Anti-Prop 8 Wasn'T About "Civil Rights"

[wenglund]

As promised in a thread in which I am now banned, here is evidence that objections to California's Prop 8 weren't really about equal civil rights, and really couldn't have been about equal civil rights.

This evidence also applies to certain other states that have had civil unions and domestic partnerships, but where objections have been raised against laws in those states restricting marriage to between a man and a woman.

Let's put the evidence in a proper historical context. In 1999, California legalized domestic partnerships. According to Wikipedia: California Domestic Partnerships:

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses.^[1]

Enacted in 1999, the domestic partnership registry was the first of its kind in the United States created by a legislature without court intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally just hospital-visitation rights and the right to be claimed as a next of kin of the estate of a deceased partner. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to include all of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, California domestic partnerships are functionally equivalent to civil unions offered in several other states. (emphasis mine)

As you can see from the bolded portion above, prior to Prop 22 (a statute enacted in 2000 in California by popular vote, which restricted marriage to only opposite-sex couple), or at least by 2005, when the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act went into affect, domestic partnerships in California had the same civil rights as marriages.

As indicated above, California DP's were/are functionally equivalent to civil unions enacted in other states (such as Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc.). And, civil unions, by definition, are considered equal in rights to marriages. In fact, "Civil Unions are often viewed by same-sex marriage supporters as "separate but equal." (ibid)

DP's in other states (like Maine, Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington), likewise have equal civil rights as marriages.

However, in 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down Prop. 22,, not because there was a disparity in civil rights between marriages and domestic partnerships. In fact, the court said:

"the current California statutes grant samesex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law. (The few relatively minor differences that remain are described below (post, pp. 42-44, fn. 24).) In light of the comprehensive nature of the rights afforded by California’s domestic partnership legislation, the status of such partnership in California is comparable to the status designated as a “civil union” in statutes enacted in recent years in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont. (See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38nn (2006); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 457-A (2007); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 37:1-29 (2006); 15 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 1201 (1999).) We note that recently Oregon

also enacted domestic partnership legislation under which same-sex couples may obtain rights comparable to those conferred upon married couples (2007 Or. Laws ch. 99.) (see HERE)

Rather, it was struck down because of different legal designations:

"Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution." (ibid)

In other words, the issue wasn't about disparate civil rights (the court essentially granted that domestic partnerships were afforded "all the significant legal rights and obligation" as marriages--i.e. they had equal civil rights), but because the legal union of homosexual couples were called something different than the legal unions of heterosexual couples. It all came down to the legal definition of "marriage."

California's Prop 8 came in response to the court's action, essentially rendering it moot by amending the state's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In other words, Prop 8 wasn't enacted, nor was it objected to, on the basis of denied civil rights, and this because homosexual couples already had the same or equal civil rights in California (and other states) as opposite sex couples. It was objected to because homosexual couples wanted the legal designation of "marriage" just like heterosexual couples. Gay advocates wanted to radically alter the longstanding definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples. Simple as that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

Can we have a board rule about getting around thread bans by starting new threads?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Can we have a board rule about getting around thread bans by starting new threads?

Not sure what the issue is. Other than people seem to not be able to deal with what Wade brings up. I think he makes valid points.

Good ol' Saul Alinksy. Just level the playing field.

[rockpond]

Gay advocates wanted to radically alter the longstanding definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples. Simple as that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmmm... we wouldn't want anyone else attempting to alter the "longstanding definition of marriage"... in the LDS church we like to keep that activity "in house".

p.s. I find it interesting that your argument is that Prop 8 is not about civil rights and yet the details that you provide in your opening post come across as a "separate but equal" situation. In other words, the gays get to have mostly the same rights but they just can't call it marriage. The repeal of the Jim Crow laws (a key focus of the civil rights movement) was about removing the separate but equal legal doctrine.

But I'm fine either way... call it civil rights... don't call it civil rights. I still support our homosexual citizens in following the dictates of their own conscience.

[wenglund]

Can we have a board rule about getting around thread bans by starting new threads?

I am not getting around a thread ban. I am not now participating on that thread. The topic of this thread is different and more specific than the other thread, though it comes in fulfillment of a promise made on that thread.

You will be pleased to know, though, that there are rules already about board nannying and off-topic comments on threads. It may prove useful for you to abide by the existing rules before suggesting new ones. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alvino]

I always thought objections to Prop8 were based on the idea that "marriage is a civil right" which is different from "all the rights granted by marriage are civil rights."

