Schwarzenegger: Gay marriage licenses illegal

[rodbarnett]

(CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that the marriage licenses San Francisco is issuing to same-sex couples are illegal, after the city sued the state over a law banning such marriages.

"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/samesex.marriage/

[Beetwasher]

1. The Law Banning Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

and therefore the law itself is illegal.

Oh, and Arnold, you're a fucking asshole.

[Silverhair]

3. Not until a proper judge rules it unconstitutional.

Until then, it is the law.

[Beetwasher]

5. Unconstitutional is as

unconstitutional does...How much do want to bet that when this goes to court it will be declared unconstitutional? All a judgement would be doing is confirming what's already obvious to anyone who knows anything about the constitution.

[thebaghwan]

21. That may be true, but it still has to happen first before it can be

repealed. Remember Brown vs. The Board of Education. Things are not unconstitutional until they are ruled unconstitutional.

[Beetwasher]

24. Not Necessarily True

One could argue it was always unconstitutional and the court ruling merely confirms it.

[thebaghwan]

29. True, but the court does not reverse what happened prior to its ruling.

For example, the when black voting rights were uphold and literacy tests and so on were done away with so that there were no longer obstacles in the way of blacks voting. The court did not say, let's gop back and redo the elections that took place over the last 50 years.It did not say let's redo the election that took place yesterday. It just says you can't do that anymore.

I work in the legal field, and I would be amazed if a court said it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriages that the licenses and services performed prior to that ruling would be legal. They very well may have to be performed again. The marriages have to happen right now in order to bring about standing (a legal term) for the lawsuit.

[Beetwasher]

31. I Think That's More an Issue of Pragmatism

and semantics.

Restrictions against blacks voting was always unconstitutional it just wasn't pragmatic to go back and re-do the elections.

I guess we'll see regarding the marriage licenses that were issued. I'd actually be surprised if a court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional but said the licenses were null and void and had to be re-issued. I would expect the ruling would be that since the law was unconstitutional to begin with, the licenses are actually perfectly valid. :shrug: It will be interesting to see the outcome...

[pmbryant]

6. I don't think it's as simple as that

I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, but from what I've heard, it's not that simple. Courts have traditionally reserved the right to be the final arbiter of what is constitutional or not, but as far as I know, they are not the only such arbiters. The SF mayor also needs to respect the state constitution and his interpretation is that this law is unconstitutional. Why should he necessarily wait until a court confirms this, if that is his honest opinion, just because that has traditionally been the pattern?

Obviously courts will iron out all these details later, but for now I think this is an open question.

Again, though, I'm just going by what I've heard from other legal experts.

--Peter

[foreigncorrespondent]

23. I posted the points...

...in the CA constitution in GD the other day.

These are actually what the Mayor is going by.

And going by the wording, any judge has to deem prop 22 unconstitutional:

Article 1 (DECLARATION OF RIGHTS)

-SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

More... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1132981

[K-W]

8. Thats not exactly how it works.

The proper way to phrase it would be that we wont know whether it is truely constitutional or not until it is ruled on. Until then it very well could be unconstitutional.

[David__77]

11. I think it's unconstitutional.

When the civil rights movement was fighting segregation, the movement called it "unconstitutional" because it violated equal protection. The judges simply failed to recognize it. It's the same situation with marriage equality. The judges have simply failed, except in Massachusetts, to see the truth.

[Fla_Dem]

10. Explain how the law

is unconstitutional. Please give factual reasons, not just emotional reasons.

[Beetwasher]

13. Nothing Emotional About It

Fact: Marriage is a personal, private decision about how one defines their personal, private relationship. The law banning only CERTAIN people from getting married is denying the RIGHT TO PURSUE HAPPINESS from only a CERTAIN segment of the population based on a RELIGIOUS interpretation of marriage. It's unconstitutional for breaching the separation of church and state and also for denying a segment of the population their CIVIL RIGHT to pursue happiness in their private lives.

Get it?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

17. WRONG

Certain people ARE banned from getting married. Gay people. To equate Gay marriage w/ incest is despicable and a strawman. What next, the rightwing nutjob equation of gay marriage to bestiality? Your bias is showing.

Who are YOU to define marriage for anyone else based on YOUR religious intepretation of it?

I don't believe in your religion and it's intepretation of marriage. No one is forcing your church to marry gay people and your church is constitutionally not allowed to force their religious views, including it's interpretation of marriage, onto others.

Marriage is not necessarily religious and religions (or one particular religion) don't get to define it for everyone and they are constitutionally prevented from doing so.

It's simple. If you don't get it then that's your limitation and personal bias.

Maybe we should ban pork products too? Some religions and churches ban them from being eaten, why not make that a law?

