Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Games Down The Block | Bill Donahue's Gonna Blow »

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Gay Marriages Loses a Couple

posted by on September 18 at 13:33 PM

California: Arnold Schwarzenegger says he plans to veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in California—for a second time. He added that he will continue vetoing the bill each and every time state lawmakers send it to him. Here’s hoping they keep sending it to him. (Slow and stupid Fred Thompson—who is not going to be our next president—claimed in Iowa earlier this month that “no state legislature in the nation” has ever legalized same-sex marriage.)

Maryland: The state supreme court rules against gay marriage, saying that the state has “a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.” Could someone please explain to me just how disallowing same-sex marriage promotes opposite-sex marriage?

RSS icon Comments


Arnold Schwarzenegger can suck my balls!

Posted by monkey | September 18, 2007 1:35 PM

All of that is evidence that THIS study was dead-on.

Posted by Carollani | September 18, 2007 1:36 PM

for some reason, i really don't want to register for the l.a. times. but i want to read the story. a little help? i'm lazy.

Posted by kate | September 18, 2007 1:38 PM

"Could someone please explain to me just how disallowing same-sex marriage promotes opposite-sex marriage?"

Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are opposite-sex married.

If they hadn't had the opportunity to have their same-sex marriages prevented, then opposite-sex marriage would have lost two of its most prominent supporters...

Posted by bocksbeutel | September 18, 2007 1:40 PM

From Schmitz Blitz:

The Supreme Court has stated that fundamental rights are “those liberties that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and have repeatedly found that marriage is included in the list of fundamental rights. Opponents to marriage equality argue correctly that same sex marriage has never been apart of our nation’s history or tradition.

Marriage itself, has. Herein lies the distinction. Same sex couples are not asking for the right of some special same sex marriage, they are asking for the right to be included in the preexisting institution of marriage, pure and simple.

The way that a right is defined plays a huge role in determing if its is in fact a legitimate right or no. The more broadly defined, the more likely it is to fit within tradition, thus being upheld, and vice versa.

Imagine if this ‘most specific’ methodology had been applied in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the state’s ban on interracial marriage. Had the Lovings claimed that the right to a mixed race marriage was rooted in our nation’s history and tradition, they would have been instructed to review the long history of America’s antimiscegenation laws. The first antimiscegenation law in North America was enacted in Virginia in 1691. Thirty one states maintained such laws by 1945; sixteen states still held them by the time Loving was decided.

Further, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Taney cited the long standing antimiscegenation laws in his decision to deny citizenship to blacks, stating, “intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes” The Lovings’ claim was upheld, because they called upon the more general right to marry, rather than the specific right to marry someone of a different race, which clearly went against the longstanding traditions of the United States.

The Loving decision provides an important comparison for those who support same sex marriage. First it establishes that one of the most basic decisions in family life is the decision of whom one chooses to marry. It shows that the right to marry is not limited to longstanding legal or cultural traditions of exclusion. It also provides a framework by which the right of gays to marry should be addressed.

Just as the Lovings petitioned for, and the courts recognized, the fundamental right to marry, rather than the fundamental right to marry someone of a different race, so too should courts recognize that gays seek the right to marry in the broadest sense, rather than the specific right to marry someone of the same sex.

All of that being said, though I would have welcomed a decision from the court that recognized the equality of gay families, I respect their restraint. I have said before that I believe decisions involving divisive social issues such as gay equality are better decided by the legislature rather than judges, even if it means the path to equality is slower. I believe the legislature lends an air of legitimacy that the judiciary is largely lost.

Posted by Elizabeth Schmitz | September 18, 2007 1:41 PM

Weird, I didn't register and I can read it. Tell me if THIS works any better for you.

Posted by Carollani | September 18, 2007 1:42 PM

"Could someone please explain to me just how disallowing same-sex marriage promotes opposite-sex marriage?"

