Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Verily]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

Can I just say that your position is * poorly considered?

Yes, I can. Clearly, gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, and you've realized that. Yet, for your own selfish discomfort, you would tell hundreds of thousands of people to wait on equal protection under the law, to wait on equal right of contract, to wait on equal taxation to wait on equal recognition. Equality must wait because we're queasy.

At the risk of sounding hysterical (because it is hyperbole), would you tell slaves in 1865 to wait a few decades to be freed because we're not sure if we want to let you go, we're just warming to the idea? Would you tell women in 1920 to wait a few decades for the right to vote because we want to take our time? Would it not have been better if slavery were abolished in 1855 rather than 1865, or in 1845 instead of 1855; would it not have been better if women received the right to vote in 1910 rather than 1920, or in 1900 rather than 1910? Why is it then better for gay marriage to happen in 2020 than in 2010, or in 2030 than in 2020? Rights don't have anything to do with how you feel about them. They're only about the people they affect.

*Wording changed on my own reconsideration.

[Verily]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

Can I just say that your position is retarded?

Yes, I can. Clearly, gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, and you've realized that. Yet, for your own selfish discomfort, you would tell hundreds of thousands of people to wait on equal protection under the law, to wait on equal right of contract, to wait on equal taxation to wait on equal recognition. Equality must wait because we're queasy.

At the risk of sounding hysterical (because it is hyperbole), would you tell slaves in 1865 to wait a few decades to be freed because we're not sure if we want to let you go, we're just warming to the idea? Would you tell women in 1920 to wait a few decades for the right to vote because we want to take our time? Would it not have been better if slavery were abolished in 1855 rather than 1865, or in 1845 instead of 1855; would it not have been better if women received the right to vote in 1910 rather than 1920, or in 1900 rather than 1910? Why is it then better for gay marriage to happen in 2020 than in 2010, or in 2030 than in 2020? Rights don't have anything to do with how you feel about them. They're only about the people they affect.

Another sophist comparing gay marriage to slavery, segregation, women's right to vote, et cetera.  These are in NO WAY comparable to gay marriage.  Gays have the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else.  That they cannot marry each other is not relevant.  I cannot marry a man of the same sex either.  Gay people can vote, they can receive an education, they can purchase property and they can own businesses.  Gay people are not being oppressed.  When the vast majority of Americans are told that an age-old institution, the bedrock of our society, must be changed because of political reasons, don't be surprised when we get angry, and don't cry "Discrimination!" when there is none.

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

You should be scared that you're agreeing with Vander. He is the sophist, not I.

Now, I admitted completely that my post was hyperbole. But it really shouldn't be. You probably consider some rights "more important" than others. This is fine. But would you expect, in any way, that some of those rights of yours should be delayed for arbitrary reasons? For someone else's opinion can be nothing but arbitrary, and it was the same arbitrary opinions that delayed others rights, more or less "significant" than your own.

Freedom from slavery is a right. Freedom to vote is a right. So, too, is freedom to marry--a lesser right, perhaps, if rights are to be ranked on a scale, but a right nonetheless. Is there some cut-off point at which it is reasonable to delay rights for someone? Could you name it? Or should all rights proceed immediately?

Marriage has changed hundreds if not thousands of times in our history. Our spouses were chosen for us. We were all married by age 15. You could only marry within your class, or within your race, or within your caste. You could only marry with permission from your lord, you could only marry someone from within your religion, you could only marry if you were not a priest. All of this (with the exception of the last, which remains a religious prerogative) has been abolished. Would we say today, if it were illegal to marry someone from outside your social class, or someone from outside your religion, or from outside your race, that we should be slow in recognizing the right to inter-class or inter-faith or interracial marriage? Certainly not. We would say that Tony and Maria have the right to be married. Why should we not say the same of same-sex marriage, immediately? Tony and Maria would not have to wait, in your mind, if their marriage were still illegal.

You have not provided an answer other than "I'm just slow." Sorry, not a valid position.

[Verily]

The two opposing lawyers in Bush v. Gore are working together to challenge this decision at a federal court, btw.

On what possible grounds could anyone with a shred of legal sense think that this ruling is appealable to the federal courts?  In Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court conclusively held that same-sex marriage is not a federal question.  This case was decided entirely upon the Supreme Court of California's view of the Constitution of California.  Anyone who chooses to appeal this to the federal court runs a very real risk of having to pay the court costs of the other side for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Possibly a case could be based over the issue of the grandfathered same-sex relationships that are allowed to still be called a "marriage" instead of a "domestic partnership", but the only possibility for success would seem to be:
1) having the word "marriage" stripped from the grandfathered relationships, or
2) requiring California to recognize a same-sex relationship that was recognized as a marriage in another State during the period that California provided for same-sex marriages to be recognized by California as marriages.
Even then, I'm doubtful that even the 9th Circuit would want to get involved.

On the grounds of overturning Baker v. Nelson, of course. As I've pointed out to you before, court decisions are not immutable by the courts which themselves made them. We would not have the death penalty in this country if they were.

[Verily]

What is wrong with just have marriage legally define as a religious institution, therefore giving the religions to which marriage belongs to the right to keep it hetero, and just give homosexual couples the same rights?

If the pro-gay side would just leave marriage alone, they could than fight for other important gays rights issues (benfits, ect.), and civil unions are much more popular with the US public.

This would be acceptable... but only if government then gets its noses out of a religious institution and we abolish legal marriage altogether. Either marriage is religious, in which case government should not be involved at all (no legal recognition/rights associated with it), or marriage is not religious, in which case it can be acknowledged by the government but must then be nondiscriminatory.

No legal marriage doesn't mean abolishing legal civil unions, of course. Civil unions for all is fine with me, even if it's stupid wordplay to prefer that over marriage for all.