[The Nehor]

Not sure what the issue is. Other than people seem to not be able to deal with what Wade brings up. I think he makes valid points.

Good ol' Saul Alinksy. Just level the playing field.

I am not arguing against what Wade said. I agree with it. I thought everyone already knew it.

I am not getting around a thread ban. I am not now participating on that thread. The topic of this thread is different and more specific than the other thread, though it comes in fulfillment of a promise made on that thread.

You will be pleased to know, though, that there are rules already about board nannying and off-topic comments on threads. It may prove useful for you to abide by the existing rules before suggesting new ones. LOL

LOLZ!!!!!!

Wait, there are rules against going off topic? Must be one of those unenforced laws. You would think I would have been censured by now as that is pretty much all I do.

To stay on topic then I agree that gay porn has no place in our public schools.

[wenglund]

Hmmm... we wouldn't want anyone else attempting to alter the "longstanding definition of marriage"... in the LDS church we like to keep that activity "in house".

The topic of this thread has to do with the legal definition of marriage, and not the alleged LDS "in house" definition.

p.s. I find it interesting that your argument is that Prop 8 is not about civil rights and yet the details that you provide in your opening post come across as a "separate but equal" situation. In other words, the gays get to have mostly the same rights but they just can't call it marriage. The repeal of the Jim Crow laws (a key focus of the civil rights movement) was about removing the separate but equal legal doctrine.

I understand the inclination of gay advocates to try and link their cause with the civil rights movement and apartheid since they can't very well stand on their own.

It is just that once again the comparison in this case is quite absurd. With Prop. 8 we aren't talking about physical segregation (different bathrooms, different drinking fountains, different schools, different theaters, different neighborhoods, etc.), but rather segregation in labels and terms (definitional or terminology segregation)--not unlike definitional segregation between men and women, children and adults, military and civilians, doctors and nurses, lawyers and judges and court stenographers, executive and legislative and judiciary, cars and motorcycles and trucks and boats, sober and drunk, city and state and nation, citizen and non-citizens, and so on and so forth ad infinitum--including homosexual and heterosexual. De jure segregation in definitions are pervasive throughout our legal system, and rightly and justifiably so, and often commonsensicly reflect the de facto segregation in everyday life.

Even still, Prop 8 wasn't about equality of rights. In California (and certain other states), homosexual couples who entered into domesticv partnerships (or civil unions) already had the equal rights as heterosexual couples who got married. If anything, it was about equality of definition. Gay's weren't happy with just having all the civil rights of married couples. They wanted the same designation.

And, as flattering as it may be in some respects that gays may be so envious of heterosexual relationships as to want to coop decidedly and longstanding heterosexual terms like marriage and family, it may prove useful to explore further why they might want to be definitionally included rather than separated from those terms, even though they are fine with the exlusionary definitions of terms like homosexual and heterosexual. (Ironically, they even seem fine distinguishing between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage.)

But I'm fine either way... call it civil rights... don't call it civil rights. I still support our homosexual citizens in following the dictates of their own conscience.

I am also fine with them following the dictates of their own conscience. But, this issue isn't about them following their own conscience. Rather, it is about how we as a people determine to legally define a term. It is about each state and nation following their conscience in deciding as a people how to legally defining "marriage."

Ultimately, it is about whether we as a people should embrace and promote certain choices of conscience as opposed to other choices, hopefully dependent upon whether those respective choices, on balance, are in the people's interest or not.

But, let me stress again, in terms of Prop 8, and with legislation in certain other states, the issue isn't really about equal civil rights as many have been misled to believe, but about equal definitions and terms.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I always thought objections to Prop8 were based on the idea that "marriage is a civil right" which is different from "all the rights granted by marriage are civil rights."

Both are plied by gay propagandists. However, your understanding is no less problematic for gay activists than what I have thus far disclosed.

Why? Well...because according to the courts, "marriage" is a civil right because: 1) it is vital to our survival (i.e. because of procreation); and 2) because of its long legal tradition; neither of which applies to same-sex couples. In other words, "marriage" as a civil right is essentially defined as between a man and a woman. There is no "civil right" to same-sex marriage, though the propaganda will tell you otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I am not arguing against what Wade said. I agree with it. I thought everyone already knew it.

LOLZ!!!!!!

Wait, there are rules against going off topic? Must be one of those unenforced laws. You would think I would have been censured by now as that is pretty much all I do.

