Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

記住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新聞&特寫

« 較新的 | 較舊的 »
16 Mar 2009

California: Allow gay marriage or no marriage at all?

It may be a case of all or nothing as the California Supreme Court considers eliminating the term "marriage" from state statutes and treat both kinds of couples - same-sex and opposite-sex - equally.

California's Proposition 8 debate has taken a twist last week with a new ballot measure, approved for circulation this week, seeking to eliminate the term "marriage" from state statutes and replace it with "domestic partnerships."

Would gay couples themselves cling hardest to the word 'marriage' after having fought so hard and so long to have [the word] apply to themselves?

The new measure would repeal the voter-approved gay marriage ban that passed last November, and define domestic partnerships as unions between all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

The measure was thought up by two college students - both of whom are reportedly straight - who said in a summary of the measure that "'marriage' itself would become a social ceremony, recognised by only nongovernmental institutions."

The measure must collect 700,000 signatures by Aug 6 to qualify for the November 2010 ballot.

"I'm not religious and I'm not gay, but I am concerned about equal rights," Ali Shams was quoted as saying in the San Francisco Chronicle. The 22-year-old political science major at University of California San Diego is pushing the measure with his friend Kaelan Housewright, a student at CalArts in Valencia (Los Angeles County).

"A lot of people who voted for Prop. 8 did so because their religious beliefs tell them marriage is between a man and a woman," said Shams. "They aren't necessarily against same-sex couples, but they can't go against their religious beliefs. With this option, we're allowing them to bypass that dilemma."

Earlier two law professors proposed in the San Francisco Chronicle (A Equality in substance and in name, Mar 2) that the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether.

Pepperdine University professors Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer urged readers to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. Saxer opposed Prop 8 for civil rights reasons while Kmiec supported it for reasons of religious liberty.

Their idea got additional air time during the Mar 5 oral arguments before the California Supreme Court, which is expected to issue a ruling in three months in the case brought by gay couples and others who argue the constitutional amendment passed by voters last fall is invalid.

According to a report on Time.com, both sets of lawyers - when asked by Justice Ming Chin - agreed that the idea would resolve the question of whether some couples could marry, and others not, violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

But as Time's Michael A. Lindenberger pointed out, Justice Chin may find that "the folks who cling hardest to the word 'marriage' are the gay couples themselves [after] having... fought so hard and so long to have [the word] apply to themselves" as the courts try to come to a compromise between upholding Prop 8 and according gay people the right to be treated equally.

Read more:

A way out of Prop. 8 (Los Angeles Times editorial): "The most adamant opponents almost certainly would be the supporters of Proposition 8, the same people who argue that same-sex couples already have all the benefits of marriage through the state's civil union laws and are just quibbling about a label. Chances are that they won't see things the same way when it comes to changing the name of their own legal relationships."

A Gay Marriage Solution: End Marriages for Everyone? By Michael A. Lindenberger (Time.com): "And as Justice Chin considers whether he can craft a compromise with his fellow justices that would both uphold Prop 8 - and therefore the right of the people to amend the state constitution - and assert the right of gay people to be treated equally, he may find that the folks who cling hardest to the word "marriage" are the gay couples themselves. After all, what was the most sweeping part of the May 2008 decision Ming and his colleagues issued granting gays the right to marry? It was the idea that the word "marriage" itself is so strong that denying it to gay couples violates the most sacred rights enshrined in the state constitution, the right for all people to be treated with dignity and fairness. Just 10 months later, gay couples - whether they are among the 18,000 who married in the state before Prop 8 stopped the ceremonies or not - are loath to lose a word for which so many fought so hard and so long to have apply to themselves."

Equality in substance and in name by Douglas W. Kmiec, Shelley Ross Saxer (San Francisco Chronicle): "The argument for Prop. 8 must be resisted for two reasons: First, because it gives the proposition a far broader discriminatory effect than its language warrants, and second, the proposition is oblivious to the differing faith practices of our citizens. Marriage is of religious origin; it should remain there. Indeed, neither the original court decision nor Prop. 8 showed adequate recognition of the religious nature of marriage, so Thursday's case can be a do-over. Some faiths accept same-sex relationships and others profoundly object. As a matter of religious freedom, both must be accommodated, but how? Separate state and church. Prop. 8 keeps the state - not the church - from using the terminology of marriage to officially acknowledge a same-sex relationship."

United States

讀者回應

1. 2009-03-16 22:10  
hmm.. i guess the singapore equivalent of such a proposition would be to make sex a crime altogether.. just don't enforce it! i'm sure there will be many people who are still not criminals.
2. 2009-03-16 22:26  
If civil unions and domestic partnerships were in every way exactly the same with marriage in terms of all legal status and benefits, I seriously doubt all these would have had been necessary. Cos they are NOT!

Sad thing though..even if a country recognizes a same sex married couple from say, Canada, other backward countries, like say Singapore & Malaysia, with their anti-gay laws would quickly deny entry, or persecute upon public disclosure of such unions. The couple would then be lucky to be just deported instead of being thrown into jail asap, as per as and when it suits the authorities; let alone be honored or accepted by any terms of legal transfers. Dream on.

But, having the defeat of Prop 8 would be a great start for all civil liberties and a constitutional justice performed and unperverted by religious extremists.

