The problem with this decision is that it descriminates against all of the major religions in CA as well as the world that hold the belief that "Holy Matrimony" is between a man and a woman. Gays were given most of the same rights as married couples within the state already so why do they have to use the same "term" that religions do. The decision is a slap in the face to organized religion.

It also flies in the face of the majority of Californians who stated in their approval of the ballot initiative that marriage was between a man and a woman forcing a constitutional amendment within the state.

OK, then on establishment grounds, states should get out of the marriage business altogether. Perhaps labelling all state approved couples as partners in a civil union will avoid both potential discriminations, but I fail to see how allowing state sanctioned marriage for some couples but not others based solely upon the genders of the people involved isn't discrimination. Separate but equal ain't.

Ahem. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Sound familiar?

This is usually taken to mean that not only will Congress not favor one religion over another, but that it pretty much stays out of religion entirely. Or it's supposed to. If you're a libertarian you might argue that tax breaks for religious organizations directly contravene this provision.

And what you said about religion, well...this may surprise you, but same-sex marriage is not going to offend all religious organizations or, for that matter, all religious people. Take a look at <a href="http://www.rmnetwork.org­/">Reconciling Ministries,</a> or consider <a href="http://www.bethahavah.or­g/2about/about_history.html">B­eth Ahava,</a> a GLBT Jewish congregation. My own rabbi has no objection to officiating over marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. In fact, with the kind of congregation I'm in, we'd probably toss him out on his ear if he had a problem with it!

As for myself, I believe in God, but like many Reconstructionist Jews I believe that there are no sins against God, only against man. Same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage, if they are as committed and honest as straight marriages ideally should be, are not a sin against anyone.

There isn't any discrimination based on orientation. Gays can't marry same-sex, neither can straights marry same-sex.

The law doesn't state people can't or can marry who they love, it just says a no one can marry another of the the same sex.

Equal protection under the law.

jwzich:

OK, then on establishment grounds, states should get out of the marriage business altogether. Perhaps labelling all state approved couples as partners in a civil union will avoid both potential discriminations, but I fail to see how allowing state sanctioned marriage for some couples but not others based solely upon the genders of the people involved isn't discrimination. Separate but equal ain't.

A Libertarian friend of mine pointed out that marriage is primarily a religious and maybe social institution, and states should actually have nothing to do with it. She believes that if people want to have special rights or privileges with regards to each other because they are married, they should draw up a legal contract.

In other words, she thinks every married couple should have to jump through the hoops that people who say "I object to gays co-opting marriage, they can just do paperwork" want gays to jump through. ;)

"The problem with this decision is that it descriminates against all of the major religions in CA as well as the world that hold the belief that "Holy Matrimony" is between a man and a woman."

>>No, it doesn't, since the ruling doesn't address the religious sacrament of marriage or recognition on the part of any of the worlds' religious traditions. Instead it addresses state and federal recognition as partners in civil matrimony.

Religious organizations remain free to refuse to recognize same-sex couples as married in the eyes of their particualr church, just as they've always been free to refuse religious recognition of inter-faith or inter-racial marriages.

"Gays were given most of the same rights as married couples within the state already so why do they have to use the same "term" that religions do."

>>"Most ot the same rights" does not share identity with "All of the same rights". Denying them all of the same rights violates substantive due process of law.

Why shouldn't a single common term be used to refer to marriage, whether between same-sex or opposite sex couples? Assume that it were possible to enact civil unions that were indistinguishable from civil matrimony--what purpose would be served by having two different names for a single legal status, other than pandering to religious intolerance?

"The decision is a slap in the face to organized religion."

>>In exactly the same way that striking down antimiscegenation laws represents a slap in the face to organized religions that oppose inter-racial marriage, I guess (i.e., it's a slap in the face to those organized religions which embrace a message of hate, intolerance and bigotry.)

"It also flies in the face of the majority of Californians who stated in their approval of the ballot initiative that marriage was between a man and a woman forcing a constitutional amendment within the state."

>>Consititutional issues regarding individual civil rights aren't resolved on the basis of popular opinion. Would you argue that if the majority of Californians voted to prohibit inter-racial marriage it would be constitutional (or even ethical) to do so?

Should the constitutionality of separate but equal public accomodation in Georgia, Mississippi, etc., have been settled back in the sixties by popular referendum in those states?

"The law doesn't state people can't or can marry who they love, it just says a no one can marry another of the the same sex.

Equal protection under the law. "

>>Would you defend legal prohibitions against anyone from worshipping a god other than Odin by arguing " Christians, Jews, and Hindu's can worship Odin just like everyone else. That's equal protection under the law."

Marriage is primarily a civil, not a religious. institution. The rights, priveleges, benefits and obligations it vests are primarily civil and economic--in fact, I can't really think of any fundamentally religious rights married couples are vested with upon recognition as partners in civil matrimony.

Flat wrong.

Under the US Constitution, no religion has the "right" to impose its tenets on anyone. Ever. Your religion applies 'holy' requirements and strictures to human pair-bonding behavior, and you're welcome to your beliefs. Have fun. Or not, more realistically.

Maybe you also feel deeply, personally wounded that we don't stone to death people who wear cloth woven of two types of thread? Or for working on the sabbath? How many slaves do you own (also carefully and specifically endorsed in your bible)?

Gays deserve the same rights to marry as do hetero couples who don't intend to have children, or who worship other gods than yours, or who like to have other kinds of consensual, adult sex that you personally feel are offenses against your giant imaginary friend. Get used to it, and grow up.