To stay on topic then I agree that gay porn has no place in our public schools.

I am glad you haven't been censured. I enjoy your tangential humor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Both are plied by gay propagandists. However, your understanding is no less problematic for gay activists than what I have thus far disclosed.

Why? Well...because according to the courts, "marriage" is a civil right because: 1) it is vital to our survival (i.e. because of procreation); and 2) because of its long legal tradition; neither of which applies to same-sex couples. In other words, "marriage" as a civil right is essentially defined as between a man and a woman. There is no "civil right" to same-sex marriage, though the propaganda will tell you otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know you think that you have build some kind of case that gay marriage is not a civil right. But you do realize that both the district and federal courts did not agree with your analysis. And in all likelihood neither will the Supreme Court. You make some leaps that they seem to be unwilling to take such as marriage is a civil right because it is vital to our survival. I don't think that is actually a true statement. And while tradition can weigh in on a ruling, it has never been a reason by itself to make a ruling. As you mentioned, the Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a civil right. Now they will be deciding if marriage for gay couples is a civil right as well. You do yourself a disservice to try and pretend that the case for marriage being a civil right for gay couples is solely some kind of gay propaganda. The courts will not be ruling on "gay propaganda". They will be ruling on what their reading of the constitution says about the right for every American to be able to marry.

[rockpond]

The topic of this thread has to do with the legal definition of marriage, and not the alleged LDS "in house" definition.

I understand the inclination of gay advocates to try and link their cause with the civil rights movement and apartheid since they can't very well stand on their own.

It is just that once again the comparison in this case is quite absurd. With Prop. 8 we aren't talking about physical segregation (different bathrooms, different drinking fountains, different schools, different theaters, different neighborhoods, etc.), but rather segregation in labels and terms (definitional or terminology segregation)--not unlike definitional segregation between men and women, children and adults, military and civilians, doctors and nurses, lawyers and judges and court stenographers, executive and legislative and judiciary, cars and motorcycles and trucks and boats, sober and drunk, city and state and nation, citizen and non-citizens, and so on and so forth ad infinitum--including homosexual and heterosexual. De jure segregation in definitions are pervasive throughout our legal system, and rightly and justifiably so, and often commonsensicly reflect the de facto segregation in everyday life.

Even still, Prop 8 wasn't about equality of rights. In California (and certain other states), homosexual couples who entered into domesticv partnerships (or civil unions) already had the equal rights as heterosexual couples who got married. If anything, it was about equality of definition. Gay's weren't happy with just having all the civil rights of married couples. They wanted the same designation.

And, as flattering as it may be in some respects that gays may be so envious of heterosexual relationships as to want to coop decidedly and longstanding heterosexual terms like marriage and family, it may prove useful to explore further why they might want to be definitionally included rather than separated from those terms, even though they are fine with the exlusionary definitions of terms like homosexual and heterosexual. (Ironically, they even seem fine distinguishing between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage.)

I am also fine with them following the dictates of their own conscience. But, this issue isn't about them following their own conscience. Rather, it is about how we as a people determine to legally define a term. It is about each state and nation following their conscience in deciding as a people how to legally defining "marriage."

Ultimately, it is about whether we as a people should embrace and promote certain choices of conscience as opposed to other choices, hopefully dependent upon whether those respective choices, on balance, are in the people's interest or not.

But, let me stress again, in terms of Prop 8, and with legislation in certain other states, the issue isn't really about equal civil rights as many have been misled to believe, but about equal definitions and terms.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I see... The difference between civil unions and marriages is analogous to the difference between trucks and boats. It's all clear now.

It seems that you want the "definitions and terms" that are codified into law to be supportive of your lifestyle. You appear to like the legal recognition and legitimization of the marriages performed by our priesthood leaders and in our temples. But when gay couples follow the dictates of their consciences, I gather that you'd prefer the definitions and terms in law prevent any legitimization of their marriages.

[wenglund]

Yes, I see... The difference between civil unions and marriages is analogous to the difference between trucks and boats. It's all clear now.

As long as you see the difference between civil unions and marriages as also analogous to the differences between men and women as well as the differences between homosexual and heterosexual, when illustrating the marked difference between physical segregation and definitional segregation, then perhaps it is clear, though your cherry-picked example and flippant comment raises doubts about you correctly grasping the point of the comparisons.

It seems that you want the "definitions and terms" that are codified into law to be supportive of your lifestyle.

Nothing I have said in this thread could possibly lead to this false conclusion. I have no idea where it came from, let alone why you bring it up since it is off-topic.

