Topic: Gay Marriage

The tyranny of the majority

By David W. Shelton | June 17, 2008 |

I recently read an article by Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle on Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the decision which granted same-sex marriage for California gay couples. It was an in-depth story on the life of this man, and what led to his ultimate belief that equality for all people is a fundamental, constitutional right. One particular segment stood out to me.

In the article, Egelko outlines how George and three other California Supreme Court justices pulled from another marriage quality issue from history, interracial marriage:

George’s same-sex ruling relied heavily on the court’s 1948 decision on interracial marriage, written by a renowned liberal, Justice Roger Traynor. No other state’s court had ever recognized a constitutional right for interracial couples to marry, and the U.S. Supreme Court did not do so until 1967.

A lesson from that case, George said in the interview, was that laws denying “certain basic rights could not be justified just because of history and tradition.”

He recalled a trip with his parents to the still-segregated South as a teenager, when he was shocked to see whites-only signs on drinking fountains and restroom doors.

“It sensitized me to the fact there are minorities of all sorts of types who can be victimized by the majority,” George said. Protecting vulnerable minorities, he said, is “one of the purposes of the courts and of our Constitution.”

«Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Opinion | No Comments

California’s Proposition 22 struck down

By David W. Shelton | May 15, 2008 |

BREAKING NEWS

SACRAMENTO— In a ruling delivered today by the California Supreme Court, Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, was deemed to be unconstitutional. The 4-3 decision was delivered today at 10:00 AM PST.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George said:

“…in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

The full text of the decision and its dissents can be read here.

Sections: News, Politics | 3 Comments

My problems with (King?) Bush

By David W. Shelton | July 6, 2007 |

In 2000, we were met with a very interesting choice for President of the United States. The Clinton administration was coming to a close with Vice President Al Gore emerging as the heir-apparent. Gore was everything that Clinton was not, apparently. Gore was from Tennessee (he had a home in Carthage), he was a successful senator, and now had a bird’s-eye view of the Federal government as Vice President of the United States.

Alas, Gore also had the appearance of being a stodgy dullard with no personality whatsoever. Further, Americans weren’t too sure about electing yet another member of the Executive branch that might have been a part of “Monicagate” (or is that “Lewinskygate?”). Gore was perceived as an “evil” liberal, and talk radio show hosts had a field day with his lack of charisma.

Enter the popular governor of Texas, the only Republican who could have unseated the equally-popular Democrat, the late Anne Richards. George W. Bush was well-liked, had a sense of southern charm, and loved to wink at audiences. He instantly rose to stardom as the Republican nominee for President in the 2000 election. His message of “compassionate conservatism” won the hearts of the media as well as voters. He won my vote as well. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Opinion, Politics | 7 Comments

Gay Marriage Debate to air on NewsChannel 5+ Tonight!

By David W. Shelton | October 24, 2006 |

As reported on Out & About Newspaper’s website:

A live debate will air on NewsChannel 5+ (cable channel 50) on Tuesday, Oct. 24 at 7 p.m.  between Randy Tarkington, campaign manager of Vote No on One and David Fowler, president of the Family Action Council of Tennessee.

Chris Clark will moderate the debate, which will air as part of Openline. The show will reair on Tuesday at 10 p.m. and Wednesday at 11 a.m. Click here for the rest of the article.

Sections: Issues, Politics | No Comments

Why marriage matters, personal stories from real Tennesseans: Jason & Steven

By Bill Larson | October 15, 2006 |

Steven & Jason
Nashville, TN
1 year together

We met for the first time 9 years ago, and up until a year ago, we dated off and on. Last year, we decided to get serious. Not being able to get married worries us because we aren’t getting the same legal rights as everyone else. We can’t have the same insurance, and if something were to happen to either of us, a life insurance policy wouldn’t be able to help the other. We won’t be able to see each other in the hospital if something serious happens, and without a ton of legal documents and fees, we won’t be able to make decisions for the other if we need to.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9091899728395436929

Visit the Vote no on 1 Tennessee website for more information.

Sections: Issues, Politics | No Comments

Why marriage matters, personal stories from real Tennesseans: David & John

By Bill Larson | October 9, 2006 |

The story of John and David, togeather 22 years. Why marriage matters, personal stories from real Tennesseans.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8431210389748126190

Visit the Vote no on 1 Tennessee website for more information.

Sections: Politics | No Comments

Why marriage matters, personal stories from real Tennesseans: Nancy & Joan

By Bill Larson | October 2, 2006 |

Nancy & Joan from Madison, TN. Together for 18 years. Vote no on 1 Tennessee!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5658784208467891458

«Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Issues, Politics | 1 Comment »

Another view on Amendment 1

By Michael Covington | September 2, 2006 |

This is in response to a Same-sex marriages open Pandora’s Box in the opinion section of The Leaf Chronicle which appearing on Saturday 8/26/06 on the subject of Amendment 1 by Beth Sabel. Here is my response to her letter.

“I was truly saddened to hear of your post on how you feel that this will “open Pandora’s Box.”

To amend the wording to state “one person and one person” would not change any stipulations on how many persons, which family members, or which species could marry. It would simply change the gender of the two persons marrying. «Read the rest of this article»

Sections: Issues, Politics | No Comments