"Gender is not relevant to the state"

[neadods]

Proposition 8 (the California anti-gay-marriage law) just got struck down on Constitutional grounds. I haven't read the full ruling word for word yet (138-page pdf here), but what I have seen skimming through, I love.

A state's interest in enactment must be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs... [p8]

Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued... [p94]

The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. [p95]

Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include (snip list)... No evidence supports these stereotypes. [p98]

And then, the payoff: The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process clause and then, after a long list of unequal or disbarred marriages ("Racial restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful, or even bizarre") The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage... the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

One more time - not only to drive home the idea that people can freely marry whomsoever they love, but to drive a stake into the heart of the notion that women are inferior, subordinate, "need a man" or exist to submit:

THAT TIME HAS PASSED

Rather than writing meta, I'm going to urge everyone to download the ruling and have a read. Fabulous stuff.

Comments

[gonzai55.livejournal.com]

Coolies :)

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

About damn time. Equal protection under the law-- 14th Amendment. Should have been a no-brainer in the first place except for all the religious prejudice that isn't even reasonably Bible-based.

I pointed out, in commenting on one article on this news, that Jesus, who did not say word one about homosexuals, would have condemned Ronald and Nancy Reagan because they had both divorced and remarried. We didn't hear a lot about that from these folks. [But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-11; Luke 16:17)]

But that's irrelevant in the US, because marriage is a civil and legal institution, not a religious one (unless you want it to be).

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Should have been a no-brainer in the first place

I think that, you think that... and there are commenters on Fox insisting that their vote and their form of Christianity trump the Constitution and now their rights have been shattered.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Their rights to what, exactly, and how does that beat Equal Protection of the Law?

Some commenter said that the vote of the people should be supreme, and was slapped with, "So the people can vote to violate the Constitution?"

Once upon a time the righties flaunted their devotion to Law 'n' Order and the sanctity of the Constitution and States' Rights, but that held only as long as they wanted it to.

I still want one of them to explain how, exactly, homosexuals having the right to marry endangers their marriage, because it doesn't endanger mine. And why these defenders of marriage didn't get all militant about "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"

[steviesun.livejournal.com]

I think, but can't be certain, that they think teh gay is catching, and that if gay marriage is allowed they might turn gay and turn into all the horrible homophobic stereotypes they peddle but have little/no founding whatsoever. It would therefore endanger their marriage because they or their spouse might realise they're not interested in the opposite sex and leave them. But that's just my impression from over here in England.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Sums it up from over here too.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

"So the people can vote to violate the Constitution?"

I wish I could get that through someone's head on Facebook. Apparently the people always give rights, including Constitutional ones. And when a judge uses legal precedent stretching back to the Constitution, it's one unelected man tyrannically pulling social change out of his ass.

I still want one of them to explain how, exactly, homosexuals having the right to marry endangers their marriage

Best I can think, it's because having the ability to marry the rentboy threatens the sham marriage with the trophy wife.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

I don't know that ALL the SSM objectors are closeted.... I assume many of them object because some religious authority they follow picked THAT out of all the myriad abominations in the Bible and told them to treat everyone who does that as the spawn of Satan. Some of them may just think that what "those people" do in bed is icky, but frankly if I bothered to spend any time on it, I'd think what THEY probably do in bed is icky. Despite that, I manage to cope.

It's like the climate change deniers who say outright, "Nothing you can say will change my mind," or that all science is a lie. They're impervious to facts.

Well... a few notorious segregationists mellowed in their old age, after seeing that the sky hadn't fallen, so there may be hope for some. The rest of them just need to be pushed aside by calm people invoking the laws and Constitution we live by.

[platypus]

A state's interest in enactment must be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs... [p8]

THIS. Almost every objection I see to same-sex marriage is religious in nature, and it seems blazingly obvious to me that this has nothing to do with civil marriage. If I do not belong to a religion that disapproves of SSM, why should I be restricted by the beliefs of those who do?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I know! One religion's rights end where the next set of beliefs begins. Period.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Read this blog by a black woman comparing their civil rights struggle with this one... and be sure to watch Keith Olberman's video at the end. Powerful stuff!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Link?

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Sorry; brain cramp.

Blog:
http://www.goodenoughmother.com/2010/08/proposition-8-good-enough-mothers-take/

Olberman video directly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrzrShoIEyE

[neadods.livejournal.com]

De nada. I'm looking forward to reading it. (The Olberman part I've probably seen.)