You appear to like the legal recognition and legitimization of the marriages performed by our priesthood leaders and in our temples.

While true, nothing I have said in this thread spoke to this, because it is entirely irrelevant to what I have said. In other words, it is off-topic.

But when gay couples follow the dictates of their consciences, I gather that you'd prefer the definitions and terms in law prevent any legitimization of their marriages.

While I object to the state fundamentally altering the longstanding legal definition of marriage, the reasons for my objecting are secular (as hinted to when I said "in the people's best interest").

However, this thread isn't about why I may or may not object to fundamentally altering the longstanding legal definition of marriage. Rather, as the title of this thread clearly indicates, it is about whether or not the anti-Prop 8 movement was really about "civil rights," and if not, what it might really be about. Please try and stay on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I know you think that you have build some kind of case that gay marriage is not a civil right.

Actually, I haven't thought to build much of a case for that since it is somewhat tangential to the topic of this thread. I was simply responding to Alvino's slight misunderstanding. However, once the thread topic is sufficiently addressed, I will be happy to lay out the case and examine whether or not you are correct about what both the district and circuit courts have ruled. I will leave off speculating how the Supreme Court may rule on Prop 8. though I will be sure to look into how it ruled on other related cases.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DH]

p.s. I find it interesting that your argument is that Prop 8 is not about civil rights and yet the details that you provide in your opening post come across as a "separate but equal" situation. In other words, the gays get to have mostly the same rights but they just can't call it marriage. The repeal of the Jim Crow laws (a key focus of the civil rights movement) was about removing the separate but equal legal doctrine.

+1

If homosexuals truly have equal rights to heterosexuals, then why not just call it the same thing--marriage? Why differentiate between "marriage" and "civil union" at all?

Besides, as rockpond hinted, the LDS Church had no compunctions about redefining "traditional marriage" when it decided to practice polygamy.

[rockpond]

As long as you see the difference between civil unions and marriages as also analogous to the differences between men and women as well as the differences between homosexual and heterosexual, when illustrating the marked difference between physical segregation and definitional segregation, then perhaps it is clear, though your cherry-picked example and flippant comment raises doubts about you correctly grasping the point of the comparisons.

Nothing I have said in this thread could possibly lead to this false conclusion. I have no idea where it came from, let alone why you bring it up since it is off-topic.

While true, nothing I have said in this thread spoke to this, because it is entirely irrelevant to what I have said. In other words, it is off-topic.

While I object to the state fundamentally altering the longstanding legal definition of marriage, the reasons for my objecting are secular (as hinted to when I said "in the people's best interest").

However, this thread isn't about why I may or may not object to fundamentally altering the longstanding legal definition of marriage. Rather, as the title of this thread clearly indicates, it is about whether or not the anti-Prop 8 movement was really about "civil rights," and if not, what it might really be about. Please try and stay on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was staying on topic. I'll rephrase...

Your OP states that Prop 8 was not about civil rights but about defining a term or word. Correct?

My response is this: our constitution rests on laws used to support it. Those laws are made up of terms, legal terms. Those terms are words that must be defined.

So yes, Prop 8 was an attempt to define the legal term of marriage. But that doesn't mean it also wasn't about the civil right of marriage.

Civil unions in gave gay couples a similar set of rights as marriage but "separate but equal" has been rejected by our judicial branch. And marriage remains a fundamental civil right.

So even if you couch Prop 8 as being about definitions it is still a civil rights matter.

[wenglund]

+1

If homosexuals truly have equal rights to heterosexuals, then why not just call it the same thing--marriage? Why differentiate between "marriage" and "civil union" at all?

Precisely because the differentiation has nothing to do with "equal rights." Rather, the terms "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" were invented because, by definition, it was illogical to consider same sex couples as married. The very definition of marriage throughout history has implicitly precluded homosexual couples--except for of late.

On the other hand, those invented terms can and do apply to opposite sex couples as well as same sex couples, and so if you are looking to call "it" the same thing, then logically it would make sense to call all of them "civil unions" rather than "marriages."

However, as made evident in California and other states, gay activist aren't interested in being referred to as "civil unions" or "domestic partners." They want to be referred to as "married," even though it is illogical.

I doubt that they would favor all legal couplings being referred to as "civil unions," though I am open to correction. Would you or they?

