Marriage is Equal Again in California

[Andara Bledin]

Article at Reuters

Couples across the state flocked to their local courthouses to get licenses and exchange vows. Among those officiating were California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Of course, opponents are unhappy with this turn of events, using such phrases as "a chronic pattern of lawlessness," "outright corruption," and "a disgraceful day for California," to describe the ruling.

[violiav]

I truly wonder how much more money do states/counties get whenever gay marriage is legalized. And how much more money the divorce lawyers make later.

[Gravekeeper]

I truly wonder how much more money do states/counties get whenever gay marriage is legalized. And how much more money the divorce lawyers make later.

TONS of money, actually. Its a wonder states aren't scrambling over themselves to legalize gay marriage. Its an economic boon for all of the major businesses involved, not to mention local businesses and tourism. It brings in commercial revenue and tax revenue.

After New York legalized it, it netted them something like 270 million and several million in new taxes. Gay couples are more likely to both work and be in a higher tax bracket. Which is a net profit for the government in income taxes over two adults filing taxes separately.

Its a win win win scenario all around for business and government from an economic standpoint.

Up here in Canada, gay marriage has contributed 566 milliona year to our economy so far since we legalized it, and that's just in economic captivity stemming from the extra weddings.

[Greenday]

Cracked.com did a great article on this. It explained all the ways this ruling could possibly affect you.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a...g-affects-you/

[s_stabeler]

as for divorce- gay marriages tend to not breka up at the moment, but I assume as gya marriage becomes more commonplace the trend will gradualyl equalise.

but good for california.

[HYHYBT]

Hallelujah! Now for the remaining 37... incidentally, NOT enough to ratify a federal amendment

[Andara Bledin]

Yes, but the SCotUS is poised to rule both DoMA and Prop 8 as Unconstitutional.

While it won't stop fucktarded legislatures from passing the laws, it will keep them from staying on the books.

[Hyena Dandy]

They did rule DoMA unconstitutional. The prop 8 case was dismissed as the petitioners (who supported Prop 8) were ruled to not have standing.

[Panacea]

as for divorce- gay marriages tend to not breka up at the moment, but I assume as gya marriage becomes more commonplace the trend will gradualyl equalise.

Actually, divorces among gays are already happening in the states that allow them. There's been a twist in one case, where the couple married in a state that allows gay marriage but now live in a state that does not recognize it. You guessed it: Texas! http://www.marriageequality.org/divorce

Yes, but the SCotUS is poised to rule both DoMA and Prop 8 as Unconstitutional.

Actually, the SCOTUS ruled this past week. DOMA is unconstitutional, and the Prop 8 case was dismissed on procedural grounds because the people who sued didn't have standing. So a lower court's injunction against the implementation of Prop 8 will now be enforced. However, if someone with standing does sue in California, the injunction could be stayed again. Prop 8 supporters are vowing to do just that, but in the meantime marriages are taking place all over.

While it won't stop fucktarded legislatures from passing the laws, it will keep them from staying on the books.

Actually, this is not true. Only Section 2 of DOMA was struck down; meaning that if the marriage took place in those states that recognize gay marriage, the feds must provide federal benefits no matter where the couple live. States can still decide for themselves whether or not to allow gay marriage; in my state of North Carolina Amendment One is still the law of the land (ie no gay marriage).

Nothing keeps a state from implementing a ban at this point other than the voters in those states. Fortunately, the tide is changing towards allowing gay marriage. I suspect that once we get a consensus on this issue that any proposed Amendment will be to make marriage a constitutional right for everyone.

[Kheldarson]

Nothing keeps a state from implementing a ban at this point other than the voters in those states. Fortunately, the tide is changing towards allowing gay marriage. I suspect that once we get a consensus on this issue that any proposed Amendment will be to make marriage a constitutional right for everyone.

I'm going to disagree with this, but only on this ground: I really don't think the federal government should have any say in what a marriage is beyond what states say.* DOMA's limitation of benefits was unconstitutional and should never have been passed because that's not the purview of the federal government. Just as a sweeping legalization would not be the purview of the federal government. Have the feds recognize marriage as it stands defined in the states and be done.


*I read your statement as indication as a desire for a federal Amendment; not a state one; if I got it wrong, my apologies.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm going to disagree with this, but only on this ground: I really don't think the federal government should have any say in what a marriage is beyond what states say.

Except that marriage as a civil contract being limited to specific types of adults is a civil rights violation.

All the federal government would be doing at that point is affirming the fact that you cannot restrict the rights of two adults to enter into a marriage contract based on their gender. Because that's sexual discrimination, which has already been ruled to be unconstitutional.

The fact that so many have difficulty getting beyond the religious and emotional baggage. not to mention the appeal to tradition, to get to the heart of the matter is ultimately irrelevant.

[Kheldarson]

Except that marriage as a civil contract being limited to specific types of adults is a civil rights violation.

All the federal government would be doing at that point is affirming the fact that you cannot restrict the rights of two adults to enter into a marriage contract based on their gender. Because that's sexual discrimination, which has already been ruled to be unconstitutional.

The fact that so many have difficulty getting beyond the religious and emotional baggage. not to mention the appeal to tradition, to get to the heart of the matter is ultimately irrelevant.

Not disagreeing, I'm just saying that marriage is defined, or not, at the level of the state. The feds just need to say that all of the benefits they recognize are recognized by however that state defines it.

I'm mostly just concerned at how top heavy our government keeps getting. That's all.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm concerned with the government being top-heavy too.

But The Onion pretty fairly summarized my view on the "Leave it to the states."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sup...marriag,32969/

I don't really trust the states on this one.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm mostly just concerned at how top heavy our government keeps getting. That's all.

Except that this isn't a matter of top-heavy or not.

It's a matter of civil rights.

This is utterly and completely outside the power of government and I really wish people would stop trying to claim that it is. All the feds would be doing is setting out that the states are not allowed to trample on this right any more than the rest, no matter how much their people want to oppress a faction of the populace.

Arguing about the overreach of the federal government is either a red herring or a lack of understanding of the base issue.

[Hyena Dandy]

Arguing about the overreach of the federal government is either a red herring or a lack of understanding of the base issue.

I agree.

I think that the question of the role of the government has to take a backseat to people's rights.

"The Role Of The Federal Government" is a philosophical discussion.

Human rights is not a philosophical discussion.