[Fla_Dem]

18. I have no religious interpretation of it

I don't believe in any religous stuff.

What you are not understanding is that nobody can marry anyone they want to. There are laws that direct who people can and cannot marry. If one of thse laws is unconstitutional, then they all are. Just because I used the "brother/sister" example does not mean I equate the two, just used it as an example. Well here is another one for you....

Are the laws that prevent a man from having more than one wife unconstitutional ?

Personally, I don't give a damn who marries who. If they are happy, then more power to them. I'm just getting sick of everytime someone doesn't like something the first thing they claim is that it is unconstitutional.

[Beetwasher]

20. No, I Understand Perfectly

You obviously don't get it.

To equate gay marriage w/ polygamy, incest and bestiality is a despicable strawman.

I don't care what you're sick of.

Is it unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage? You're damn right it is. If that's unconstitutional why doesn't that threaten the laws against polygamy (which is still practiced anyway in this country) and incest? You could make the exact same argument to argue against interracial marriage. Are you making that argument too?

Personally, I don't give a shit about polygamy or incest either. If the people involved are consenting adults, let them do whatever the hell they want. But you can't equate gay marriage to either of those unless your also ready to equate interracial marriage too, because the same arguments were made about that.

[tedzbear]

49. You could even say heterosexual marriage is illegal because...

...of polygamy, incest and bestiality. Same logic, I'm afraid.

[BR_Parkway]

19. Im banned because of my sex

Is another arguement. You say I am free to marry a woman legally and you are right. A woman is also free to marry a man. I cannot get legal recognition if I marry a man, because I am a Man, something I could have if I were a woman, therefore, it's sexual discrimination.

Additionally, my religion will marry me and recognize it. Since when can the government tell a religion what they will or won't grant legal status to? Under that arguement, all Cathlolics should have their divorces blessed by the church since the state laws allow divorce even though the Catholic Church doesn't.

[foreigncorrespondent]

26. Wrong, mate.

Certain people are banned from getting married. Gays and lesbians under current law are not allowed to get married.

We keep hearing that people are going crazy because we so called "evil queer doers" are pushing our way of life on you. Well by your argument which is an argument I have a lot in the past, you are actually pushing your way of life on us, not the other way around.

I was born a lesbian, but more importantly I was born a CITIZEN OF MY COUNTRY. My partner was born a CITIZEN OF HER COUNTRY (The United States of America.) However, because we have fallen in love with someone of the same sex, we don't have the rights we were born with anymore. And that is pure discrimination.

[thebaghwan]

32. Well Said! I disagree with Beetwasher only on certain legal defintions

and arguments. IMHO the best attack on the constitutional basis arises from the equal protection under the law clause. It would go like this: Gay people wish to marry, they wish to marry someone of the same sex which is barred, why should gays not be afforded the right to marry under the law?

[Beetwasher]

34. You May Be Right that that's the BEST Way to Attack it

I just don't think it's the only way. There's nothing that limits us to only one argument as to it's unconstitutionality. I believe it's unconstitutional in two ways. It's SUPER-unconstitutional! ;-)

There's already precedent for the separation of church and state attack though. People are able to get away w/ practicing polygamy because it's part of their religion. I do believe that there are certain religions that are perfectly OK with marrying gays and the ban would be limiting THEIR religious freedom to do so.

[thebaghwan]

39. Thank you! You are correct that there should be bolstering arguments

and certainly should not be limited to any one argument. I would favor staying away from any mention of religion in the argument however. I think we need to realize that even if it is ruled unconstitutional, religions will not be required to offer gay marriages if they don't want to. This would then become a seperation of church and state issue.

[Beetwasher]

41. Oh Of Course!

No one is even suggesting that religions would be required to offer gay marriages. I wouldn't even think of it. However there are some religions that would have no problems offering them and I do think the ban does infringe on their religious freedom to offer them if they choose to.

[Occulus]

33. Do you believe homosexuality

is a choice? Because that's the only way that requirement is legal.

"Everyone is just required to to marry someone of the opposite sex."

That. Right there.

[CO Liberal]

35. The Law Banning Brothers & Sisters From Marrying...

...is consitutional because it applies to all. If, however, the law said that brothers and sisters in all but one group (say Lithuanians) were allowed to marry, than that law would be unconstitutional.

IMHO.

[Beetwasher]

36. Good Point!

n/t

[StopThief]

53. Not trying to be difficult , but. . . .

doesn't the law that says people of the same sex can't marry apply to all?

I could be dense, but I fail to see the difference (IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POINT MADE ).

[thebaghwan]

27. This argument would not hold because you are mixing your arguments.

The best line of attack is under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The rifght to pursue happiness is rarely used as a basis for any argument before SCOTUS. That is because it can be very subjective in nature. The separation of church and state argument really doesn't go anywhere because you can be married civilly or religiously or both. The best argument is a modification of your second sentence but instead of saying right to pursue happiness you should say "equal protection under the law".