Again, there is a reason why gay activist want to coop decidedly heterosexual terms like "marriage," which has nothing to do with "equal civil rights," and we will get into that once it is clearly understood that anti-Prop 8 wasn't about "equal civil rights" as some have claimed.

Besides, as rockpond hinted, the LDS Church had no compunctions about redefining "traditional marriage" when it decided to practice polygamy.

The Church didn't fundamentally change the definition of "marriage." Polygamy way back then (more than a hundred years ago), was still essentially defined as between a man and a woman. All polygamy did was change the law to allow MULTIPLE concurrent marriages, which, in principle, is not all that different than divorce laws today, which permit MULTIPLE consecutive marriages.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

....Prop 8 was an attempt to define the legal term of marriage. But that doesn't mean it also wasn't about the civil right of marriage. Civil unions in gave gay couples a similar set of rights as marriage but "separate but equal" has been rejected by our judicial branch. And marriage remains a fundamental civil right. So even if you couch Prop 8 as being about definitions it is still a civil rights matter.

If you look more carefully at my opening post and subsequent posts, you will see that I was careful to qualify my point as referring to "equal civil rights" and not to "civil rights" per se, though for brevity sake I didn't include the qualification in the title.

Even still, while there was much talk about Prop 8 supposedly denying equal rights (which turns out to be false), I don't recall a single mention of the "separate but equal" notion during the entire Prop 8 debate, or even subsequently in court challenges. In other words, to my knowledge, the "separate but equal" issue wasn't really raised, and thus it wasn't really an issue either, though I am open to people demonstrating otherwise if they can.

So, while you are correct that there is still the matter of separate civil rights, it wasn't an issue with Prop 8, though I believe it may have come up in states where there were civil unions.

Be that as it may, once it is understood that "equal civil rights" was not an issue with Prop 8 (as evinced in the SCOC ruling against Prop 22), then perhaps if participants in this thread are interested, we can explore further the issue of "separate but equal" to see if it has any merit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

This claim has been debunked many, many times.

There are over 1,000 federal benefits granted to "married" couples that domestic partners and civilly united couples are denied.

That is the basis for the Challenge to DOMA that SCOTUS has bundled into hearing together with the Prop 8 challenge.

Additionally, most consenting citizens view it as a civil right to be free to have one's government recognize and avoid devalidating one's own choice of spouse-- that's not the governments' role.

The fact that we object to the concept of "separate but equal" doesn't support Wade's arguement that this wasn't about civil rights--it refutes it, given that "separate but equal" has always been inherently UNequal.

Of course, according Wade's ever-contracting, oft-proclaimed topsy-turvey worldview, I've confused up with down--a cute image but one that offers little substance and will increasingly become marginalized as time advances.

But the point is 1,100+ benefits does NOT "separate but equal" make.

Daniel2

[wenglund]

This claim has been debunked many, many times.

You actually need to get straight (pun intended) what the claim is. You are, as expected, wrong.

There are over 1,000 federal benefits granted to "married" couples that domestic partners and civilly united couples are denied.

Actually, I believe the number of federal benefits are said to be half again as many as that.

However, if you look very carefully at my opening and subsequent posts, you may realize that I took great care to limit my point specifically to the state of California (and only extended it a bit to other states), and intentionally did not speak in terms of the federal government so as to avoid the very confusion that has happened to you. Way to go!

Let me be very clear once again. I am looking at this issue strictly as a state issue, which is what Prop 8 was leading up to and at the time of its passage.

With that clarification out of the way, if you still think that my specific point has been debunked many times, I defy you to demonstrate it.

Additionally, most consenting citizens view it as a civil right to be free to have one's government recognize and avoid devalidating one's own choice of spouse-- that's not the governments' role.

Whether correct or not (its debatable), since 1999, the government of California has recognize, and not devalidated, anyone's choice in a spouse. By way of domestic partnerships, homosexuals have been able to choose their spouse and have it recognized by the California government equal as heterosexual couples through marriages. So, if you want to call choosing one's spouse a "civil right," then long before Prop 8, the citizens of California already had that equal right, and so in that respect, it wasn't a state issue.

The fact that we object to the concept of "separate but equal" doesn't support Wade's arguement that this wasn't about civil rights--it refutes it, given that "separate but equal" has always been inherently UNequal.

Aside from your comment being self-contradictory, please see my clarification to rockpond above.

Of course, according those like Wade's ever-contacting, oft-proclaimed topsy-turvey worldview, I've confused up with down--a cute image but one that offers little substance and will increasingly become marginalized as time advances.

