Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
Politics Schmolitics
We are a group of friends and acquaintances -- a merry band of pranksters indeed -- who have been arguing about politics on-and-off, then really on, then a little off... since 1998. On email. But that meant literally thousands of emails a year. That was too many. So here's the blog dedicated to carrying on that spirit of political and pop culture argument and dialogue. You might think of us as "schmoliticians", because while we take politics seriously, we try not to take ourselves quite so.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Previous Posts
- Crying "Nuke"
- Can the US get its Mojo back?
- Stunning...
- Do as I say, Not as I do
- A new round on the cross debate
- Yes, We Can Find the Exit
- Back in Black (but no collar, please)!
- National Scandal in the 'Burg!!
- What's it like to be Iraqi in Baghdad
- Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Archives
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
8 Comments:
I know we're not going to have this debate again -- but here's a profile of the judge in this case.
Points of interest: Catholic, appointed by a Republican
Richard A. Kramer
Judge, Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco
Age: 57; born July 22, 1947, in Brookline, Mass.
Family: Married, one daughter
Admitted to California Bar: 1972
Appointed: By Gov. Pete Wilson, for term commencing January 1997.
Education: J.D., USC, 1972; B.A., USC, 1969
Religion: Catholic
Past decisions: Kramer's past rulings and cases haven't made media headlines. In March 2004, Kramer approved a multimillion-dollar settlement agreement forged between nonprofit Communities for a Better Environment and Exxon Mobil Corp., in which Exxon Mobil agreed to upgrade gas stations, clean up groundwater contamination and enact other changes in order to protect drinking water.
In the courtroom: In the California Courts and Judges guidebook for lawyers, Kramer is described in general as fair and reasonable, based on comments from unidentified attorneys.
His demeanor garnered mixed reviews, with some describing him as "very friendly," "very casual" and "respectful," while others said, "He can also have a temper and be abrupt."
In settlements, "Kramer is said to be very active in pre-trial negotiations," the guidebook says. "(He) has said he sees his role as 'facilitating communication.'"
Privatize marriage.
We can't, without a far-reaching rework of the tax code, estate law and death benefits accrual, child support and child custody regulations, etc.
Civil rights are a bitch that way.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Why is the government in the marriage business anyway, which is truly a relationship defined in religious terms? If the government only gave licenses for civil unions (with all of the same benefits as the current institution of marriage), wouldn't all of this controversy be moot? Is this an issue of semantics(marriage vs civil unions)? Or is it an issue of not wanting to recognize gay couples as equals?
My civil union with Jack would then be equal with a lesbian couples' union in the eyes of the law. If couples are so inclined to be married in the eyes of God, they could pursue their marital relationship within a church.
The argument over whether government should be in the marriage business is a different debate than the current debate over whether the rights of marriage should be extended to all people without discrimination.
I agree that the government should not be in the marriage business. But, since they are, they should not be allowed to discriminate -- which is what the court ruling stated.
I hear you, Tracy, but Shanan is right. Whether or not the gov't should be involved in marriage isn't the point. Right now they are, and so they should have to grant the same priveleges and rights to all without discriminating along gender/race/religious lines. [However, I also think we need to steer the debate to the higher level issue of whether or not there should be state-sanctioned marriage. In my mind, that's really the only way we're ever going to get this resolved.]
Post a Comment
<< Home