Gay marriages
Aug. 18th, 2004 01:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
woodfaceI have been thinking about the nullification of the gay marriages in California. It bugs me, not just because every fiber of my being is against the current law, but because those people had to go through this because someone did something that was apparently against the law.
I'm not going to discuss the technical part of whether or not Newsom was right to do what he did. Now, the example I have to compare this with might not be on such a big scale as the marriages were but bare with me. (ETA: Well apparently the comparison doesn't work as US law differs on this point from belgian law. Am going to check twice to make sure I wasn't dreaming about this.)
When you buy a stolen bike from someone in good faith (not knowing that it was stolen) and later on someone catches you with the bike, the bike remains yours. You have bought it in good faith and no one can take it back from you, not even the initial owner, because you did nothing wrong. So why are these people being punished by having their marriage nullified? They did not go against the law but still are being punished.
I'm not going to discuss the technical part of whether or not Newsom was right to do what he did. Now, the example I have to compare this with might not be on such a big scale as the marriages were but bare with me. (ETA: Well apparently the comparison doesn't work as US law differs on this point from belgian law. Am going to check twice to make sure I wasn't dreaming about this.)
When you buy a stolen bike from someone in good faith (not knowing that it was stolen) and later on someone catches you with the bike, the bike remains yours. You have bought it in good faith and no one can take it back from you, not even the initial owner, because you did nothing wrong. So why are these people being punished by having their marriage nullified? They did not go against the law but still are being punished.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-17 11:47 pm (UTC)Really!??? I don't think that's true in the US. At least, I have heard stories of people who bought stolen cars unwittingly and lost out on both the money and the car when it was discovered. I have absolutely no fact to back this up, but this is what I have always been told (and why it is especially important to check car histories when buying used cars).
Ditto stuff like forged currency -- I know a woman who got a faked 100 bill *from a bank* (someone else must have faked it and it wasn't caught), and it was confiscated at a grocery store. She wasn't charged with anything but she lost out on the 100 bucks and never got it back.
The California legislation still sucks a lot -- but I'm not sure this example works.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-17 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 12:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 12:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 10:37 am (UTC)Oy cats fighting in the garden *goes play judge*
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 05:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 02:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 10:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 09:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 10:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 04:59 pm (UTC)That was actually a huge debate with the California Supreme Court. The recent decision by the CSC regarding SF's gay marriages were actually two decisions. The first dealt with whether Newsom broke the law when he allowed marriage licenses to be issued to gay couples. The court vote unanimously 5-0 that Newsom did in fact break the law because, well, he did. :) But then the court split 3-2 on whether the gay couples who had gotten married could have their marriages stand. The two dissenting judges wanted to court to make a "non-rule"; i.e., they felt that the court should not rule on the legality of the gay marriages until it had dealt with whether the 1977 CA law making marriage between a man and a woman only is unconstitutional. The majority decision, however, ended up being that the gay marriages should be deemed null and void since the licenses Newsom issued were invalid. So, as you can see, it was a difficult decision for even the CSC to make.
I'm not sure if the gay couples who have had their marriages nulled are being "punished" per se since most -- if not all -- had at least an inkling that there was a huge chance their marriage would become invalidated. I do think gay couples are being treated crappy, though -- and have been for years -- and that's why I believe Newsom should be applauded for doing what he did. He pushed the issue to the forefront and succeeded in giving the 27-year-old issue a human face. None of that would have happened if 1) Newsom hadn't done anything or 2) he had attempted to repeal the 1977 law through the usual political channels.
As for why the CSC made the decisions they did, I don't blame them for them. The justices must follow the letter of the law, but at least now they will be dealing with the issue of constitutionality in the near future.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 05:20 pm (UTC)I agree that teh CSC did what they had to do, but I still find it a shame that these decisions have been made. But yeah, let's hope that somehow Newsom has managed to open the door to further debate.
Just makes me happy that I do live in a country where gay marriages are allowed. *huggles Belgium even if it is far from perfect*
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:48 pm (UTC)Thank you for the insight, we only get to see a small part of what is going here.
Glad you found it helpful; sorry if I was lecture-y. And I live 20 minutes for SF and *we* only got a small part of what's going on in our news. ;)
Just makes me happy that I do live in a country where gay marriages are allowed. *huggles Belgium even if it is far from perfect*
AWWW! *huggles Belgium too* :)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:55 pm (UTC)