RIGHT ON : [lpsf-discuss] TONIGHT: Marriage Equality rally & march

Discussion
1

Dear Everyone;

Congratulations to all of you whose lives were impacted by the current law on gay marriages and were waiting on a decision which would rightfully state you aren't second class citizens when it comes to marriage.

The announced decision is a significant step towards getting the California Supreme Court to eventually hear the case and hopefully reach the same decision as the superior court judge. Possibly the State Supreme Court may hear and render a decision before either one of two bills placing an amendment to the state constitution on the ballot to ban same-sex are put on the ballot and voted on.

For people who bring up the issue of Proposition 22 which passed in the 2000 elections and stated marriage was between a man and a woman and passed by 61%. The facts are while it passed with 4,000,000 votes there were 3,000,000 voting against it and there are 25 million Californians. Prop 22 was a mean spirited religious fundamentalist tail wagging the dog proposition and should have been declared unconstitutional from the get go.

Please remember the war for equality has only just begun. This is one victory in the battle for equality and many more will be required before the war is ultimately won outright.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...> wrote:

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:37:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Kelly
Subject: The decision has been made
To: Kelly Hart, Molly McKay

hi there..

THE COURT RULES IN OUR FAVOR - GET IN THE STREETS AND CELEBRATE WITH US!

We are thrilled that the court confirmed
discrimination against committed same-sex couples
violates the California constitution.

This decision is about basic fairness, equal rights
and protections. The court recognized that
discrimination is wrong. The State of California
should not be discriminating against any group of
people.

Marriage is a personal commitment. It is about
sharing, trust, love, compromise. Two adults who make
a lifelong commitment should not be denied the
opportunity to get married just because they are
lesbian, bisexual, or gay.

This ruling is very meaningful for families in our
community. The court held that the state of California
can no longer deny us important protections or treat
us as second-class citizens.

CELEBRATE AND RALLY TONIGHT

At 5:00-5:30 we are gathering at Castro & Market for a short Rally.

At 5:30 we start a celebratory march down Market to City Hall,with a quick
stop for statements and cake at the LGBT Center at Market & Octavia.

COME CELEBRATE OUR WIN

COME CELEBRATE OUR LOVE

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

2

I'm interested in getting other Libertarians thoughts on the issue of marriage.

It seems to me that marriage as it stands right now between a man and a woman is a restriction of rights. A good example of this is seen in the laws surrounding a married couples financial options. As a married couple under current California law you are restricted to dividing all things 50/50. If you wanted to divide your estate 90/10, 70/30, or whatever might seem fit, you are locked out of that option, unless a prenuptial arrangement is made. For example, if I buy a car I can't own it out right, my wife automatically owns half of it. Things like this seem to be a restriction of rights. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples right now that choose to simply live together can divide up their belongings in any way they see fit.

As far as I can tell I would rather opt for the situation that live in couples have currently then willingly join in on what the government calls marriage. Marriage should not be a right extended to us by the government. Why then do so many people want the options they already have open to them restricted by current marriage laws? I think we should be working toward taking away the governments ability to enforce the "right" of marriage on all people and unions.

Best,
Jay

3

Dear Jay;

Part of the answer to your question would include what's known as " common law " marriages. There two people basically live together without sanctimonious of state intrusion. As far as the state licensing of marriages this really didn't come in to play until relatively recently. This was when states discovered they could get money by issuing a license for marriages.

Other social concerns that the State expressed for getting a license were blood tests to be certain the parties did not have venereal diseases, were actually divorced or widowed, above a certain age usually 18, had physical exams, were not blood relatives, were mentally competent, had certain immunization shots, some states require that for the marriage to be legal the marriage has to be consummated. Some states had specific laws against miscegenation or mixed race marriages for reasons best known to the states which decided to have such laws for strange reasons or not.

Basically the State chose to take the right to decide the marriage license issue whether religious or civil marriage because the State decided it knew what was best for its peoples. Regardless of whether or not the State really knew best. Which it never does know best and is usually a day late and a dollar short.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Jay Wilkinson <jaywilkinson@...> wrote:
I'm interested in getting other Libertarians thoughts on the issue of
marriage.

It seems to me that marriage as it stands right now between a man and a
woman is a restriction of rights. A good example of this is seen in the
laws surrounding a married couples financial options. As a married
couple under current California law you are restricted to dividing all
things 50/50. If you wanted to divide your estate 90/10, 70/30, or
whatever might seem fit, you are locked out of that option, unless a
prenuptial arrangement is made. For example, if I buy a car I can't own
it out right, my wife automatically owns half of it. Things like this
seem to be a restriction of rights. Both heterosexual and homosexual
couples right now that choose to simply live together can divide up
their belongings in any way they see fit.

As far as I can tell I would rather opt for the situation that live in
couples have currently then willingly join in on what the government
calls marriage. Marriage should not be a right extended to us by the
government. Why then do so many people want the options they already
have open to them restricted by current marriage laws? I think we
should be working toward taking away the governments ability to enforce
the "right" of marriage on all people and unions.

Best,
Jay

4

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm interested in getting other Libertarians thoughts on the issue of
marriage.

Government should not be deciding who may and who may not marry.

Nine years ago, I went to a city hall and begged permission of the
government to marry the woman I loved. That was galling. Then, when she
was no longer the woman I loved, we had to grovel again, this time for
permission to Just Be Friends. Buying the second kind of permission was
much more expensive (even though our divorce was entirely amicable).

To repeat, government should not be involved. Marriage is between spouses,
optionally before a divine presence, friends, family, or community. But as
long as government is certifying marriages, it must not discriminate on
*who* may participate in those marriages.

~Chris
- --
Chris Maden, freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
"XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you
  aren't using enough of it."
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA