California Supremes Invent Right to Marriage

And if a flower shop owner doesn't want to do business with a homosexual couple, should they be forced to? What if a J.O.P is morally set against homosexuality, will he face losing his positon if he refuses to marry a homosexual couple? If the answer is yes, then you have a newly protected class of citizens.

A J.O.P. is a public servant. As such, he or she should no more be allowed to refuse public service to people based on their gender than on their race, their religion, their ethnicity or their politics.

The flower shop owner is not impacted by this ruling on who may marry whom- other than as more people get married the flower shop owner would have a potentially larger client base if he or she chose to avail herself / himself of it.

ziggy wrote:The Court's decision was not about a "protected" class any more than an earlier Court's decision about interracial marriage was about a "newly protected class". That would be a different law- a different legal issue for a different time.

You didn't answer the question Frank. If a court rules that a flower shop owner or a J.O.P must accomodate a same sex marriage cermony in spite of their moral objections, does it not create a protected class of people?

ziggy wrote:And some lawyer could say it opens the door to matrrying your cat. But doies it actually? No. Polygamy is a different issue, and has been debated in the past and in the future- regardless of the gender of marital partners.

Like it or not, polygamist supporters have and will link the governments refusal to 'define' marriage, thus allowing same sex marriages, to their cause. Beastialitymay very well be next. That is one of the potential reprecussions of this decision.

ziggy wrote:It comes back to that principle od establishing some compelling public interest for the legislation- which means something more than just "this is what the majority of Californians want".

No Frank, you are wrong. The 'legislative' branch of the government writes and pases bills and the exectuive branch signs those bills into laws, should they choose. If the exectuive branch veto's a bill, then the Legislative Branch can then pass the bill into law by overriding the veto.

The only say the judicial branch has is to review the law IF if it is legally challenged. And then all they can do is either say it's kosher and stands or overturn it because it violates the constitution, either state or federal, in some manner.

I haven't read the California constitution but there is NOTHING in the United States Constitution that requires the legslative branch to have compelling reasons for any legislation.

Unless the judicial branch can find a compelling reason based on either the California Constitution or the United States Constitution, then they have NO RIGHT WHATSOVER to overturn a law that was voted on and passed by the legislative branch and signed by the judicial branch. That is the American way of doing things Frank.

So unless the court has a constitutional reason for overturning the law, it is they that have overstepped their boundries, right Frank!!!

What constitutional right was violated by this law Frank?

ziggy wrote:Guess what, Aaron. Marriage in America is about a psychological state- about the conscious choice of whom we want to be married to. Why should it be any other way?

You're the one that is comparing a psychological state (homosexuality) to a physical attribute (color of skin) Frank, not me. Sorry but your dog ain't got no hunt .

Try again Frank!!!

ziggy wrote:
A J.O.P. is a public servant. As such, he or she should no more be allowed to refuse public service to people based on their gender than on their race, their religion, their ethnicity or their politics.

So then if a J.O.P., as a public servant, is not allowed to refuse his services based on a discrimination issue, then how is this not creating a protected class.

ziggy wrote:The flower shop owner is not impacted by this ruling on who may marry whom- other than as more people get married the flower shop owner would have a potentially larger client base if he or she chose to avail herself / himself of it.

How are they not impacted? A flower shop cannot refuse to service black people based on the color of their skin. If they do, they face legal ramifications.

Will the face those same ramifications for failing to service homosexuals?

If so, how can you say they’re not impacted?

And this doesn’t even begin to address the religious issues of discrimination and what they can and cannot be forced to do.

What about Church's and/or ministers. What if they refuse? Will the face any legal ramifications.

What you're doing is FORCING society to accept one's personal lifestyle. How is that not creating a protected class of people?

Stephanie wrote:First of all Ziggy, it is biologically impossible for two men, or two women, to conceive a child together. In order to parent a child, they must adopt (contract/court), use a surrogate (another contract), or a sperm donor. In each of these cases, one or both of the parents is not biologically related to the child. Even for married heterosexual couples our legal system is involved.

And so? If pro-creation is the primary incentive, people don't have to get married. And fewer parents are getting married. The reasons same gendered couples have for wanting to marry are usually unrelated to having children- although some might figure that they night more likely be allowed to adopt children were they married.