Well cause, you know, if you prevent all those same-sex marriages, they'll just get tired and give up, and go have a nice, normal, opposite-sex marriage, right?


Posted by Toby | September 18, 2007 1:44 PM

Those Maryland (in)justices were as dishonest and hypocritical as ours here in Washington. They used the lowest possible standard for review after proclaiming that we're not a suspect class that has been discriminated against. Cowards.

As for how preventing homos from marrying forces hets to make babies, well that seems to be the $64,000 question that no one can answer.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 18, 2007 1:48 PM

"Slow and stupid Fred Thompson—who is not going to be our next president"

Be careful not to underestimate the power of TV. I'd be willing to bet there are more people out there whose only news source is Law and Order than there are SLOG readers.

Posted by Clint | September 18, 2007 1:50 PM

to play the devil's advocate, they are saying that the state DOES have a legit. interest in hetero marriage, but DOES NOT have a legit. interest in homo marriages, therefore will make no extra allowances for them. anyway, i think that's what passes for logic among them. the legit interest being procreation and married parents. they conveniently ignore (or it does not even occur to them) that homos/lesbos have kids too.

Posted by ellarosa | September 18, 2007 2:01 PM

Elizabeth Schmitz @ 5,

Your point has already been addressed by those pedantic liars on the Washington Supreme Court who announced that gays and lesbians already have the right to marry - SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX!

Expecto Matrimonio! No discrimination exists!

As for leaving it to the political process aka the legislature, well they did that, too. You see, it's up to our state’s most calculating, sadistic and vicious piranhas to determine if the minorities that they hate deserve equal rights; makes perfect sense, yes?

Then you’ll get wonderful speeches from our politicians about how we die young, rape children and engage in "bestiology." I can see how that kind of a popularity contest lends "legitimacy" to the situation.

I'm so tired of living this psycho, right-wing country run by our worst citizens.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 18, 2007 2:07 PM

Clint @ 9 is right. I work for a criminal defense lawyer. You'd fall to your knees weeping if you knew exactly how many people get their law experience/information/knowledge from crap like Judge Judy, Law & Order and Boston Legal.


Posted by OddlyEnough | September 18, 2007 2:10 PM

I find it interesting that people are not commenting on Mr. Schwartzeneger's anti-gay actions in the Governor's office in California. He has more than once voted against us, yet LGBT people continue to support him in his political endeavors. WTF?!!

Posted by D C | September 18, 2007 2:14 PM

I find it interesting that people are not commenting on Mr. Schwartzeneger's anti-gay actions in the Governor's office in California. He has more than once voted against us, yet LGBT people continue to support him in his political endeavors. WTF?!!

Posted by D C | September 18, 2007 2:14 PM

DC at 14,

What LGBT people support the Governator?

Are you talking about gay Republicans? Just ignore them; they're the most insane of all, even crazier than the Bible thumpers.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 18, 2007 2:19 PM

Instead of trying to storm the citadels of the religious, it would be better to market a broader path. Don't try to legalize Marriage, legalize non-religious unions. I'd jump at a chance to be in a relationship that didn't have the religious overtones. Simply get the State out of religion and religion out of the State. Much better chance of success.... and I'd join you in participation.

Posted by Cascadian | September 18, 2007 2:19 PM

yee-haw. thanks Carollani.

Posted by kate | September 18, 2007 2:21 PM

California's grand oxymoron is that while some of the smartest left wing minds reside there, only the most lobotomized and bland of those who think they are left wing end up in any position of political power there -- since the exodus of Jerry Brown anyway.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | September 18, 2007 2:37 PM

The Maryland Court of Appeals held as follows:

1. Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not discriminate on the basis of gender and so does not violate the Maryland ERA.

2. Homosexuals are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class.

3. There is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

4. Because of (2) and (3) laws that discriminate against homosexuals need only be supported by a rational basis to pass state constitutional muster, and the law prohibiting same-sex marriage is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective and is, therefore, legal.

