This November’s anti-gay-marriage amendment is only 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Its that word “only” that gives the amendment its teeth. Everyone already knows that marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized, as long as they follow the right procedure and neither one is already married. Taken literally it not only invalidates gay marriages (and domestic partnerships?) past present and future, it also invalidates everything (except marriage between a man and a woman).
Suppose after the amendment passes I want to question the validity of the Service Employee’s International Union. They would show up for bargaining some day, and I would advise my client to disregard them altogether. The SEIU is not valid or recognized in California. The SEIU is not a marriage between a man and a woman. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Therefore, the SEIU is not valid or recognized in California. Don’t bother trying to form a new labor union. If it is not a marriage between a man and a woman, it will not be recognized or valid in California.
Driving home from the polls might be a problem after the anti-marriage amendment passes, if your driver’s license is invalid for not being a marriage between a man and a woman, and there may be no home to go to as the deed to your house was not a marriage between a man and a woman. Most people will not be too sad to hear that their debt to Providian is no longer valid or recognized, but some of the fun will come out of the news if the bank that has your money is no longer bound by the deposit agreement. You rush to the invalid court and complain to the unrecognized judge about your deposit agreement. The judge holds the deposit agreement up to the light, and takes out his reading glasses. “This does not look to me like a marriage between a man and a woman. It looks like a deposit agreement. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
That would only happen if your judge is a strict constructionist.
How do the advocates of this proposition plan to make gay people whole for the marital benefit that they pay for but don’t get from Social Security? Why do married couples get a “marital deduction” for estate tax purposes on the first death and the gay couple does not? Everyone should be equal in the eyes of government. I just don’t get how so many people can be so un-American.
Andy Favor
73rd Assembly District Candidate
http://www.AndyFavor.com
Way to hit the Juice with a splash, St. John! Better hope if this thing passes we don’t have too many strict constructionist judges. Hey wait, isn’t that what McCain said he’d appoint? (Or was that just a promise to get thru the Republican primary?)
For reals, I’m with Favor here: a very un-American proposition, and hopefully the last gasp of a form of quasi-racism (folks are born gay) which will soon be universally scorned.
Its the unintended consequences of legal actions that makes it wise to use professionals who are versed in the law to draft legislation and contracts. Absurd results (often in the eye of the beholder) are in fact common. The Supreme Court recently struck down one such attempt because it was unconstitutional.
Of course trying to legislate discrimination is difficult since the constitution considers all persons to be created equal. If you want to modify something you might want to change that pesky phrase. I warn you though to pack a lunch and plan to stay the night because changing that one will be a long uphill battle for all you poor discriminated against married hetrosexual christians.
Great post Ron! Welcome aboard the Orange Juice blog team.
For the uninitiated, Ron ran against Dana Rohrabacher on Tuesday, in the GOP primary for the 42nd Congressional District. Now he is blogging for us! I look forward to reading his posts as I am sure you all will too.
BTW, Ron is an attorney, in case you have not figured that out.
Welcome aboard Ron.
SMS
Vern,
Do I detect a softening in your opposition to private social security accounts so that a gay person could will his account to who ever he wishes upon death? If you don’t support private accounts, you advocate an injustice against gays in my humble opinion.
Andy
Andy,
You are a bit off base with your comment regarding social security.
Social security is an example of perfect equality – everyone’s money reverts to the government.
There are no private social security accounts that may be willed – gay or straight.
Brilliant! And here’s another thought: there are four different parts of the California Constitution that require marriage equality, according to the official interpreters of the State Constitution, the California Supreme Court. While the People may amend the Constitution by initiative, it may be *revised* only by a super-majority of the Legislature, following a Constitutional Convention. That bigoted initiative that’s just been certified for the November ballot may be completely useless.
For an in-depth legal analysis of this argument, check out
http://blogcabinca.org/2008/05/21/can-an-initiative-abolish-constitutional-rights/
Ron St. John,
That is exactly what supporters of the Marriage Amendment are looking for, anarchy, right !
I don’t think so. It is clear that the amendment is referring to marriage only.
To read it any other way is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.
To “From a Conservative”
I could not get the government’s SS web site to open. But here is a synopsis that I found from another site that I think is accurate:
SOCIAL SECURITY SURVIVOR’S BENEFITS
When you think of Social Security, you probably think of retirement. However, Social Security can also provide much-needed income to your family members when you die, making their financial lives easier.
Your family may be entitled to receive survivor’s benefits based on your work recordWhen you die, certain members of your family may be eligible to receive survivor’s benefits (based on your earnings record) if you worked, paid Social Security taxes, and earned enough work credits. The number of credits you need depends on your age when you die. The younger you are when you die, the fewer credits you’ll need for survivor’s benefits. However, no one needs more than 40 credits (10 years of work) to be “fully insured” for benefits. And under a special rule, if you’re only “currently insured” at the time of your death (i.e., you have 6 credits in the 13 quarters prior to your death), your children and your spouse who is caring for them can still receive benefits.
Survivor’s benefits may be paid to:
Your spouse age 60 or older (50 or older if disabled)
Your spouse at any age, if caring for your child who is under age 16 or disabled
Your ex-spouse age 60 or over (50 or older if disabled) who was married to you for at least 10 years
Your ex-spouse at any age, if caring for your child who is under age 16 or disabled
Your unmarried children under 18
Your unmarried children under 19, if attending school full time (up to grade 12)
Your dependent parents age 62 or older
This is a general overview–the rules are more complex. For more information on eligibility requirements, contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) at (800) 772-1213.
Andy’s comments:
It says the benefit could be paid to a spouse. The gay life partner is out in the cold.
Private SS Accounts would solve this inequity. If you oppose private SS Accounts, you oppose equality in the eyes of government in my humble opinion.
If you want to fix that, I need support in my campaign.
Andy Favor
73rd Assembly District Candidate
http://www.AndyFavor.com
Andy – Perhaps we have a point of agreement. I am all for privatizing social security for everyone.
Will that do it?
To From A Conservative,
That is great. But we need to force the politicians to pledge to privatize it. I need your endorsement and letters to the editor in support of my campaign or even the discussion of private accounts will never see the light of day.
I know it is odd for a state assembly candidate to campaign on the SS issue. I had thought it was a 14th ammendment issue for the equality issues noted above. But an attorney friend of mine said we could get private accounts by taking a 10th ammendment approach. So I am going for it making this my number one issue.
Best regards,
Andy
I know, we allow people to define themselves as spouses under the law, we make marriage a religious term and issue licenses for civil unions. You know, separation of church and state?
“From a conservative” is right. There are lots of reasons a court could give the anti-marriage amendment a common sense interpretation and avoid the absurd, literal result. Then it would only attempt invalidate gay marriages (probably leaving alone the pink ghetto of domestic partnerships) and it would only be invalid because of the procedure (its a revision that can’t be done by initiative) and because of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from denying citizens equal protection.
Ron,
A “revision” to the state constitution refers to a “complete revision” – in other words changing the whole thing. This is clearly a single issue, an amendment. Sorry, that argument will not fly either.
The US Supreme Court has steadfastly declined to review state’s gay marriage laws, with every indication that they view this as a state issue. This constitutional amendment should be no different.