Comments Related To: California Supreme Court Refuses to Take Stand and Overturn Prop 8

Since California is a community property state, and there are domestic partnership laws already there which have been legislated over the years, maybe the gay community should direct their attention to getting the 16th amendment overturned, and then we will all have equality once again......the type of equality in taxation that the founders actually intended. And then maybe Congress would look at those free trade agreements, and start taxing imports in order to get the jobs back and revenue in order to fund the federal government, and put the states back in their rightful place as the most local government with the greater powers.

And with powers of attorney, wills, and adoption papers, other than the "joint" filing status allowed married couples now, I would like to know what "privilege" the gay community believes that they do not have, that traditionally married couples do. They are asking "permission" actually for the state to get involved in the dissolution of their union, if that should happen - and since 50% of traditional couples divorce, how many more judges is California going to need to handle them all, again expanding taxpayer costs in the process?

The "privileges" and immunities clause was passed to address the slavery issue, and recognizing that people are not property - and has nothing to do with "marriage" rights, since gays were in existence when the Constitution was signed, in fact since Roman times, and the founders certainly were not speaking of this type of "equality" with respect to the "unalienable" rights as "endowed by the Creator," at all. And I don't think that it is in dispute that they did acknowledge a Creator also.

First off, thank you for your opinion, I love hearing others voices. I agrtee that the best course of action would most likely be a federal constitution change, and amendment making any two people eligible to become "partners" and gain the rights/tax breaks/privileges that a man-woman married couple gain today and simply leave it at that.

The argument that marriage equality as is being asked for now would increase the burden on taxpayers is a dubious one considering the Billions in estimated revenue the wedding & engagement business sector alone would see and the taxes associated with those billions, anmd that's without even considering vacation revenue, incrteased coverage of partners under corporate health care leaving less "partners" uninsured, and many other financial benefits that thousands upon thousands of newly married couples/year would bring.

As to what "privileges" they want? Well not being a homosexual myself I cannot personally say, but judging from the hjomosexual couples that I know and speak to, it's pretty simple. They want each and every thing that a married man and woman get from the federal, state and local governments they deal with. If a man-woman union would get $8000 for buying a house, then the same-sex couple should as well. If the man-woman couple would get a break on their car insurance for being married, then the same sex couple should as well. It's not complicated, it's Equality.

Dude, nice article and much appreciated. Not that I'm gay, but I just don't see the difference between a gay couple and a hetero couple.

Thanks!

And expect challenges eventually on the states that have passed them, because they were passed against the majority opinion of the public, and are being passed mostly for state revenue purposes, and the lobbying efforts also of the legal community licking their lips over the legal fees they may eventually gain from these efforts.

This movement is nothing more than the Lawyer's Employment Act for the State of California Bar Association, actually, more than anything else, and another way the states can charge for the privilege of "licensing" personal relationships. Why not simply have a ceremony, go to the County Recorder, and simply publicly record that "domestic contract," rather than go before a judge and save the license fees?

Or enter into a "partnership" agreement such as prenuptuals are, and record it so that if the "union" breaks up, the contract is recorded for the division of property.

And save the gay community several million for what is no more than removing freedom, not gaining it at all in inviting the government now into their personal relationship.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-James Madison

Great story. I just want to add some color to the picture from the Castro here in San Francisco. Ross1776 is right in questioning what good can really come from inviting the federal government into our personal lives. I mean, do we really want to perpetuate this trend of the government even having a say in who we choose to partner with? You'll find a lot of people around here that want Uncle Sam to just stick to the basics like taxes, roads, postal services, and a small but adequate defensive military. Like Ross1776 said let's handle our personal lives with the laws on the books and take our fight to the constitution!

You're right in questioning the right of the government to our personla lives, but there are some thingsa that they have to and are going to have their hands in, and the rights of couples when it comes to things like inheritance, property rights, tax breaks, hospital visitation and other such things are always going to need a "yes" or "no" from the highest level to keep people from being discriminated against.

It's the same reason we needed laws specifically stating that black people or women had the same rights as white men. Not because we should have to be told these things by our government, but because we have to ensure people are not DENIED these things.