As far as homosexual couples desiring things like power of attorney, joint property, etc, the legal system can accomodate them as well.

And one way to "accomodate" them is to allow them to marry.

Are you trying to tell me that there have been no instances of vendors and professionals being sued, or threatened with legal action, for refusing to participate in an interracial or interfaith marriage? Honestly I find that impossible to believe. I don't have the time right now to look into it, but I'd bet nearly everything I have that it has been done. Even if it has never been done successfully, the expense of such an event would be devastating to a small business owner.

I am not aware of any. I would point out that federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination in providing public accomodations are unrelated to marriage laws.

The Constitution makes no mention of homosexuality or marriage.

Right. But states nonetheless have taken it upon themselves to regulate and sanction marriages. The question at hand is can the state properly discriminate based on gender in that regulating and sanctioning.

If homosexuals desire the right to marry in all 50 states they should seek an amendment, just as I am convinced those opposed to homosexual marriage are very likely to do.

Why should they have to do that when the Constitution currently supports their right to marry? That would be like saying that folks who wanted to engage in an interracial marriage should have amended the Constitution to allow it.

Given SCOTUS has refused to review DOMA, I see an amendment to COTUS as the only solution for those who favor same sex marriages.

Why? How so? Why not just live with the Constitution the way it is- as a live and let live social instrument.

As far as RI is concerned, I don't really follow the goings on there very much at all. I do know that not too long ago a lesbian couple who had married in MA attempted to get a divorce in RI, where they reside. The RI courts rejected their case. They are boo-hooing this decision. If I were still a taxpayer in RI I'd be fuming mad at neighboring MA for putting my state (and my tax dollars) in this situation to begin with. It costs taxpayer money for these cases to work their way through the court system.

MA did not put RI in this situation. The RI residents who got married somewhere else and later decided to get divorced in RI put RI into it. If RI had simply allowed those folks to get married in RI, then RI could have treated their divorce request as it would any other divorce request- and w/o spending extra $$$ to work the case through the Court system. .

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
A J.O.P. is a public servant. As such, he or she should no more be allowed to refuse public service to people based on their gender than on their race, their religion, their ethnicity or their politics.

So then if a J.O.P., as a public servant, is not allowed to refuse his services based on a discrimination issue, then how is this not creating a protected class.

Discrimination laws have already been on the books for years- decades. And it is well established that public servants / public employees cannot arbitrarily and capriciously deny some citizens a service that the law allows to all citizens. If the J.O.P. doesn't want to perform otherwise legal marriage ceremonies, he/she should find another line of work, or be impeached for failure to perform his/her public duties.

ziggy wrote:The flower shop owner is not impacted by this ruling on who may marry whom- other than as more people get married the flower shop owner would have a potentially larger client base if he or she chose to avail herself / himself of it.

(Aaron)- How are they not impacted? A flower shop cannot refuse to service black people based on the color of their skin. If they do, they face legal ramifications. Will the face those same ramifications for failing to service homosexuals? If so, how can you say they’re not impacted?

Not because of what the Califiornia Court ruled yesterday, no. Yesterday's ruling was about what the state can or cannot deny, not some flower shop owner.

And this doesn’t even begin to address the religious issues of discrimination and what they can and cannot be forced to do.

You are correct, this does not address that. Again, this is about what the state, not churches, can or cannot do.

What about Church's and/or ministers. What if they refuse? Will the face any legal ramifications.

Not based on yesterday's California ruling, no. Again, this is about what the state, not churches or flower shops and or ministers, can or cannot do.

What you're doing is FORCING society to accept one's personal lifestyle. How is that not creating a protected class of people?

What is who being forced to accept here? Wasn't it you who was arguing only a day or so ago that no one has a right to not be offended?

Under the Constitution, Aaron, EVERYONE is a protected class of people- as long as their conduct does not create conditions that the public good compels the state or federal government to prohibit. And simply to not be offended does not meet the compelling public interest / compelling state interest test.

You don't get it Frank. You claim a JOP has to be able to perform all functions of his job. But for all those JOP's out there, same sex marriage wasn't one of his duties when he took the job, should he now be forced to perform a cermony that he is morally opposed to?

