|
||
Liberty and Justice for All... Finally
As a judge, I have dedicated my life to fighting injustice. When Martin Luther King, Jr., was sitting in a jail once in Alabama, a reporter asked him why he, as a preacher from Georgia, was so concerned about what happened in another State. Dr. King responded that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." His elegant declaration still guides us today -- and that's why we all should be thrilled by the ruling of the California Supreme Court, which overrules an insidious form of discrimination.
This is not really an issue of gay rights -- it is an issue of basic justice. State-sanctioned discrimination (allowing a government to decide whom we can marry) is a threat to the liberty of all Americans. We no longer allow a government to dictate that we can only marry within our own race (as we once did). And the "institution" survived interracial marriage without incident; it will certainly survive this, too. We are a nation of laws. We seek justice in our legal system. We cannot allow fear or hatred to blind us to these goals, which have established the American Constitution as a beacon for the world. And make no mistake -- this is purely a legal issue. No citizen, and certainly no church, will be forced to do anything at all.
But the government in California can no longer discriminate. That's all the Supreme Court ruled.
And really, folks, what's the big deal? If I have the legal right to visit my partner in a hospital, will that interfere with your kid's soccer practice? If I have the right to affirm my love in a public ceremony, will that prevent you from buying an anniversary gift? Or making your mortgage payment? Or getting the car serviced? Or any of the other thousands of things couples do in their daily lives? What has happened in Massachusetts in the years since that state began permitting gay marriage? Nothing. And everything. Because the injustice in Massachusetts ended. And that made liberty for us all a little bit more secure.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It obviously has nothing to do with gay rights, since the participants are not required by law to be gay. Of course you could make all of your arguments in favor of polygamy as well.
Zankee's screed is riddled with exactly the kind of pejoratives that show he would be perfectly comfortable with discriminating against gay people: "mockery," "weakening," "perverted," "travisty" [sic!].
The court decision saw that exactly such second class status lay behind granting "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" instead of marriage:
"Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite- sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples"
When I hear, 'It's not the right time for this debate,' what I really hear is, 'I don't think all people should be treated equally.'
At this day and age, that is unacceptable. If Obama sticks with this reasoning of the time isn't right, then he's lost forever voters like me who believe equality is the penultimate issue of our time.
Aside from all the other legitimate legal issues in this fight, there is one thing I come back to over and over again.
Why would anyone, in a world full of hate, think it is righteous to tell other people NOT to love each other?
To all of you who are now free to celebrate your love and devotion with this precious commitment,
Congratulations. May you be happy and healthy for many years together.
The law doesn't require that the participants love each other. In fact, love has never been mentioned to my knowledge.
I was in California the day the ruling came down. Everyone was so happy. Just plain happy. Isn't one of the tenets of our government that we are free to pursue life, liberty and happiness? What is wrong with people being happy?
Nothing.., as long as "everyone" enjoys the "happiness"...Equally...! Less than that.., it's temporal....
there is no logical reason that gay couples should not be allowed to marry. but i cannot help but being scared at the timing of this. do we all have so short a memory to forget that it was exactly this issue that had so much to do with putting bush in the white house? i understand everyone wanting equal rights, and the right to marry, but at this historic juncture following what many believe to be literally the worst president in u.s. history, when our education system, military, enviroment, economy, infrastructure, etc. all seem to be on the point of collapse along side a historic national deficit, how important is it that this issue needs to be solved this year? i truly hope that the gay community does not press to get this on ballots in any other state. i must admit i am not gay, but even if i were, i would realize that with another conservative in the white house, and the distinct possibility of more supreme court judges retiring, a very, very conservative supreme court would certainly be in power for many years to come, and that court would almost certainly rule gay marriage unconstitutional.