Remember also that all though we may believe and feel strongly that an issue is unconstitutional, that can only come about within the legal and binding definition by the highest appropriate appellate court having subject matter jurisdiction.

[Beetwasher]

28. I'm Putting Forth Two Different Arguments as to It's Unconstitutionality

One is a civil rights issue, the other is a separation of church and state issue. It can be argued on both of these grounds.

Separation of church and state is definitely arguable. The ban on gay marriage is based on a religious intepretation of marriage. Why should a religious interpretation be applied to a civil ceremony? One could also argue that there may be certain religions that actually do believe in gay marriage and will marry gay people. The ban would actually be imposing on their right to practice THEIR religion the way they see fit. That's how some people still get away with practicing polygamy in this country actually.

As far as something not being unconstitutional until a court rules on it, again, that's arguable and probably just a matter of semantics. One could argue it's always been unconstitutional and the judgement only confirms that.

[thebaghwan]

42. This is what I would argue against your church/state argument.

If I had to take on that onerous task I would say I agree with you! First I would say that "why should a religious interpretation be applied to a civil ceremony. I would say, yes, why should it under the seperation of church and state it cannot be based on a religious interpretation and it isn't. So is it based on a religious interpretation? No, just because something seems to mirror something else it does not mean that there was an influence from one to the other.

Then I would bring in some anthropological evidence that shows that marriage in a non-religious (maybe pagan or something) was never the same sex.

To argue that there maybe religions that want to offer gay marriages I think would give judges major heartburn. To rule on that issue would likely create a blanket ruling that all religions must offer gay marriages. They are not going there. Better to have a ruling which does not bring up the church/state issue in reverse and would allow those religions who want to to offer gay marriages and those who don't would not have to. Thre would be full gay marriages civilly.

[Beetwasher]

46. That Would be A VERY Difficult Argument to Make

That the ban is not religiously motivated. As far as I know, that's the ONLY basis for it and the only canonized source for a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only.

The church/state position I think is becoming a bit convoluted in our discussion. I don't agree that a ruling upholding my argument would lead to a blanket ruling forcing all religions to offer gay marriages. I just don't see that being the likely result at all and I'm not sure what makes you think that. It would actually do the oppossite, IMO. It would say that each religion has the right to define marriage the way they see fit and to offer and condone whatever marriages they deem appropriate and by extension, each individual has the right to define marriage and their personal relationships the way they see fit according to their personal choice.

[lcooksey]

16. Analysis of California Constitution and same-sex marriage

Check the analysis in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1138704

[foreigncorrespondent]

25. From the CA constitution...

...Article 1 (DECLARATION OF RIGHTS)

-SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

-SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution...

--(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

That is exactly why prop 22 is and always will be unconstitutional.

Of course if you want to know why the federal DoMA is unconstitutional then I suggest you read the 14th Amendment in the U.S. constitution.

[Cptn Kirk]

50. Please see this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1138704

[mhr]

2. Ah, The Groepnator Can Assault Women But Loving Couples Break The Law!

Mr. Rogers wants to know "boys and girls, can you say a**hole?"

[LuminousX]

4. Well, who was surprised by this?

Arnie was supposed to be 'good on civil rights' which made him a palatable candidate. But Arnie is even better at toeing the Party Line.

California, you reap what you sow.

[ljm2002]

9. Agreed, but...

...the gay marriage move was a brilliant stroke on Newsom's part, because it (a) solidifies his support among his local constituency -- not all of whom are gay, to be sure, but many of whom are staunch supporters of gay civil rights; and (b) forces Arnold to take a position against gay marriage, even though one of his selling points was being good on civil rights and tolerant of gays -- being a Hollywood actor and all.

Now I don't really know who was behind this, but it did surprise me coming from Newsom. Remembering that Clinton campaigned for Newsom during the mayoral election, I'd guess that this particular strategy has Big Dawg written all over it.

[nolabels]

37. He is actually a Imported from other locals

What looked healthy is mostly all made up, pinning that on Hollywood, all well and good. Please don't assume this Hoax is trademark of California though. There are thirty some million of us out here in California but not many subscribe to the antics of this freak

http://www.regenerationtv.com/pipermail/imc-la/2003-October/008273.html
(snip)
Later, Arnold confided to Rick Wayne: 'It hadn't occurred to Sergio that my white body would stand out against the dark wall behind us, while his would blend right in.

'To this day I believe that was how I got the edge. In a nutshell, the
judges saw more than I actually had that day. Sergio suffered for his
blindness.'Arnold's victory in that contest was a major breakthrough. After that, no other body-builder ? black or white ? would ever beat him again.