Same thing for the flower shop. Yes, discrimination laws exist and that is my point of saying this will create a new class or protected people that you argued against. Under the current California law, if a flower shop refuses to provide services for a same sex wedding cermony or a photographer refused to accept a job to photograph for a same sex marriage based on THEIR moral standards, they no longer have that right. According to current discrimination laws, they MUST provide that service. And, yes that court decision addressed this issue, even if it was indirectly.

Yet you say it doesn't create a newly protected class of people.

Sorry Frank, but you're wrong.

ziggy wrote:
Under the Constitution, Aaron, EVERYONE is a protected class of people- as long as their conduct does not create conditions that the public good compels the state or federal government to prohibit. And simply to not be offended does not meet the compelling public interest / compelling state interest test.

You don't have a clue Frank. The Constitution address the Executative, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government and the Bill of Rights and the government interacts with citizens. Anything beyond that is via the 10th amendment, up to the state.

For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

I think you need to do some reading this weekend Frank.

Aaron wrote:You don't get it Frank. You claim a JOP has to be able to perform all functions of his job. But for all those JOP's out there, same sex marriage wasn't one of his duties when he took the job, should he now be forced to perform a cermony that he is morally opposed to?

So should the KKK guy who was the local JOP after the interracial marriage prohibitions were struck down have had to perform a ceremony he / she was morally opposed to? Yes, absolutely- if performing marriages is what their public job was or included.

No public official should be allowed to unilaterally decide, based on his/her personal whims, what citizens he will or will not serve. That is called being "arbitrary and capricious", and Courts have long held that public officials cannot make those kinds of determinations other than what the laws direct, allow and authorize.

Same thing for the flower shop. Yes, discrimination laws exist and that is my point of saying this will create a new class or protected people that you argued against. Under the current California law, if a flower shop refuses to provide services for a same sex wedding cermony or a photographer refused to accept a job to photograph for a same sex marriage based on THEIR moral standards, they no longer have that right.

No, the California decision yesterday was not about that. This is a red herring.

According to current discrimination laws, they MUST provide that service. And, yes that court decision addressed this issue, even if it was indirectly.

No, not even indirectly. Only the state must "provide that service" under the case at hand.

Yet you say it doesn't create a newly protected class of people. Sorry Frank, but you're wrong.

Ok then. Just what is the newly protected class- that isn't already protected under the Constitution anyway?

Aaron wrote:For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

But the government cannot- without "reasonable cause" and a search warrant.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

But the government cannot- without "reasonable cause" and a search warrant.

Exactly, which only proves you wrong. The Constitution doesn't automatically protected EVERYONE against EVERYTHING unless there is something that would compell the government to prohibit as you stated.

Thanks for agreeing with me Frank.

I'll concede your point on the J.O.P. Frank but you're wrong on the flower shop. This decision does have the potential to effect them if they can be cited or sued for discrimination, as well as any other service industry. And we haven't even begun to discuss religious groups or persons.

I know you probably think I'm against gay marriage Frank. I'm not. I just think the government needs to do a better job of defining marriage and to be perfectly honest, as 'marriage' has historically been between one man and one woman, I see nothing wrong with the government defining it as such.

By the same token, I think two people of the same sex who wish to cohabitate in a committed relationship should be entitled to the same legal rights as two people of the opposite sex. I think that relationship should be clearly defined and all rights and legal issues clearly spelled out so that there are no issues and they can name if what ever they want to, with the exception of ‘marriage’.

I think the key here is the government needs to do some clear defining of what exactly is and isn’t allowed and what is acceptable in all instances. At least that’s the way I see it.

Ziggy,

I didn't bring up issues surrounding children. You did.

As far as discrimination laws being enforced on private businesses, I see that just another unreasonable government intrusion. If my father doesn't want to perform at gay wedding receptions, who is the government to tell him he has to? If he doesn't want to perform at an interracial wedding reception, by what authority does the government have to compel him? He is a private citizen. If my father doesn't want to perform at an anniversy party because the couple is Jewish or too fat or too thin or have too many children the government should not interfer with his decision. There are other singers in the area they can hire.

The Constitution is in dire need of an overhaul. I have been saying that long before I met all of you wonderful people. One of the issues that needs to be dealt with is same sex marriage. It says nothing, and SCOTUS refuses to review DOMA. That's why.