Good Luck!
3. 2009-03-17 04:11  
i heard that LEE HSIEN LOONG is a closet case, is that true?
4. 2009-03-17 08:56  
"The measure was thought up by two college students"
how about doing some homework first ;-)

http://geneva.angloinfo.com/countries/switzerland/pacs.asp
5. 2009-03-17 10:03  
http://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/2009/01/when-is-incest-not-incest.html
6. 2009-03-17 11:25  
bobsis, the measure refers to the ballot measure not the concept of "domestic partnerships."
7. 2009-03-17 12:10  
"I'm not religious and I'm not gay, but I am concerned about equal rights," Ali Shams.
Why are there not more of rational straight people like Ali? Will the earth really blow up when gay marriage is approved? There are many more things to worry about, such as eradicating hunger/ poverty & income diaparity... religious authorities are, as usual- wasting their energy on the wrong 'target' (gay people).
8. 2009-03-17 16:28  
wow, this gets so little press these days in California, most people are more interested in Lindsey Lohan's DUI possible arrest status. . .

same-sex couples already have all the benefits of marriage through the state's civil union and lots of churches now recognize marriages as holy unions . . . so lots of progress has been made all around

but I hear lots of divorce lawyers are making a killing now too, so becareful what you wish for cause it will happen sooner than you think . . .
9. 2009-03-17 17:56  
wow, lagunabro...Lindsay Lohan????
My oh my, how the once-mighty Hollywood had fallen!!! :p Pitiful. But since I ain't American I wouldn't be presumptious & humbly take yr information at face value.

Still, if I'm not mistaken ,wasn't Schwarzenegger the guy responsible for vetoing the Bill bk in 2005??? Tsk,tsk....but hey, at least he ain't too bad for a Rupublican. Had some words of comfort for us like sharing how he learrnt to 'not give up' as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were initially too heavy for him:

"I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They (gay-marriage supporters) should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."


Sigh, what ironic- or sad- scenario.
A Conservative Republican who nevertheless can overlook differences & offer us some encouragement, while some of our very own glbt people are sadistically trying to tear our efforts to shreds???
10. 2009-03-18 00:41  
my brothers...
is that really important that we must get married someday?
no need lah...
massiage is stupid idea to "legalize" sexual activities for ancient people...
yeah...ANCIENT PEOPLE!!!
and totally suitable for heterosexual couple only
dont use their values into our homosexual relationship
but for me, though im not agree with this stupid gay marriage idea but i cant forbid it though
11. 2009-03-18 06:27  
Proposition 8 is all well and good, but it would be meaningless if we cannot apply the lessons locally.

With the whiff of general elections in the air, right or wrong, I wonder where gay Singaporeans stand with regards to the political party/ies they support.

The PAP is far more interested in protecting the feelings of its Christian fundamentalist cabinet ministers, MPs and its Christian fundamentalist support base; it's antagonistic towards gay rights, one or two friendlier voices notwisthstanding.

The SPP and WP are spectacular in their uselessness; three seats in Parliament and not a squeak from any of them, two of whom are lawyers.

The SDP - yes, that party painted by the MSM as extremist - is the first, and thus far the only party that is supportive of full equality for gays.

It's not unusual in advanced liberal democracies that gays rally around one party en masse, though never in complete totality. Shouldn't gay Singaporeans be logically rallying around the SDP?

There have been murmurs among some Singaporeans in the opposition parties' support base that gays are a self serving lot; they are essentially PAP supporters who will return to the PAP fold after their rights have been secured.

Are we going to prove those detractors right?

I know that the there is always this question: Will the SDP run in my constituency/GRC in the first place?

It's a valid question.

I propose another broad strategy instead: punish every political party who doesn't support gay rights by spoiling your vote.

Thus, if the WP runs in your constituency/GRC, you may want to spoil your vote since neither party supports your rights.

However, if the SDP runs in your constituency/GRC, you may want to reward the party, SDP, by voting for them.

There is however a very real fear among Singaporeans that your vote is not secret. If that is the case with you, then spoiling your vote - if you want to punish the PAP even if you cannot reward the SDP - will still be a workable strategy: it will draw votes away from the PAP and bring the tally closer to the SDP's, say, so that the SDP still has a fighting chance.

I would be interested in feedback. (The catty need not apply.)
12. 2009-03-18 09:50  
dear, who wants to get married in California anyway. . . I went to a couple of wedding s there already and none were as nice as the one I went to in Nantucket Mass . .. its a quaint little island about 98 miles from Boston and gay marriage is not an issue there at all, plus the sea side and quaint colonial villages are great, drive into Boston later . .. if Americans want to get married, it is the new hot spot to go to . . .they even have a nice Polo Club on the island for ball and stick practice before and after the wedding events....
13. 2009-03-18 11:02  
advanced liberal democracy ? a despotic family dynasty regime with citizens r literally more like zombies - only source of 'happiness' comes from money or anything associated with the west. advance liberal democracy? sounds like opium shanghai triad to me....
14. 2009-03-19 00:22  
zamani7979, I wasn't even remotely suggesting that Singapore is an advanced liberal democracy - my psychologist has given me a clean bill of health, you know.

Instead I am proposing a movement towards that goal, and the role that gay Singaporeans can play in that process.
15. 2009-03-19 04:33  
certainly, as any psychologically healthy citizen would push for democracy and transparency first, rather than pushing for an agenda for a tiny minority that will not come to reality under the authoritarian regime. thats what happened in an advanced liberal democracy anyway. things take time, u dont build a concrete jungle today and tomorrow u say ur in a first world.
16. 2009-03-20 16:00  
It is refreshing to see that California is completely filled with Christian right bigots, there are some intelligent and thinking people there who can solve problems. However, until there is complete right to form domestic partnerships or marriages or whatever for US citizens with noncitizens and sponsor their immigration then we will have to keep on campaigning for our rights.

Still quite impressed with the creative thinking though
17. 2009-03-20 16:01  
oops should have proofread my comment, should have said, It is refreshing to see that California is NOT completely filled with Christian right bigots"

sorry.

請先登入再使用此功能。

Social


請選擇新聞及專欄版本

精選個人檔案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

讚好

合作夥伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement