California can stay.

[azurelunatic]

Dailykos advises us to read page 36.

Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship.

If that's not a "fuck you, h8ers" from California's Supreme Court...

It's more slyly dismissive than "here's one in the eye", and will be crushing to the people who want it to be legally called "marriage". But from a human rights standpoint, oh yes baby. Oh yes.

Comments

[fairlight]

The thing about the word "marriage" is that it has been used, historically, to refer to all kids of relationships, from a man and his 250 favourite slaves to a man and a woman to Sandy and me.

It is also a concept that exists in every human society. I'm not okay with separate-but-equal, domestic partners, civil union, unless that's what everyone gets from the state and the churches are the ones who do or don't marry people.

[azurelunatic]

Human/civil rights first, discrimination second.

I'm liking the marriage-for-the-people movement better and better, if certain churches continue their whiny-assed behavior.

[betweenthebliss.livejournal.com]

yeah, it's hard for me to decide how i feel about this.... like, yeah, this is really interesting (and thank you SO much for posting about it) and i'm really relieved on many levels to know that it wasn't just a blanket "no". but on the other hand i can't help thinking of how many people who might've been planning their weddings for this fall, or next spring, and just knowing that thanks to this ruling there are so many people who will not validate that marriage, who will not even see them as a legal family equal in all respects to a hetero married couple, because they can't use the word 'marriage'. it's just sad. and i know that at the moment we can't be picky about words, and this is actually a truly unique and interesting thing the court has done, definitely something to be grateful for... but it's just hard to stomach. :(

in any case, thanks again for posting the article. and here's hoping next time there's an opportunity like this, the court in question punches the conservatives in the face. XD

[azurelunatic]

The next logical step may in fact be to strip civil partnership of the term "marriage" for all citizens; individual partnered citizens can call themselves whatever they want, but leave marriage to the churches. :D

[betweenthebliss.livejournal.com]

yeah, that's what i've wanted for ages, actually, i'm really hoping that's the route they go. if you object to gay "marriage" on religious grounds, and if what gay couples want is legal equality, then it stands to reason removing the label of marriage and giving everyone the same rights should please everyone.

except the people who don't think gay couples should be allowed equal rights. and those people we set on fire.

[azurelunatic]

Have you read about the y2gay problem? (I love that article so much.)

I'm thinking that California should have its forms altered to read Partner 1 and Partner 2 sort of like it did, but allow a blank for user-entered *titles* of Partner 1 and Partner 2, because there was a couple that threw a hissyfit about not being allowed to register as Husband and Wife. This would, granted, open the door for some Very Silly Titles, but would make state-issued forms that get made in a mail-merge that much nicer. If it's Husband and Husband, then theoretically the state could send a letter to "Mr. X And Husband" ...or "Mrs. X And Snookie-Wookums".

[betweenthebliss.livejournal.com]

personally when i get married i am DEFINITELY making my spouse go by 'snookie-wookums'. XD

but yes-- i'd never seen the article before and thank you ever so for the lulz, and awesome analysis. and i agree; partner titles would help. it'd be nice if there was at least some equality on paper, y'know? XP

[leora.livejournal.com]

I really don't like viewing it that way. I'd much rather the government handle the legal contract, which does not need to be called marriage and probably should not be. And leave marriage to the people. The people, not the churches. Let each individual choose what they do and do not call a marriage and whether they are in a marriage.

Then those individuals who want to give their marriage to their church and let their church say whether or not they are married are free to do so. And the rest of us are free to decide our marriages for ourselves.

When people talk about handing it over to the churches, it makes me feel like it's being granted religious significance only, which is unfair. It has a fair bit of secular significance, and that is to the people. This is a power that should be hands of the people for nobody can make a marriage real other than the people in that marriage.

[azurelunatic]

Ah. Yes. Thank you.

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

Wow. You don't know me, but I need to tell you that I hadn't thought of it that way, and you are so right.

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

That makes more sense than government (and a lot of people) could handle.

I wish they could.