Calif. Gay Marriage Ruling Goes Forward

State Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Ruling Until After Nov. Election, Clears Way For Marriages

(AP)  California's highest court has refused to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage, clearing the way for gays and lesbians in the most populous U.S. state to marry in less than two weeks.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.

An initiative that would amend the state constitution to limit marriage to between a man and a woman has qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision.

The amendment's sponsors argued for delay, saying that chaos would ensue if couples could get married during the next few months, only to have the practice halted at the ballot box.

The same four justices who joined in the majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination denied the request. The three dissenting justices said they thought a hearing on whether the delay should be granted was warranted.

The majority did not elaborate on its reasons for the denial, but simply issued a one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage would be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

The decision clears the way for gays and lesbians from across the United States to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

[nascar8de]

Why do we vote if its going to happen anyways, its a slap in the face. To each their own, its a piece of paper LOL!!!!!

[dolphin20081]

And ultimately:

What definition is being promulgated by the proposed Constitutional amendment? In all of the debate and vitriol on both sides, there has yet to be a definition of these basic legal terms - ''man'' and ''woman'' - upon which the amendment is based. Without being defined, the law is meaningless. Unfortunately, the terms can not be defined, so it really boils down to an enourmous expenditure, again on both sides, about a Constitutional amendment that ultimately is unable to stand any examination because its basic terms are undefinable.

[dolphin20081]

Your point is well taken, but consider that even if only 3% do not fit neatly into the arbitrarily binary paradigm, then what is to be done with these individuals? California has a population of 36.5 million people (as of 2006) so that 3% you mention represents over 1 million people. This is not merely a statistical footnote in a medical book. That is over 1 million Califonians who will be denied legal status and standing merely because they do not easily conform to an arbitrary definition of ''man'' and ''woman.'' Are they not to be allowed to legally marry anyone? What of the XX-male, or XY-female (both rare, true, but real people who may want to marry)? What is their legal staus? Who are they allowed to marry? What of the individuals with genetic mosaicism (where different cells in the same body may exhibit either XX or XY)? The International Olympic Committe used to require random genetic tests of competing athletes, but abandoned the practice as an unreliable indicator of ''male'' and ''female.'' (You may reference any decent text on basic human biology/development.)

The point is that genetics (an unreliable definer of ''man'' and ''woman'') is only one of a number of various definitions, each one equally unable to conclusively define ''man'' and ''woman.''

[terrythr]

I have a prognostication. Once g/ay marriage is legalized it will constitute a very small portion of the weddings performed. First the g/ay community comprises less than 1% of the population. Their voice far out weights their insignificant numbers. Secondly, most g/ays after the first rush of excitement will largely turn away from marriage as it represents commitment and the g/ay lifestyle is largely one of promiscuity. With out the pressure of child rearing to provide an incentive to stay together, most g/ays will rebel against the confines and restrictions it would impose.

[terrythr]

So, if you insist on merely XX and XY as your ''''definitions'''' then where does that leave the other 98+ genetic types?

Dolphin20081 - my question about these other 98 types is the statistical significance of there numbers. Let us say that they represent some fraction of a percent then they are genetic abnormalities and should be relegated to the medical textbooks rather than used for a decision of law. Given the reasonable man rule, they would not constitute a legal variant to the XX/XY paradigm. Even if their occurrence were up to 3%, that would still put them outside the three sigma realm and they again would not be significant. So what is their prevalence and where do I find this data?

[terrythr]

andor3
My numbers may not be accurate now, they are about three years old, but I suspect they are still relatively close. My agenda may be clear, but so is yours. The main problem you have with my numbers is that they don''t say what you want them to. In fact, often the numbers and research go against the g/ay agenda, but as this g/ay agenda is mostly driven by emotion and not science, this has little to do with it.

[flabear2]

Hey flabear2 you still at it.....lol........the world has a limitless supply of homophobes, bigots and racists huh?

Never ceases to amaze me the endless supplies we have on earth.........


:) Yeah I know. Like someone said, "beating a dead horse".

[simonsez40]

Hey flabear2 you still at it.....lol........the world has a limitless supply of homophobes, bigots and racists huh?