There were strong dissents by three of the seven judges of the court.

All told, though, this was a very bad decision. Although it may be reversed by the Maryland legislature, I will be surprised if Governor O'Malley -- who has delusions that he may be Presidential material -- will sign a domestic partnership or marriage bill. I doubt he'd support something that would put him so far ahead on a controversial issue.

He lacks the balls to lead.

Posted by Jonathan | September 18, 2007 3:32 PM

am i missing something @16? the straights don't need a church or religious blessing to get married.

Posted by Kim | September 18, 2007 3:33 PM

Why is it conservatives squeal to high heaven whenever an "activist-judge" awards us basic human rights (arguing that the legislature, being an extension of the people, should make such decisions) but they make nary a peep when an "activist-Governor" does the opposite and supersedes the will of the people...?

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | September 18, 2007 3:40 PM

The Maryland loss is a minor loss. Even if we can win in the courts, that's the worst way to win.

The CA thing is worse, but by the third or fourth time it passes, there'll be a governor who'll sign.

Posted by Gitai | September 18, 2007 3:40 PM

What Gitai @22 said. It will take time, but the Rs' beloved term limits doom them in Calfornia. Still, Jonathan @19, the Maryland decision is a farce. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is patently a violation of the equal rights provision of the Maryland (and Washington) constitutions--that's what the Hawaii court said in 1993 in Baehr v. Lewin. It's a rehash of the State's argument in Loving v. Virginia--that since both blacks and whites were prohibited from intermarrying, there was no equal protection violation. Wrong. If a man can marry a woman, the State must show some compelling reason why a woman may be prohbited from marrying a woman. Although homosexuality may not be a protected class, sex generally is. So the court has to apply a higher level of scrutiny to an action that takes rights away from women. There is simply no rational (let alone compelling) reason for not permitting a woman to marry a woman when a man has that right. Even incarcerated prisoners had their fundamental right to marry upheld by the U.S. Supremes in 1987 in Turner v. Safley. So gays and lesbians have fewer fundamental rights than incarcerated prisoners? WTF?? Won't the gay-haters be surprised when they find themselves frying eternally in hell alongside their slave-ownin', segregationist, bigoted buddies.

Posted by kk | September 18, 2007 4:21 PM

Bad news Gitai - there are four petitions gathering signatures in CA now to amend the state constitution against same sex marriage (at the least) and/or against Domestic Partnerships (as well as adoption and two of them offer a definition of male and female just to piss on the T in our LGB).

Those petitions might be on a ballot next year - and that is also the year when the CA Supremes announce their decision regarding SSM. 2008 is a biggie in CA.

One more thing - gay republicans are retarded, to be sure, but lets start to pay attention to the nearly retarded gay democrats that line up to give Hillary Clinton $$ when she thinks its it just fine for states to legislate and amend against LGBT families. I can't help but think that any homo that supports her (or any other candidate that holds that position) is throwing the rest of us under the bus.

Posted by patrick | September 18, 2007 4:21 PM

@24 I'm worrying less and less about initiatives. The Oregon hate groups are working pretty hard, and if they do make it onto the ballot, it's gonna be by a hair, and it's likely they'll fail on election day. California has a much higher proportion of bigots, but I think that if it's politically okay to be a legislator voting for gay marriage, it'll be less likely that any initiative will pass.

Posted by Gitai | September 18, 2007 4:43 PM

He's right anyway about “no state legislature in the nation” has ever legalized same-sex marriage. They've attempted to legalize it in California, but haven't been able to. I guess maybe in MA the leg. keeping the Constitutional Amendment away amounts to them at least aiding the continued legalization of it. I really want to see what is up with the Senate of NY, and why they aren't forced to bring the bill to a vote.

Posted by well | September 18, 2007 5:44 PM

No shock to see Savage trotting out the same old party line. Every republican presidential candidate is "stupid". Tried it with Reagan; beat it into the ground with W. Now you're trying it out on FDT.