These comments, while relatively incoherent, are also beside the topic of this thread. Please try harder to stay on point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

Gay advocates wanted to radically alter the longstanding definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples. Simple as that.

You are absolutely correct. As we all know, politics is downstream from culture and this is has been the avenue of attack for the homosexual agenda for decades.

[rockpond]

Gay advocates wanted to radically alter the longstanding definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples. Simple as that.

You are absolutely correct. As we all know, politics is downstream from culture and this is has been the avenue of attack for the homosexual agenda for decades.

Exactly. In California the gay advocates radically altered the "longstanding definition of marriage" by putting Prop 22 on the ballot to define marriage as same-gender couples back in 2000. Oh wait, no... that was the anti-gay-marriage advocates wanting to put language into CA law to define marriage to exclude gay couples. It wasn't the gay advocates at all.

But in 2008 gay advocates put Prop 8 on the CA ballot to radically alter... Oh no... that wasn't gay advocates either. That was the anti-gay-marriage crowd again. Hmmm... what laws defining marriage have the gay advocates put forward?

Ah yes, Federal DOMA, certainly the federal DOMA legislation was put forward by gay advocates to radically alter the definition of marriage. Nope. Federal DOMA was also legislation aimed at legally codifying the heterosexual marriage definition.

Those crazy gay advocates, when are they gonna get to work on radically altering the definition of marriage?

[rockpond]

If you look more carefully at my opening post and subsequent posts, you will see that I was careful to qualify my point as referring to "equal civil rights" and not to "civil rights" per se, though for brevity sake I didn't include the qualification in the title.

Even still, while there was much talk about Prop 8 supposedly denying equal rights (which turns out to be false), I don't recall a single mention of the "separate but equal" notion during the entire Prop 8 debate, or even subsequently in court challenges. In other words, to my knowledge, the "separate but equal" issue wasn't really raised, and thus it wasn't really an issue either, though I am open to people demonstrating otherwise if they can.

So, while you are correct that there is still the matter of separate civil rights, it wasn't an issue with Prop 8, though I believe it may have come up in states where there were civil unions.

Be that as it may, once it is understood that "equal civil rights" was not an issue with Prop 8 (as evinced in the SCOC ruling against Prop 22), then perhaps if participants in this thread are interested, we can explore further the issue of "separate but equal" to see if it has any merit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't read Judge Walker's entire 100+ page ruling so I don't know if he mentioned "separate but equal". But his ruling did conclude that offering gay couples the same set of rights (under the name of Civil Unions) as heterosexual couples (under the name of Marriage) violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. They lack the equal civil right of Marriage.

[wenglund]

Exactly. In California the gay advocates radically altered the "longstanding definition of marriage" by putting Prop 22 on the ballot to define marriage as same-gender couples back in 2000. Oh wait, no... that was the anti-gay-marriage advocates wanting to put language into CA law to define marriage to exclude gay couples. It wasn't the gay advocates at all.

I am sorry, but you persist in getting this exactly backwards. The traditional definition of marriage was implicit in the law since marital laws were first enacted in this country, and for centuries before then. and it was so obvious and unquestioned that it went without formally or explicitly saying. It was only because a few rogue clerks in San Fransisco in more recent times, who took it upon themselves to interpret the law however they wished, and because a few judges appeared as though they would do likewise, that the state determined to explicitly codify the longstanding and blatantly obvious implicit definition so as to avoid any possible confusion and prevent arbitrary and capricious redefining by usurpers of the law and activists judges. Prior to 2000, there was no need to explicitly define marriage because the definition was not really in dispute. It only became a matter of dispute when gay activist determined to fundamentally and radically change the legal definition. Got it straight now? (pun intended)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I haven't read Judge Walker's entire 100+ page ruling so I don't know if he mentioned "separate but equal". But his ruling did conclude that offering gay couples the same set of rights (under the name of Civil Unions) as heterosexual couples (under the name of Marriage) violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. They lack the equal civil right of Marriage.

Keep in mind that Judge Walker is a federal judge, and so his examination and ruling would be at the federal level rather than state. As explained to Daniel2 (and indirectly to california boy), the question I am addressing now in this thread is specific to the states, and not the federal level. However, since I hope to eventually examine federal issues, feel free to research Walkers ruling in advance to see if you can find mention of the "separate but equal" matter, and/or wait and we can look at what he said in relation to equal protection and due process, and whether that had any bearing on the circuit court ruling.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-