Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL Announcement :: Gender & Sexuality : Government & Elections

Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm 8/12

Santa Cruz Town Clock at 6:00pm
This morning the California Supreme Court ruled, as expected, that the City and County of San Francisco exceeded its authority by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Unfortunately, it also ruled that those licenses are not valid.

The Court was careful to add that the issue of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage was not addressed, saying:

To avoid any misunderstanding, we emphasize that the substantive question of the constitutional validity of California¹s statutory provisions limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is not before our court in this proceeding, and our decision in this case is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to reflect any view on that issue. We hold only that in the absence of a judicial determination that such statutory provisions are unconstitutional, local executive officials lacked authority to issue marriage licenses to, solemnize marriages of, or register certificates of marriage for same-sex couples, and marriages conducted between same-sex couples in violation of the applicable statutes are void and of no legal effect. Should the applicable statutes be judicially determined to be unconstitutional in the future, same-sex couples then would be free to obtain valid marriage licenses and enter into valid marriages.

See you at the Town Clock at 6:00

 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Comments

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm TONIGHT

Marriage should be between 2 people - the ones getting married. WHY do you need Uncle Sam to be a 3rd party? WHY do you crave government involvement in, and regulation of, your lives?

You people demand liberty and freedom one day, then the next you complain that Big Brother isnt isnt paying you enough attention.

Tax breaks? Insurance breaks? Hospital visits? These are not inalienable human rights, these are all priviledges, to be granted or not granted by the collectors, the insurers, and the hospital staff.

Want to keep your own damned money? Stop dancing around with the IRS on their terms, and demand (and fight for) across-the-board tax CUTS.

Want a better deal from an insurance company? Negotiate a better deal - or dont. They dont OWE you anything. This is the nature of contractual agreements, otherwise you wouldn't need a contract - you could just demand benefits using threat of police violence.

Want to visit your loved one in the hospital when they're in a coma (how often does this even happen, really?!)? One, show me a hospital that wont let you in if you can prove you live at the same address in that case. Two, a hospital does not owe you anything. They are free-willed citizens operating a private business on private property. Try ASKING NICELY, and I bet you get in!

People, this is just a political diversion. You walked into an election-year trap designed to reduce the time, energy, money, and press coverage that might otherwise go to real issues like the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan (anyone remember THAT crime?), the pending oil shortage, the War on (Some) Drugs, Cheney's Haliburton profits, WHITE HOUSE COMPLICITY IN 9-FUCKING-11..

You're just swallowing the same old bait, same as you do every 4 years. The conservative Powers That Be play you all like a fucking violin orchestra every single time.

And you're all too wound up and angsty and ready to fight *any* fight, to see it.
 

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm TONIGHT

Methinks it is you who is 'too wound up and angsty' too see the issue clearly. And who exactly is 'you people'? As if everyone who posts to indymedia is part of a generic blob.

Ask any attorney who works on the issue of getting equal rights for same sex couples. It costs a lot more, takes a lot more time and falls far short of the 'rights' opposite gender people get by just being straight and excercising them.

You say 'They are free-willed citizens operating a private business on private property'. You question Cheney (and other quasi humans) but not the right of people to have access to health care. You suggest that if the people just ask 'nicely' they'll get what they should have a right to, ignoring the fact that many times it is the homophobic family that is blocking access to the hospital, the home, etc.

Are you really suggesting that I call my insurance company and negotiate better coverage and a better rate? That's pretty funny.

Because scum bags occupying the white house (and wanabees) are trying to use anything they can to play dirty politics don't be fooled that by ignoring the rights of others that progress will be served. A large society has complex needs. Addressing one doesn't mean that other issues should or would be ignored.
 

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm TONIGHT

"Ask any attorney who works on the issue of getting equal rights for same sex couples. It costs a lot more, takes a lot more time and falls far short of the 'rights' opposite gender people get by just being straight and excercising them."

A valid point was raised - Why is the government able to dictate the terms of a contract between two individuals?

You want to make homosexual marriage legal, the best way to do that is to rid government from a process it should not even be involved in.

"You question Cheney (and other quasi humans) but not the right of people to have access to health"

No one has a right to healthcare, it'd be nice if everyone could have it, but...

"Are you really suggesting that I call my insurance company and negotiate better coverage and a better rate? That's pretty funny."

It wouldn't be nearly so funny if government involvement hadn't ruined any chance of a decent healthcare system, instead we have a corrupt, inefficient, quasi-public system that eats up more and more money.
 

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm TONIGHT

"Why is the government able to dictate the terms of a contract between two individuals?"

You answered that question yourself. It's a contract. Point: It's easier to bring 12 lawsuits against states challanging equal protection under the constitution than to get heterosexuals to give up their right to a legal marriage. Consider this;
the alternative at the moment to a secular marriage is a religious marriage.

Many countries have government sponsored health care. The fact that the united states does not, that it has a private for profit system and has such a high infant mortality rate, is criminal.
 

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm TONIGHT

"You answered that question yourself. It's a contract."

The government may have a duty in enforcing a contract to ensure the terms are met, and mette out punishment if the terms are violated. But why should the government be allowed to tell me who I can enter into contract with, and how I can enter into contract with.

"Many countries have government sponsored health care. The fact that the united states does not, that it has a private for profit system and has such a high infant mortality rate, is criminal."

And in many countries, the government sponsored healthcare systems are failing. Last I checked, 15,000 people didn't die during a heatwave in the United States... That and the fact that European countries continue to reduce their services while increasing taxes shows us the public system is not feasible under current models.

Point being, a for profit model is advantageous if properly utilized because it results in better, and more efficient service. Ask yourself why Europeans and Canadians come to the United States for their healthcare if they can afford to - it's because in a private system the doctors aren't overloaded with too many patients, and you don't have to wait years for surgery...
 

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm TONIGHT

"why should the government be allowed to tell me who I can enter into contract with..."

Precisely.

Here is a pretty good publication from the University of Maine regarding the US healthcare system:

dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf


Young doctors in this country don't enjoy the level of income they once did. But you can bet the private corporate management is getting rich.
 

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm TONIGHT

why dont you fight for ending all marriage tax breaks?

Or..

Gay married couples want the same tax breaks as straight married couples. Alright.

Single people want the same tax breaks as married people, and we're a far larger group. This is about democracy, isnt it? Fight for all of us, instead of your chosen elite minority. Get everyone that same tax break regardless of marrital status.

Oh, that's right. These "rights" you speak of, dont apply to the rest of us. Are these "civil rights"? I guess that means the rest of us arent Americans. Or are these "human rights", which leads us to believe the rest of us aren't human.

Elitism is not a solution to prejudice.

You aren't fighting for rights - you're fighting for priviledges, cloaked as rights.
 

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm 8/12

"Fight for all of us"

You pick out an issue which would best be addressed by the tax paying population in general (not a disenfranchised group who you call elitist) and conveniently ignore every other issue which has been raised.
 

Re: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling - Town Clock 6pm 8/12

The government isn't telling you that you can't enter into a contract with another person. You just can't "marry" same sex. No one else can either. So the rights are equal.
 

Private contracts don't work

The two posters who think same-sex couples can achieve equality through private contracts obviously don't know much about government regulation. Though marriage may, for some, be a religious institution, thousands of local, state and federal regulations refer to marriage. Here are just a few examples:

"Being nice" to hospital staff won't change the fact that the state law dictates who is allowed to see health records, and who is allowed to make treatment decisions on behalf of someone who can't.

"Negotiating" with a health insurance company won't change the fact that federal law dictates who is entitled to continuation coverage (COBRA).

"Demanding tax breaks" from the IRS won't change the fact California's Proposition 13 dictates who a house can be transferred to without triggering a property tax increase.

The posters also seem not to understand that marriage confers rights AND responsibilities.

Signing a contract won't change the fact that state and federal law dictate who a creditor can collect from.

Signing a contract won't change the fact that state law dictates who is legally responsible for (and so has the right to make decisions about), a child.

The posters certainly don't realize that -- in the few instances where a private contract could help -- retaining a lawyer to draft a contract is inifinitely more complicated and more expensive than flashing a marriage certificate, as opposite-sex couples can do.

Finally, the posters aren't aware that states are in the process of outlawing certain private contracts between same-sex individuals. See, for example, Virginia's new law, HB 751, already in effect:

"[T]he Commonwealth of Virginia is under no constitutional or legal obligation to recognize a marriage, civil union, partnership contract OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT purporting to bestow any of the privileges or obligations of marriage ..." [emphasis added].

This has the effect of invalidating wills, advance care directives, power of attorney, etc., when a same-sex couple is involved. That's pretty serious.
 

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software