Never ceases to amaze me the endless supplies we have on earth.........

[flabear2]

"Ah the love of the Christian Right, can''''t you just feel it?"

Oh yes! It takes so much love to condemn someone to an eternity of personalized torture unless they follow a particular belief system, confess that what they did was really bad and swear to never do it again, and live a life that other people determine to be "proper" and "normal".

[flabear2]

"Homosexuality is such a perverted lifestyle. It has no basis in religion or in nature."

Then you do not study either.

[rjsparling]

Homosexuality is such a perverted lifestyle. It has no basis in religion or in nature.

Actually, religion has perverted so much that nature is hard to recognize. Homosexuality has been recorded since long before the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims and is therefor mor akin to nature than those religions.

[mrpisces-2009]

Homosexuality is such a perverted lifestyle. It has no basis in religion or in nature.

[jjp735i]

Ah the love of the Christian Right, can''t you just feel it? They are just so good at spreading it. Unfortunately it always feels like hate and they just don''t see it.

[dolphin20081]

Of course, requiring someone to strip naked to prove if they are a man or woman is only relevant if your definition of ''man'' and ''woman'' is based exclusively on external physiology. If that''s the case, then:

What about the man who is in an unfortunate accident? Since he no longer posseses the external physiology that defined him as a ''man'' then he would therefore be legally defined as a ''woman'' and by the legal terms of the Constitutional amendment, only legally able to marry a ''man.''

And what about intersexed individuals who possess the external physiology of both? Are they therefore legally both (since they have both types of physiology) and legally able to marry either?

[andor3]

"Okay, so now that the terms ''''man'''' and ''''woman'''' have been used a legal terms, define those terms. I have yet to see any legal definition of those terms."

excellent point. further it is not clear how to define man and woman. all states have laws that prevent a marriage-empowered official from requiring two people who want to get married to strip naked--that is harassment (priests especially are sensitive to this).

So when two people show up to get married, it is simply illegal for the marrying official to judge whether they are men, women or mixed couple. Two people who want to get married are entitled to, as long as they are not related, and soon that will be the norm in all 50 states.

[brianbwb-2009]

A sure fire 3 step program to avoid the "sins" of g*a*y marriage;

1. don''t be g*a*y

2. if you are, don''t get married.

3. stay out of other peoples business

There it is, simple, and 100% effective.

[ontheleft]

''I''ll be dammed if I consider anything in California normal. I am just glad I am in far away NY.''
Posted by BlackYowe at 02:10 AM

New York is about to legalize gay marriage as well, LOL.

[blackyowe]

California has always been nutty as far as I am concerned. Just look how they keep electing actors for officials. It''s a place that has trouble with boundaries. It has a problem with right and wrong, its border with Mexico and its sexual boundaries. California won''t confront it''s horrible education system, its problem with wild fire or with building houses on land that falls into the ocean. It is a state where fantasy is more powerful than reality so it is not big stretch for them to go for Gay marriage. They can keep it. The whole place is going to explode with the next big earth quake and no one is even concerned. I''ll be dammed if I consider anything in California normal. I am just glad I am in far away NY.

[dolphin20081]

There is one thing I have not read or seen:

Let''s leave out religion, right/wrong, equal rights, ''protection'' of marriage by banning it, etc. Let''s try this...The Constitutional amendment before the voters is to create the ''definition'' of marriage to be between a man and a woman. Okay, so now that the terms ''man'' and ''woman'' have been used a legal terms, define those terms. I have yet to see any legal definition of those terms. Having lectured in colleges and universities on human sexuality for over 20 years, I have not ever been able to find a legal definition of ''man'' and ''woman'' that at some point does not exclude someone. For example: Is your definition genetic? If so, then that means every person must have a karotype (genetic test) done prior to marriage. And, oh, by the way, there are about 100 different genetic variations that normally occur in human beings. So, if you insist on merely XX and XY as your ''definitions'' then where does that leave the other 98+ genetic types? If the terms can not be legally defined, then there is an enormous amount of time, energy, effort, and money being expended on pushing an amendment to the State Constitution that can not be defined, and therefore can not be enforced.

[haoli25]

Is the California Supreme Court trying to ''slip it in the back door''?