Yes - gay marriage was one issue among MANY that the GOP used to get Bush elected - Kerry being the dem candidate was our BIGGEST mistake last time out (how on EARTH did that happen, exactly?). If Dems have managed to learn ANYTHING in the past 8 years, I would hope that it would be to learn to deflect from the fringe issues and focus on the *bigger* issues at hand - the economy, fuel prices, healthcare, education, etc. How about the fact our country is so disliked that other countries in distress have REFUSED our help because of who we are?
That being said - as a lesbian, I'll be d@mned if I will sit and wait for the hand-wringing to subside and for someone else to tell me when THEY think it would be appropriate for me to fight for MY civil rights.
Will you know the difference when you become your enemies immitation...?
From a public policy point of view, with strict separation of church and state (as much in the intererst of the religious as all religions are outnumbered by those not of their persuasion with many extremely hostile to the others) all unions should be "civil unions" and leave the matter of what does "marriage" mean for debate on another level. Those fundamentalist Mormons in Texas would say they are all "married" in God's eyes even if to multiple partners but for concrete social policy reasons (child abuse, lack of informed and adult consent, interenal coercion and brainwashing etc) they would and should not be viewed as legitimate "civil unions" for purposes of legal protections.
But the traditional institution of marriage is based more on property rights than on the union and protection of two individuals together and as separate individuals. People from various disenfranchIsed groups (women, LGBT, people of color, disabled etc) should realize that no real "liberation" can ever come by trying to imitate and gain the advantages of the oppressor or having an "equal opportunity" to become an oppressor.
Well said!!!!
I agree. I think the state should only license civil unions.
Let the churches decide to whom they want to administer the sacrament of marriage. But marriage should only be recognized by the church and not carry state sanction or recognition.
"Let the churches decide to whom they want to administer the sacrament of marriage."
That has never been anything but the case. No church can be forced to marry anyone.
Human Beings by Nature, reject attempted distortions to their instincts...regardless to the criers sincere cause.... As you wish to seperate.., they wish to unite.... Words, whether from a state podium, or church pulpit, should be in unison for man's benifit and survival... To accept seperation, implies conflict and hypocrisy, to purpose of sought respected recognition....
Yay Judge Young.
"Justice with a snap!"
; )
Is there no standard any more?
What if I want to have a second wife? Or a third? And what if I want to marry my sister? What if I want to marry a 6-year-old? Or my pet iguana? Seriously, where does it stop?
I think anyone and everyone should have the right to share insurance, bequeath estates, and whatever other legal benefits a married couple enjoy. But to suddenly change the definition of marriage for the first time in the history of mankind? That's about as radical as you can get.
Is nothing sacred any more? Is there no standard any more? Is there no right and wrong? Is everything morally relative?
C'mon.
What kind of standard do you want?I have been with my partner for 17 years. We pay taxes, maintain our home, do volunteer work, donate to charity, pay to put other's children into school and generally live a decent and honorable life. Why would you be so arrogant as to think you can tell us that your situation is the only morally acceptable standard. Who gave you the right to choose for us? These are the same arguments used to keep minority groups enslaved for centuries. If you don't want to marry a same sex partner, fine, don't. But please stop telling the rest of us what we can or cannot do. Please do not imply that your relationshipe is somehow superior. We are sick of being second class citizens. Live up to your own standards and I will live up to mine.
"Change the definition of marriage for the first time in the history of mankind"? How many wives did some of the biblical kings of Israel have? And what was the deal about marrying the wife of your brother?
"Marriage" or "civil-unions" or whatever term one wants to use, should be considered as a contract with various implied rights and benefits. As a contract, it should be between 2 consenting adults. ADULTS. Not a human and a credenza, aardvark, wombat, or any other non-human entity.
If marriage is defined as being between 2 consenting adults, that also eliminates things like 14-year old girls getting married.
The argument of equal respect as the underling cause to purpose, is contradictory to the concern of ",,,contract...rights and benifits.", this cause, could be the cry of ALL the less fortunate, not just the gays....
No emotional connection accomplished....
Your "standards" are BS...
You wanna second wife? A third? Can you support them? Then be my guest as it doesn't effect me or any other consenting adult....
