In a historic move today, the California Supreme Court by a 4-3 majority, struck down the state ban on same sex marriages that had been put in place by a state referendum. The court, with a conservative reputation (6 of 7 justices appointed by Republicans), concluded in a 120 page decision, that sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
Republican judges, known for conservative decisions, finally were able to get enough spine to apply the constitutions 'equal treatment before the law' foundation. This is rather profound, to have a court of this stature, and this make-up finally address the fundamental issue at stake...that religious ideologies cannot determine who is human 'enough' to be afforded ALL the protection of the laws of the land. Religionists tried when Southern Baptitsts split from their northern neighbors, using Biblical passages to justify slavery. They tried in denying women the right to vote, own property and a myriad of other 'not human enough' denials of rights. And sexuality and the morals surrounding it have always been one of the core principles of religious affiliation and zealotry, at the root of homophobia and bigotry.
In our lifetime, we have seen the courts apply the Constitution in more and more encompassing ways to further include the multitude of forms of human difference as illegitimate reasons to deny people the rights guaranteed by this founding document. It is so exciting to me, to be alive during this period of social upheaval as arbitrary social divisions are brought out into the light and withered by education, dialogue and law.
I first wore a black armband in 1969 to protest/educate my fellow school chums about the ravages of apartheid, a policy pushed in place and held in place with the blessings of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. American slavery and Jim Crow laws, apartheid, the Holocaust, the genocide practiced against native Americans, the Inquisition, the list is too long where religion gave blessings to treating people as less than human, not to be guaranteed the rights and protections of law as the great god-fearing white folks in power had. And slowly, especially in our lifetime, we keep watching the law take apart the stranglehold religion has on the hearts and minds of people that make it so easy for followers to deny others the protections and rights they hold dear and hide behind gods to justify their fears.
And luckily, this time, it wasn't a bunch of wild-eyed liberal 'activist judges' (i.e., judges who don't agree with right wing ideologies) but conservative judges appointed by the conservative party. Sure, whackos will yell activist judges, because the fear of their heart is that the world will change and they will have to change too...sort of...if they are to come into the 21st century and out of the 14th. But if Republicans can't appoint judges to protect people living in the past...who can?
Gods bless America!
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
|
bardnsage
|
May 16 @ 12:40AM
|
|
Good call by the judges,,,,,,
why should straight people be the only ones to suffer the bitching of a nagging spouse, that you can't get away from legally without giving them the other half of what you've earned.
Now, if we could just apply that "EQUAL in the eyes of the law" bullshit to the tax code, so I pay the same percentage of tax on my income that crack whore on public assistance does,,,,, then we can get somewhere.
|
|
SunBabe
|
May 16 @ 12:45AM
|
|
Great blog, MrO-five-O
It's about time...and a loooong time a comin' 
(LOL, there's a reason why people are still singing "We Shall Overcome" -- maybe SOME day we won't have to...)
|
|
deeliciousme1
|
May 16 @ 1:06AM
|
|
|
I agree people should have equal rights and one should never be abused in any form for being gay...I also believe there's a limit in matters such as this...marriage shouldn't be redefined...equal rights given, yes...label it something else. I also know to voice this opinion out loud will cause an outburst of insults similar to the ones that most don't agree with. I'm secure enough in myself, sexually or otherwise to say this anyway...It's a good blog and challenges all sides, thanks!
|
|
SallyF
|
May 16 @ 1:38AM
|
|
|
It is so exciting to me, to be alive during this period of social upheaval as arbitrary social divisions are brought out into the light and withered by education, dialogue and law. AMEN!!!!!
|
|
taliphina10
|
May 16 @ 2:20AM
|
|
wow, that was a great and powerful blog!
very interesting and informative. thank you!!
|
|
observed50
|
May 16 @ 10:19AM
|
|
Bard> Thanks for the comment. Wait until you can hire lawyers to help you pay the tax rate the upper incomes pay, hiding income, writing off golf outings and vacations, and given one tax break after another so your income can trickle down to that 'whore'. Then you'll be cooking with gas on a yacht going somewhere! 
Sun> Somewhere, there are people holding hands (arms in a criss-cross over their chest, because somehow that makes the singing more...more...well...couldn't tell ya) singing "We Shall Overcome" meekly, weakly, and weekly because to actually overcome requires more time, more effort, and certainly far more mobilization of personal and social resources than most of us are willing to do. We mostly live in Rodney King's world..."Can't we all just git along?'...where we just want things to work out without our effort and sacrifice. Like that is going to happen! 
Deelicious> I think the challenge offered by what gays and lesbians have asked for, is that the concept of marriage has different layers of meaning. For so many religionist Americans, they want it to mean 'union of a man and a woman' of some kind, recognized by the State, and for them, blessed by a god. For gays and lesbians, who were raised in the same world, with the same models and language and dreams and desires of relationship, 'marriage' for them signifies the 'union of two people who love one another'. Being both secular and religious, their argument is not about the role of a god in this, but the role of State and defining. In this court case, they have made it about love, and not about sexual orientation. 
Sally> Amen to you too sister! 
taliphina> Thanks for response. Glad it was informative! 
|
|
lacyvsq
|
May 16 @ 12:32PM
|
|
|
Marriage rites and rights...Too bad Judge Barbara Walther does not have a little of the wisdom and jurisprudence of the California Supreme Court.
|
|
deeliciousme1
|
May 16 @ 1:33PM
|
|
|
Thank you for clarifying what the issue is about...on one side...I respectfully disagree...from the other.
|
|
observed50
|
May 16 @ 6:47PM
|
|
Lacy> Should I know who Judge Barb is???
Dee> I'm not sure I was arguing a side in my response, but rather drawing out the battle grounds between religionists and the gay/lesbian community. I know there are people who argue against the granting of the marriage label to gays and lesbians with other perceptions than those argued by the religionists, but their arguments are less prevalent, and certainly are not organized into the groups like 'Focus on the Family' and others who are deeply committed to arguing what a god wants for people. I sense you might be wearing a shoe I wasn't trying to have you try on... 
|
|
deeliciousme1
|
May 17 @ 3:53AM
|
|
|
If that was the case dear man...my bad...it's tough being cinderella at times!
|
|
|