We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Re the California court decision, do I have to be homosexual to marry a guy, or lesbian to marry another girl? Or can I do that if I am straight, for insurance benefits or for inheritance tax purposes, or just for the heck of it? Lots of people get married on crazy impulse. And can I marry my brother? If not, why not? If you are gay, why not be able to marry a family member? And then it would only be fair (equal protection) to let straights have the same right.
So here's a cool idea for single guys: If your Mom dies, marry your Dad and dodge all inheritance taxes. Vice versa for single gals.
Polygamy is next. Mark my words. It will be for the Moslems, not for the Mormons.
Just wait until the "Mail order Bride" laws that currently insure
foreign national women a citizenship, a "settlement", orders of protection, a house, etc., regardless of their initial claims of matrimony-run directly into a new scam of "imported homosexual spouse" , starting (where else) in Mass. and Cal-ee-forn-eee-ah.
Wonder how many well adjusted homosexuals, or "homosexuals"(GLBTM/B), will desperately fall for THAT one, then cry for even MORE special attention when no one shows enough dismay?
''...a social and legal contract. It creates shared property and assigns certain rights.''
Yep, that's what a contract can do. but marriage is a sacrament (a word with a definition as old as human language), meaning that it has a larger meaning to many folks.
Of course the wicked tax system forces the blurring of the issue of contract vs marriage.
change the tax system -- remove the accretion of rococo ornamentation, remake it flat and fair, and rescue the founder's establishment intent, salvage our ability to distinguish between matters of religion and laws of state.
"... meaning that it has a larger meaning to many folks."
I agree with that. (I also agree with the Gov being too involved, especially considering they use the tax system as a method of social behavioral control.)
I think a good solution is for the Government to use a word other than "marriage" - reserve that for it's social and religious place - and consistently use a different term that is gender-irrelevant, yet still conveys rights and responsibilities.
As for nj's points (below) - I've seen both CA and NJ invalidate laws passed by the people. CA does it with indirect court rulings like this and NJ does it by proclaiming that (paraphrasing); "The people have turned the process of law-making exclusively to the elected officials." I think both directions are crap. It is a shared solution, not exclusive.
From CNS: The ruling invalidated California's Proposition 22, a state ballot initiative that passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000, and which banned same-sex marriage in the state.
All you lawyers who infest hang around these blogs: I thought that such propositions became part of the state's constitution, from whence the state courts, including the State Supreme Court, derived their authority. Further more, I thought any pre-existing state law becomes invalid when in conflict with a new, successful proposition. Therefor, I think that any concept of "protected status"(?) for gays was rendered invalid by the successful proposition.
Is my thinking incorrect? That state courts can override even the state constitution? I know in NJ the black robed oligarchs can snip and edit to get what they want.