You wanna marry your sister? I'll add my "ugh!" (as many do when they are apparently *forced* to think about gay sex...) and wish you a happy union and pray your offspring isn't as "special" as you already sound.....
Your last two examples are bogus as they don't involve CONSENTING ADULTS. Were you not aware of that particular "standard"??
I doubt your knowledge of history is as extensive as you are letting on because 1 - we aren't changing thedefinition of anything and 2 - marriage as we know it has evolved more times that I bet you can count....look it up, please.
Don't people like you have better things to pretend to be offended over?
Thanks Judge Young. And I hope everyone takes the time to actually read the decision hadned down by the California Supreme Court. It is specific and thorough in ways I never expected.
And it now allows me to marry my lover of 38 years.
I've been married for 41 years. I wanted to live together, my wife didn't without a "certificate". It's HER certificate, not mine.., my feelings and dedication cannot be measured by "certificate" of recognition, and, I do not need or seek outside approval of my affections....
I am glad you don't need outside approval. I tell ya what... you rip up your marriage certificate, stop filing taxes jointly and then also sign a legal docvument saying your wife will not be allowed tovisit you when you are dying as well as giving up your wife's acceess to your social security death benefits and then I will stop demanding the right to protect my partner as your wife is.
Deal?
Outside approval isn't what's necessary for me to live - the benefits of that annoying little "certificate" you seem to loathe is what I *do* require in order to protect my family in the same manner as every other family out there.
I don't care if anyone "likes" me - but I wish they'd stop making my life harder to live because of their own "discomfort".
Congratulations!
It is not the "strengths" of your convictions and arguments that have allowed such mockery of our institutions.., it is the "weakening" of our moral fabric by perverted influences that has allowed such a travisty to fester and gain "token" respect.., "respect" cannot be legislated, nor can "anti-discrimination".
Whats next(?)., "rights" for exhibitionists,voyers, pedifiles, foot fetishers, panty sniffers etc.. You can see where this can escalate.., on the way to Hell....
Rights were necessary, to address differences between harmoneous "opposites".., not abstracts of the "opposites"...!
You are right, "respect" cannot be legislated. However, equal protection under the law is guaranteed by our constitution, and that is what the California Supreme Court upheld.
We all benifited from the same "equal protection" offered to the citizenry before this finding. If I get mugged or accousted.., I cannot "claim" similar protection, and, that is because of my sexual preference, unless I can show that I'm gay..; doesn't that constitute unequal protection?
I believe it is more about compelling forced "recognition" than concern to personal "protection"....
Why do foot fetishists not deserve equal rights? what've you got against feet? And panty sniffers come to that.
Why should which part of the body someone finds most attractive determine how the law should treat them.
If someone gets robbed should the cops' first question be "are you an ass or a tit man?, Ass you say? well we just can't help you. Only boob fanciers are protected by law in this state"
Come to think of it, all those "attractive" women who prefer a sense of humour to good looks in a guy, they're just down right perverted.
Lets not bring hell into it either, 'cos as I recall my scripture Jesus wasn't too big on people judging each other like that.
Exhibitionism, Voyeurism and Paedophilia are illegal because they tend to involve people who haven't consented to be involved. Surely what consenting adults do with their own boides and souls in really no business of the law when they don't involve anyone else?
I live in one of the most conservative parts of California. And as I just expressed to a newly engaged gay friend, there is an almost palpable change in attitudes out here. Partly it's the political disillusionment that so many of these die hard Republicans have experienced over the last seven years, and partly it is growing familiarity with gays. I am not so sure that any ballot proposition for an amendment to overturn the Court decision would pass in California this time.
I'm hopeful that maybe things are changing. It is well past time.
I agree with that observation. Even if the amendment passes, it will be narrowly, and it will be temporary.
The bigots know that time is against them too.
"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - MLK
the logic and truth of this statement is incontestable - thanks for sharing this thoughtful post, your Honor.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