By the way:

US Constitution, Amendment I. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So... you get to live on a compound in Montana, with 10,000 guns and your bible and a giant chip on your shoulder against anyone who isn't you or doesn't fall down on their knees worshiping how righteous you are. And I get to live my life in peace without being constantly harassed by busybody half-wits like you. Deal with it, and get over yourself.

JGC:

Marriage is primarily a civil, not a religious. institution. The rights, priveleges, benefits and obligations it vests are primarily civil and economic--in fact, I can't really think of any fundamentally religious rights married couples are vested with upon recognition as partners in civil matrimony.

I'm not saying I agree with her, it's just what she says.

You're also overlooking a lot if you think there are no religious rights in marriage! For instance, some churches take "living in sin" pretty seriously. One of my married friends nominally belongs to the Russian Orthodox church, because her family does. Her husband is a non-practicing Catholic. They are legally married and had a church wedding officiated by a Lutheran priest. But because the groom is not Russian Orthodox, and they didn't have a Russian Orthodox wedding, the RO church considers them to be "living in sin." If you care about following the laws of your religion, or about the acceptance of your religious community, that's pretty major. You can also be barred from your church or excommunicated in some cases (at least from a single congregation, if not the whole denomination) for "living in sin," or divorcing without going through religious counseling first.

And remember that religions came up with the institution of marriage in the first place. The notion that religion should be separate from law or civil society is a relatively recent one, in the scope of human history. Even in this country, which was the first (I think?) to write a separation of church and state into the Constitution, we haven't got the separation quite right. Given that, it's not surprising that people conflate religious, social and legal institutions, or think that the first one should have sway over the other two.

Drawing distinctions between the civil, economic and religious aspects of marriage is a messy business. Marriage has for much of history been an institution of all three: now whether religion enters into it is a matter of choice, but that's kind of hard to wrap one's head around, as is the idea that one can have a religious marriage without the civil or economic aspects like - and believe me, I hate to use this example - the "spiritual" but not legal marriages of the FLDS church.

BRAVO!!!!

Since freedom of religion is part of our national Constitution. But given that, I would strive to have my legislature vote down such a law, or replace it. And I would use the lawmaking process the people who implemented this law did to replace it.

Our constitution provides a process to allow me a voice in how laws are made. And many are made that I don't agree with. But I can accept that because I had a voice. Pity the people of California, and Massachussets, where the voices of 8 judges superceded theirs.

"You're also overlooking a lot if you think there are no religious rights in marriage!"

>>Certainly religious recognition as partners in matrimony confers religious rights. But with resepct to same sex marriages we're talking civil recognition, not religious recognition.

"If you care about following the laws of your religion, or about the acceptance of your religious community, that's pretty major."

>>Agreed. Homosexuals seeking same sex marriages, however, aren't looking for the acceptance of their religious community: they're looking for equal treatment under state and federal law.

"And remember that religions came up with the institution of marriage in the first place."

>>Not that I"m aware of, anymore than they came up with the isntitutions of 'birth' and 'death'. Like birth and death they marriage is one of the various life-events religious ceremonies were created to celebrate or recognize.

"The notion that religion should be separate from law or civil society is a relatively recent one, in the scope of human history."

>>Perhaps--did you have a point? The notion that males and females should be treated equally before the law is also of relatively recent genesis.

"Even in this country, which was the first (I think?) to write a separation of church and state into the Constitution, we haven't got the separation quite right."

>>Haven't got it right? How do you think it needs to be improved?

"Given that, it's not surprising that people conflate religious, social and legal institutions, or think that the first one should have sway over the other two."

>>Not surprising, no: that it's not surprising they do so doesn't argue that they're right to do so, or that religious articles of faith have any standing before the law.

"Drawing distinctions between the civil, economic and religious aspects of marriage is a messy business."

>>I don't see how it's messy at all. Recognition as parnters in civil marriage confers multiple economic and legal protections, benefits, priveleges and obligations by state and federal authorities. Substantive due process of law as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendment to the federal constitution prohibits denying same sex couples such recognition in the absence of identifiable rational justification. Religious articles of faith--moral objections to same sex marriages--have no standing before the law and do not represent rational justification to discriminate on teh basis of orientation or gender.

"Marriage has for much of history been an institution of all three: now whether religion enters into it is a matter of choice, but that's kind of hard to wrap one's head around, as is the idea that one can have a religious marriage without the civil or economic aspects like - and believe me, I hate to use this example - the "spiritual" but not legal marriages of the FLDS church."

>>The system as it is currently in place allows for religous marraige without investiture of civil rights: that's why people seeking a religious marriage are still required by law to secure a marriage license from the state, or in the eyes of the state they are not married.

"Pity the people of California, and Massachussets, where the voices of 8 judges superceded theirs. "

You either don't understand the basis of the decision or you are trying to make intentionally false statements. It isn't the judge's voices that guided the decision, it is the state constitution. The constitution of the state of CA says that all citizens have A) a right to marry the person of their choice and B) a right to equal protection under the law. It is impossible to deny homosexuals the right to marry without violating these clear constitutional rights. Period. Voters may yet change the constitution but if they did it would be the first time in the history of this country where a constitution was changed to limit rather than expand personal freedom. I hope I never see that day.

All religions are free not to accept these types of marriages as valid and they are also free not to grant such marriages. What they are not allowed to do is force their definition of a civil contract upon the entire population simply because it is against their religion. BTW, Leviticus has a lot to say about much more than just gays. Do you live by the exact wording of Leviticus?