in spite of many changes in the electoral process, is not based on majority rule even today.

This country is a Constitutional Republic and the majority is explicitly prohibited from expressing its will in many cases (see Bill of Rights). A majority (er, plurality) vote still does not elect the US president (see GWB, 2000 --not that I think actual election results make much difference one way or the other). And those running the country often disregard the will of the majority while speaking in lofty terms about their "duty," just like Martin.

Finally, Martin asks who is going to "uphold our values." This presupposes a defined --and one must assume, fixed-- set of values and the use of State power to impose those majority values on those who disagree. That's just another form of authoritarianism.