Question: If W is so stupid, how did he fool you by "lying you into war" ?

Posted by Morisseau | September 18, 2007 7:43 PM

These are my STATES man. Damn.

Posted by Me | September 18, 2007 9:13 PM

@28-- I know. I read the stranger from Maryland, and as soon as I heard about this latest ridiculousness, I thought "Man, Dan Savage is going to be pissed off." Maryland's a dumb state. Crabs.

Posted by Marylander | September 18, 2007 9:26 PM

#13 - shall we call it the Burgess syndrome

Arnold is a pig on this issue, but never wrote hate mail for the right wing

Some can forgive all and follow blindly, thinking they have made good choices

Don't confuse them with facts ...

Posted by Essex | September 18, 2007 10:00 PM

Schwarzenegger has stated repeatedly that he does not believe that gay marriage is something that should be pushed through by the legislature. As the voters of the state approved a referendum that would ban gay marriage in 2000, Schwarzenegger has repeatedly stated that it is either for the voters to overturn, or for the courts to find unconstitutional.

What y'all think of that? Gutless? Shrewd way of avoiding the topic? The right way to handle things?

Posted by MBI | September 19, 2007 6:41 AM

MBI - as Mark Leno (the author of the law that Schwance will veto) said last night, the voters in 2000 approved Prop 22 to prevent CA from recognizing same sex marriages performed in other states. It was CA's DOMA legislation and it altered one little part of the CA Family Code.

Lenos bill alters other parts of the Code that will allow same sex couples to apply for a license, which was not part of the intention or the wording of Prop 22. The CA legislature cannot overturn Prop 22 and it doesn't try to with AB 43.

Schwance still says he won't sign it and he refuses to meet with LGBT families - and his Chief of Staff - Susan Kennedy - a Democrat lesbian that worked for former DEm Gov Gray Davis and was married in Hawaii in 1999 - also refuses to meet with families and/or Leno to discuss the bill.

They are both owardly and selfish people.

Posted by patrick | September 19, 2007 6:49 AM

Didn't see how I f*ed up that last comment...but it gives me the chance to say this again:

Susan Kennedy is a COWARD and an ASSHOLE.

I guess I forgot to add that last part.

Posted by patrick | September 19, 2007 6:52 AM

As for how gay marriage adversely affects straight marriage, I can only assume the omniscient and wise all-seeing justices are looking far into the future.

Gay marriage, you see, is only sought by those who have given the matter a great deal of thought and tested out a number of partners for suitability first. Also, since it's primary function isn't for procreation, but for sharing a caring life together so you can look after each other, it represents a carefully-considered commitment, uh, for life.

Straight marriage, at least statistically, has a horrible track record. It's too often entered into by the young, foolish and inexperienced. Social and religious pressures often lead to foolish or untimely decisions. Is it any surprise that something like 50% of these unions go belly-up, often with innocent victims whose lives are ruined (e.g., children)?

Right now, with the status quo, society can deceive itself into thinking that's just the way it is. Modern life, too much sexuality, libertine ways, outside pressures, yadda yadda, just make it too hard to stay married.

But, legalize gay marriage, and that canard collapses when it's discovered that gay marriages are statistically superior and longer lasting than straight ones. Enter the sociologists and modern reformers and the next thing you know, legislatures will be forced to implement straight marriage suitability requirements. Psychological testing, meeting with sexologists, family interviews, an actual marriage license that's harder to get than a driver's license.

And THAT'S how gay marriage will adversely affect straight marriage.

Posted by Brooklyn Reader | September 19, 2007 10:26 AM

Maryland: The state supreme court rules against gay marriage saying it has “a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.”
One story I read also said they were doing it to "preserve approcreation"! If you ask me there is more that enough "approcreation" going on everywhere. I don't think gay marrage will be the end all for human kind....

Posted by Ronny P Tempe, AZ | September 19, 2007 11:14 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).