High Street at Cruelery.com - The Web's Bitter Afterbirth / Gay marriage ban overturned in California

jesusluvspegging · 2008-06-05 18:46:19

WilberCuntLicker wrote:
I felt much the same way about AIDS when it was still just a gay disease. I used to man the picket line outside the hospice, demanding my rights as a sexual citizen to contract HIV. You wouldn't believe how happy I was when it began to spread to the hetero community. Because you're right. Whatever it is, if it's available, it ought to be for everyone.

I still can't get my goddamned uterus to prolapse. :(

taffy · 2008-06-18 05:42:51

WilberCuntLicker wrote:
I felt much the same way about AIDS when it was still just a gay disease. I used to man the picket line outside the hospice, demanding my rights as a sexual citizen to contract HIV. You wouldn't believe how happy I was when it began to spread to the hetero community. Because you're right. Whatever it is, if it's available, it ought to be for everyone.

I blame all those uh... "straight" dudes on Craigslist looking for discreet ass sex while their wife is away.

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/m4m? … maxAsk=max

Fled · 2008-06-18 08:36:41

sofaking wrote:
raoul.duke wrote:
Laws cannot favor some. Marriage is a legal issue so long as the government is involved. You want the libertarian answer? Fuck your marriage tax breaks, fuck your legal spousal rights of inheritance, fuck your joint health care, and especially fuck the "half of what's yours is mine when we separate".

No government sanctioned marriage. You make your own contracts (or not) concerning your property and money with the person you're with. You are two people (or more, or one and a snake) joined by a non-legally binding ceremony. What you do with the legal issues after that is up to you, and no government entity can stand in your way- just as no government entity can stop me from leaving my possessions to my neighbor when I die, co-signing a loan with my friend to buy a house, etcetera.
I couldn't have said it better. Just think of how nice we would all be forced to become to each other if that happened.

Well, there goes one of my arguements against marriage. Even though it's (still) not for me, I am very happy for all my friends.

Everyone deserves the right to be emotionally scarred and financially decimated by divorce.

I suppose the origin of marriage, at least the most rational one, is that society needed a pre-fabricated contract, much like a standard form, which the masses could adopt by going through a sanctioning proceeding. Of course, now that our citizenry is so enlightened and capable of forming sound contracts (dripping with sarcasm here), perhaps the libertarians are right, and there is no need for a standard form or presumptive agreement. Instead, we'll leave it to the free will of our intelligent populace to regulate it through their well-informed negotiating skills. Surely their children will not suffer any adverse consequence.

All that said, pipe dreams are among my favorites.

Fled · 2008-06-18 08:46:20

tojo2000 wrote:
Johnny_Rotten wrote:
tojo2000 wrote:

Actually, having had a chance to peruse the analyses of the ruling, the more interesting precedent is not necessarily the marriage part, but that the Supreme Court of CA declared that sexual orientation is a "suspect class" like race or gender, and that the state must show a compelling interest in order to create any law that discriminates, which is a much higher bar than previously existed.
Yes that is interesting but I do not think it is essential to the ruling. I am not well versed in this topic, but isn't it rather easy to be classified as a "suspect class" in CA?

The Court could have made the same ruling without making the "suspect class" designation. Essentially did it not look at the current legal acceptence of CA domestic partnership laws and say what makes these different then calling it marriage? The cort found very little except in name. And if there is no difference except to stigmatize a certain group of people, by CA's equal standards under the law you would need a very compelling societal interest to discriminate against gays. In CA this standard against discrimination is very high so they would not even need to designate gays as a "suspect class". But it certainely makes the case even stronger.
Perhaps someone with a stronger legal background can comment, but from what I understand, it's not that easy to get a suspect class designated, and the fact that it is now has broad implications for the rights of homosexuals. It is not easy to create new suspect classes, and the difference is that if a law is challenged on equal opportunity grounds a judge only needs to look at if there is a rational basis for the law, but if it involves a suspect class then it is essentially already considered a fact that this class has historically been the target of discrimination, and so "strict scrutiny" must be applied, and the state must show a compelling interest in passing the law, rather than just a rational basis. That's huge. If the court had only ruled that there was no "rational basis" and left it at that, then the ruling wouldn't apply to any other laws as far as I can tell, but by declaring sexual preference a suspect class they then change the lens under which every future challenge of a law on an equal opportunity basis is viewed where sexual preference is concerned in California.

I have never been able to understand why gays have not been identified as a suspect class for equal protection clause purposes. Even in Lawrence v. Texas the Supremes did not do so but instead ruled on due process grounds. It strikes me as bizarre given the history of discrimination.

pALEPHx · 2008-06-18 12:38:14

Fled wrote:
It strikes me as bizarre given the history of discrimination.

This country has a rich history of discrimination. It could be said that we began with the indigenous peoples, and haven't really stopped since. For those who might argue that acceptance is inevitable, one need only look at women's wages and the kinds of discussions about our Democratic candidate (or his wife).

To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must meet all of the following criteria:

- The groups' characteristics are immutable. (race, national origin)
- The group shares a history of discrimination.
- The group is politically impotent.
- The group is a discrete and insular minority.

Immutability? Got it. History of discrimination? A century or so, if you consider when we were identified as a group. Political impotence? No, Barney Frank isn't enough. As for being a discrete/insular minority, this is the one characteristic that I don't think necessarily applies. We are, after all, everywhere, not just the Castro, WeHo, or Chelsea.

Taint · 2008-06-18 13:05:32

pALEPHx wrote:
We are, after all, everywhere, not just the Castro, WeHo, or Chelsea.

True, true. I live in Hayes Valley.

The latest effort to drive me crazy is now fully underway. The gay press is filled with stories about wedding planning, human interest stories about people getting married or the individuals who "create" various wedding elements, and honeymoon spots, ad nauseum.

I'm going to barricade myself in my room and will refuse to leave until we are properly discriminated against again.