Arnold's racist comments extended to Jews as well. According to Rick Wayne, he sometimes upset his mentor Joe Weider, who was a Jewish Canadian, by telling crass anti-semitic jokes in his presence, bringing him to the brink of tears.


According to Dave DuPre: 'Arnold would make fun of Jews. If anybody looked Jewish, he would point it out and tell them that they were inferior. I would remind him that it was a Jew who had brought him to America. Then he would shut up.'
(snip)

[Broadslidin]

7. Cambodian King Sihanouk Backs Gay Marriage...!!

After watching television images of gay marriages

in San Francisco, the 81 year old monarch has decided

that single sex weddings should be allowed in Cambodia too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3505915.stm

[David__77]

12. Sinanouk is a progressive.

He always has upheld his nation's sovereignty. I am pleased that he has such an open mind to fighting reactionary views in the social realm.

[Bandit]

14. When did Ah-nold get a law degree?

It is for the courts to decide not Ah-nold. He isn't Dictator yet.

[yellowcanine]

22. So Guv. Grope is now making legal pronouncements?

First of all, it would seem that legal statements would come from the California Attorney General, not the Governor. And secondly, isn't this the kind of decision judges are supposed to make in the context of a trial? Is Guv Grope also a judge and did he preside over a trial? I must have missed something.

[mac2]

38. Annie is not legally responsible for any wrong doing but gays.....

are. It's OK to be a immoral guy but not gay. Ok to be a crooked politican and steal an election, rob the people of their rights,etc.

Annie will get his due.

[yellowcanine]

30. "(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges...

or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked."

California Constitution, GropeButt. Read it and weep. If you want to take marriage away from gays, you have to take it away from heteros. Ain't that a bitch? Now who is destroying marriage? Maybe this job isn't as easy as you thought?

[Occulus]

40. Wouldn't THAT be an interesting ruling.

"In the interest of requiring compliance with the laws under the Constitution of the State of California, and with a pointed unwillingness to create new law, this court is forced to place a moratorium upon the issuance of marriage licenses as they are currently written to the general public until the Legislature resolves this issue."

Payback would truly be a bitch.

[Bertha Venation]

43. Schwarzenegger: California's GWB

They tell him what to say, and he says it.

[gauguin57]

47. still waiting ..

for someone to explain to me how same-sex couples marrying has any effect on "the sanctity of marriage"!!!

How does two gay people getting married threaten George Bush's family? The "sanctity" of Rick Santorum's marriage? Asscroft's union with the lovely (and equally frighteningly Fundie) Missus Asscroft?

Guess I'll be waiting for the answer for a long, long time.

It's all a bunch of specious b.s. Marriage has "traditionally" been defined as one man, one woman. So? Some societies formerly defined people of color as inferior to whites. And over time, as society progressed (and bigots were forced to get their heads outta their arses), that definition was changed. So just change the freaking definition of marriage to include gay couples. Simple. Problem solved. And any churches that don't want to perform gay marriages can just opt out.

I'm sorry ... but I do NOT believe that the vast majority of this country believes gay marriage is this horrible abomination that must be prevented at all cost. I just don't buy it. I don't know who they've been polling, but it's nobody I know!

Shut your piehole, Ah-nuld. You shouldn't be allowed to run the smallest hamlet in Rhode Island, let alone the whole state of California!

[tedzbear]

54. I think it threatens their need to feel superior...

As long as they can have something that another group can't, they get to feel superior. Their huge self-centered egos require that they constantly put other people down or else they feel empty. They love to feel like the big shot and strut around barking orders since most of the time they are being yelled at by their spouse or boss. Their bossy personalities are the only thing being "irreparably harmed" by these gay marriages.

:bounce:

[Astarho]

48. Remember when

there were people saying The Gropenator was more socially liberal than other repubs? :eyes:

[gasperc]

44. what they always feared

thousands of gays lining up to get married, the whole thing ending up in court and the court having practically no choice but to recognize their marriage as in Mass.

in other words, right leaning judges, see that an unaltered constitution can't technically block the marriage. Left leaning judges clearly see the equal rights that Gays are entitled to and no not "special rights" as the right seems to insist.

So, now will legislators be so bold as to actually lock into the constitution a law that defines a specific type of person and block them from doing a certain action?

[a_random_joel]

45. Actually, sexual harassment is illegal.

You idiot.

[rocktivity]

51. Is it legal to blow off $6 BILLION when you have a deficit, Arnie?

Last I heard, you were going to settle the energy company lawsuit for three cents on the dollar!



rocknation

[HowdyDUit]

52. Too bad for him

We will win this fight for our RIGHT to marry ANYONE we desire.