To Boldly Go Where No Californians Have Gone Before

America -- where dreams soar, lives flourish, and today's work strives to make a better tomorrow.

Freedom, democracy, and equality have always been our goal; our system of check and balances has served us well. Throughout history we've made reactionary mistakes bound by hatred and fear. From the horrors inflicted upon our noble Natives, to the barbaric enslavement of African Americans, and internment of the Japanese, heretofore we have identified our worst errors, made strides towards reparation, and evolved toward our founding ideals.

The latest ruling on atonement came on May 15, when California justices ruled: "the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying." With all judicial prudence, the state of California declared that marriage is a fundamental right under the California Constitution. Finally, all men and women across the state are equal under California's marriage law.

Since June 16 Thousands of same-sex California couples have married. California is not only still standing, but today she is standing proud for equal rights.

Not unlike the forces of religious fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Iraq, the forces of fundamentalism in the land of the free and the home of the brave have put a measure on California's November ballot that is deplorably un-American. Proposition 8 reads: "Eliminates Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry."

Proposition 8 would amend the constitution of the state to take a right away. This is a litmus test not for same-sex marriage but for the future of our great land. If Californians pass this amendment, Americans lose what so many have died to preserve throughout our history. Putting civil rights to a popular vote sets a dangerous precedent.

Now that he has the legal right to marry, actor George Takei sat down with me enthusiastically gushing about his upcoming nuptials to his partner of twenty-one years, Brad Altman.

Eternally know as Sulu from Star Trek, George has lived his life with dignity and talent. I came away from our conversation happy to share his joy and the joy of so many Californians taking the matrimonial plunge. Happiness can only help the institution of marriage--all good marriages make society stronger.

Comments

[Overd0g]

George always had the right to marry. Just not another man.

[LeftRight]

And yet, since George loves another man, why should YOU try to stop him? What if HE were able to get a law passed FORBIDDING marriage between a man and a woman? Wouldn't YOU be pissed off that all those gay people have the right to get married, and inherit, and be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital, and be able to provide for their loved one's health insurance?????

[DeeBoss]

It is up to the voters of California to decide what they want to do and what they might consider legal and illegal in this case.

What do I care. It does not affect my life in any way. I live in a small town, with small town views. I am a woman married to a man. If you really think about it, if we were not human, would we be able to procreate? How does a lion continue his pride, if not for the lionesses? You really can't continue a species if both animals are of the same sex? Unless they are single cell organisms. Last I knew we (humans) were not single cell organisims.

I know you are going to think I am ignorant, that is your opinion, but my opinion is mine not yours. Why should I have to think like you.

Let the people of California decide what is best for them.

[LeftRight]

And they will do so. However, since you claim that it doesn't affect you WHY DO YOU CARE????? The fact is that if Tim and Sue moved in next door you'd feel safe. But if Tim and JOE move in, or TINA and Sue you'd have a problem with it. WHY? It doesn't change YOUR marriage, does it????

[HBeachbum]

Californians by a wide margin also voted to pass a proposition denying illegal aliens any benefits of the State (welfare, free education annd healthcare, etc.) ... and The California Courts struck it down as being unconstitutional. The judges don't give a hoot about what the people actually want.

[Rrhain]

So if the people "wanted" to remove a woman's right to vote, they should be able to just write a law that does so despite what the Constitution says? If the people "wanted" to reinstate slavery and declare all non-white persons to be property, they should be able to just write a law that does so despite what the Constitution says?

You seem to think that the Judiciary is supposed to be beholden to the people. Did you miss that part of your Civics class where they talked about the Constitution, the system of checks and balances that we have, that we are a nation of laws, and that the Constitution exists to serve as a check against what is commonly called "the tyranny of the majority"?

[Overd0g]

I'm still trying to find where the constitution authorizes the government to be involved in marriage at all.

[Barbwire]

Sometimes the majority is wrong. That is one major reason we have the courts. One facet of same-sex marriage that is overlooked of not understood seems to be that it affects civil marriage only. In no way could a church be forced to perform a same-sex marriage, although some churches have been performing them with no regard to civil law. Separation of church and state, remember that one? In Mexico, a religious wedding is not legal. You may have one if you wish, but to be married legally, you must have a civil ceremony. Does that make the issue clearer?

[LeftRight]

And sometimes the majority is wrong. They were wrong on the slavery issue (which was NOT done away with by a signed law!!!) They were wrong on civil rights for black people. They were wrong on the right of women to vote. The majority has been wrong a NUMBER of times, and when they are wrong, and the Constitution MAKES them wrong, then it's the responsibility of the justices to ensure that the minority can have their rights TOO!