Finally, MA should have immediately restricted same sex marriage to MA residents. I seem to recall that they have restricted issuing marriage licenses to MA residents. RI does not recognize homosexual marriages. Until yesterday no other state in the union did either. MA refused to grant them a divorce because they are not residents. RI will not grant them a divorce because they don't recognize the marriage in the first place. MA needs to clean up its own mess.

Gay activists are looking for something they simply do not require. I don't care who you live with. I don't care if you have 1 wife or 100. I don't care what you do in your private life provided you are not harming other people. However, these activists are trying to force Americans of all backgrounds to accept their lifestyle. I've got news for them, the Terry's & Michael's of this nation don't have to accept them. They need to learn to live with it.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

But the government cannot- without "reasonable cause" and a search warrant.

Exactly, which only proves you wrong. The Constitution doesn't automatically protected EVERYONE against EVERYTHING unless there is something that would compell the government to prohibit as you stated.

Thanks for agreeing with me Frank.

You and your employees are not in the marriage business. But the state is. And if the state is involved in it, it has to be non-discriminatory other than based on demonstrated public need, puiblic good, public necessity. 14th Amendment, and all that, you know.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

I didn't bring up issues surrounding children. You did.

Well, forgive me, but I thought you were bringing up children related issues when you said:

First of all Ziggy, it is biologically impossible for two men, or two women, to conceive a child together. In order to parent a child, they must adopt (contract/court), use a surrogate (another contract), or a sperm donor. In each of these cases, one or both of the parents is not biologically related to the child. Even for married heterosexual couples our legal system is involved.

As far as discrimination laws being enforced on private businesses, I see that just another unreasonable government intrusion. If my father doesn't want to perform at gay wedding receptions, who is the government to tell him he has to? If he doesn't want to perform at an interracial wedding reception, by what authority does the government have to compel him? He is a private citizen. If my father doesn't want to perform at an anniversy party because the couple is Jewish or too fat or too thin or have too many children the government should not interfer with his decision. There are other singers in the area they can hire.

Again, yesterday's California decision was about what the state can or cannot do, not about what people in services ancillary to marriage must do.

The Constitution is in dire need of an overhaul. I have been saying that long before I met all of you wonderful people. One of the issues that needs to be dealt with is same sex marriage. It says nothing, and SCOTUS refuses to review DOMA. That's why.

What, specifically in wrong with the Constitution? And why should the Constitution deal with marriage at all?

Finally, MA should have immediately restricted same sex marriage to MA residents.

Does it restrict male-female marriages to MA residents?

RI does not recognize homosexual marriages. Until yesterday no other state in the union did either. MA refused to grant them a divorce because they are not residents. RI will not grant them a divorce because they don't recognize the marriage in the first place. MA needs to clean up its own mess.

Why is it a MA mess? If RI law does not recogfnize gay marriages, and thus not gay divorces, then let the matter become precedent setting and go on with life. RI should not be worrying about what MA does about marriage. But there may come a time when it adjusts its laws to be more or less consistent with other states.

Gay activists are looking for something they simply do not require.

And you and I don't "require" marriage, either. But it is convenient for us. And since the state choses to be in the marriage business, marriage should be convenient for all its citizens unless a demonstration of good public policy demands otherwise. For example, there are plausible good public policy reasons to prohibit marriage between closely related people, or to disallow 10 year olds from getting married. But no such reasons are demonstrated to disallow marriages based solely on the gender of the partners.

I don't care who you live with. I don't care if you have 1 wife or 100. I don't care what you do in your private life provided you are not harming other people.

If you really believe that, then you have no plausible excuse for opposing gay marriage. But more importantly, the state has no plausible excuse either, and so it must allow what it allows to some, to all.

However, these activists are trying to force Americans of all backgrounds to accept their lifestyle.

Being allowed a marriage license is not forcing anyone to accept anything any more than allowing homosexuals to have a drivers license is forcing someone to accept "their lifestyle".

I've got news for them, the Terry's & Michael's of this nation don't have to accept them.

But, since it is in the marriage business, the state does.

Now, if a state were to decide to get out of this marriage business altogether, then it would be rid of the problem. And since some people think the government should not be in the business of sanctioning amd regulating marriage anyway, maybe states should get out of the marriage business and leave it up to churches and preachers, or to bar owners and operators, or to barbers and beauticians, or to whomever picked up the torch.