[NedFlanders19]

To boldly go where no californians have gone before - whoops, I thought this was goanna be about North Dakota

[Shiba Inu149]

Live long and prosper George! and happy 40th anniversary to Star Trek (9/8/68 was the aring of the first episode).

It is amazing that the party who wants smaller government, with less involvement in peoples lives (that's the republicans for those less enlightened), want to have the final decision on who a person chooses as a mate, and wheather or not to have children.......

[Overd0g]

The Reps have several constituencies. One is libertarian (rather small), but the biggest is a quasi-religious "traditionalist" faction. All tend to want small government (to maximize freedom), but the large religious faction wants morality enforcement as well. Of course, recent Republican presidents have radically grown the government, producing major fractures in the support (not to mention the opening of the borders to unlimited millions of illiterate peasants to destroy public services). In essence, the post-Bush Republican party is in a shambles, still using rhetoric from a philosophy that no candidate will actually implement.

[flanardiente]

I can't understand why marriage is a covenant that has to be certified and approved by the government. (I can understand why certain churches, because of their beliefs, couldn't sanction some forms of marriage, nor should they be forced to.) A marriage is a contract between two people to love and honor and cherish one another. Why do we need the government's permission to make this contract? Why do so-called "conservatives," who squawk like ducks about government intrusion into our private lives, insist that government has the ultimate power to say whether or not two people should be joined together? Isn't this a holdover from medieval traditions, when the serf needed the lord's permission to marry? Why is it that the same people who cluck like chickens about freedom insist that the freedom to marry be adjudicated by politicians and bureaucrats? Maybe they're not as self-reliant as they like to pretend. Maybe they need a grown-up or two to tell them what to do and how to do it and when and where. Maybe they should grow up.

[rjmiller]

While being able to get married is a part of it, there is also everything else that goes along with being married: insurance, heredity, taxes, etc. The government and insurance companies give big benefits to married couples and it is unconstitutional to not give those rights to same-sex couples.

However, the fundamentalists make the null-argument from some weird "institution of marriage" angle that doesn't make any sense at all. Were I married, I could care less if the gay couple down the street is married since it would not affect me in any noticeable way. Christians need to start harping on divorce again if they want to "save the institution of marriage," even though it was one of the reasons for the protestant reformation (at least in England).

[LeftRight]

The reason that they want to get married are all the legal benefits that come with it. Right now a gay person in most states cannot go see their partner in the hospital if there's been a horrible car crash. They don't get the potential tax benefits that a married couple gets. They can't properly inherit if their partner passes away.

The marriage itself is a covenant between two people and whatever god they may believe in. The marriage LICENSE is a contract between those same two people and the state! THAT'S why we are having this debate!

[Kiwi12]

Name and shame - who are the politicians who put forward and backed Proposition 8?

[LeftRight]

Proposotions are set up by the "people" and are placed on the ballot by signatures.

[bannorhill]

Who are the politicians who put forward and voted into law the statute that redefines marriage as something other than between one man and one woman? When did the state senate pass the law and the governor sign it into law? That's how laws are made isn't it?

[HollywoodBill]

There are a number of ways that laws are passed in California. The Senate and the Assembly passed a bill, which they did allowing same sex marriage, was vetoed by the Governator. Twice. In 2000, an initiative statute was passed, Prop22 which defined marriage between a man and a woman was passed by 61% of the electorate. This did not amend California's constitution, but rather was just a law that the electorate wanted. The electorate can want a lot of things but that doesn't make them legal. The CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop22 was illegal. That is why they are paid the big bucks. They get to make the decisions.

The voters of California will have the final word this November. Prop8 would amend the state Constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. But the tired old chestnut of judicial activism is wearing exceedingly thin. The system worked exactly as it was supposed to work.

[mredder4]

Governors and legislatures are more than welcome to create laws as they see fit. It is the duty of the Supreme Court (whether of the state or of the nation) to decide on the Constitutionality of those laws. This role basically boils down to whether or not a majority is infringing on the rights of minority using the hammer of the popular vote in violation of a constitution.

California's Constitution had no measure addressing same-sex marriage, so while the Legislature passed a law making it illegal, that law was unconstitutional in California because the equal protection clause of the Constitution held precedent over the "law" passed by the state government. While Prop 8 appears to address this by amending the Constitution, it still doesn't negate the effect that a majority is attemptint to impose its biased will against the rights of a minority. It doesn't get much more unAmerican than that.

Keep your religion in your home, if it matters that much to you.

[LeftRight]

See cause that's funny. All that the California Supreme Court said was, "This law doesn't match the Constitution of the State." They didn't pass a law, they simply said that the EXISTING law was Unconstitutional. That's their JOB!!! That's what we HIRE THEM TO DO!!! Stop coming out here and lying about stupid things like this!