Calif. Ponders Gay Marriage For Inmates

[audtatious]

Now that same-sex couples can get married in California, state prison officials are trying to figure out what that means for gay inmates.

No prisoners so far have sought to arrange weddings with same-sex partners since the state Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to wed as of mid-June, according to Michele Kane, spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Nonetheless, department lawyers are drafting guidelines to bring the state's 33 adult prisons into compliance with the court's ruling that same-sex couples must be treated the same as opposite-sex couples under the California Constitution, Kane said.

What they have determined so far is that would mean allowing gay inmates to marry someone on the outside, but not a fellow prisoner - the same rules that apply to straight inmates, according to Kane.

"They will have the same marriage rights as other inmates - they will be able to marry non-inmates, but barred from marrying other inmates in prison," she said.

Prison officials were concerned that allowing two men or two women in the same prison to get married would pose novel safety and security concerns, according to Kane.

"For instance, suppose a prisoner finds out another prisoner has money or other assets. They might find themselves coerced into a marriage with a more powerful inmate who might try to lay claim to half their assets," she said.

Department lawyers also are recommending that prison chaplains relinquish the job of performing weddings for inmates once the proposed policies take effect, Kane said. Turning over the rituals to outside officiants would not put chaplains who may oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds in the position of presiding over some ceremonies and not others, she said.

If approved by the division that oversees adult prisons, the rule prohibiting two inmates from marrying would mirror the prison policy in Massachusetts, the only other U.S. state where same-sex marriage is legal.

Last year, California became the first state to allow conjugal visits and overnight stays for inmates with same-sex partners in the civilian population, Kane said. The department does not keep a tally of how many prisoners have taken advantage of the spousal bonus since then.

The department also does not have a recent count of how many of the 125,000 adults in its custody get married each year. Anecdotally, an average of two weddings each month take place at the medium security prison in Solano that houses just over 6,047 inmates, according to Kane.

Donald Specter, director of the nonprofit Prison Law Office, which monitors the rights of California inmates, said he did not agree that allowing two prisoners of the same sex to marry created special security concerns.

But as long as the guidelines that corrections officials develop apply to all inmates regardless of their sexual orientation, they will be hard to argue with, Specter said.

"The law requires they treat people the same, so that's a good principle to have in mind when they are drafting regulations," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...96700

[AZhitman]

Freakin' California....

[themadscientist]

Can we vote California out of the union? Seriously. we need a fence between California nad the rest of America more than the border with Mexico; keep all the craziness over there.

[Beancooker]

Really guys, what's wrong with that? We have to look after the best interests of those poor incarcerated people. You know it's YOUR fault they're locked up. They're a product of their environment, and had NO CHOICE, but to commit the crime that they were wrongly convicted of.

We are trying to rehabilitate them, so this seems like a great first step. It will give these poor impoverished people a person they can build a foundation of trust with. That will be the first stepping stone in building a prosperous life.

[AZhitman]

Well, if they're gonna be boinking each other in the bum, may as well make it "official".



Go, California!

[audtatious]

Really guys, what's wrong with that? We have to look after the best interests of those poor incarcerated people. You know it's YOUR fault they're locked up. They're a product of their environment, and had NO CHOICE, but to commit the crime that they were wrongly convicted of.

Dude, think of their kids! If they have kids it's criminal for the US Justice Department to take them away for simply breaking the law.

Or does that only pertain to the kids of illegal aliens?

[themadscientist]

Big d**** in your a** is bad for your health

[rn79870]

California has a Prop 8 on the ballot this November. It seeks to change the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thusly overturning the decision of the California Supreme court last May granting same sex couples the right to marry.

The proponents of that measure claim it will destroy marriage for "normal" married couples as well as causing problems with private organizations, such as churches, that traditionally forbid same sex unions.

I could give a crap about it. It doesn't effect me one way or another. It doesn't take anything from my marriage, nor does it add anything. It simply has no effect on me. If homosexuals want to marry, be it in prison, or the Whitehouse, so what. I used to think differently, but since June, here in CA, the world hasn't ended and the sun still shines. Now, I don't care.

I would rather see the Department of Corrections designing permanent homes for prisoners with welded shut gates, but still, I don't really care what floats their boat.

Typically, what starts in CA ends up moving to other states.

[HashiriyaS14]

Whatever, people should be legally allowed to marry their cats if they want.

Why do I care? How does it effect me?

I don't think anyone should be allowed to marry while in prison though, gay or straight. If you're in prison, you don't get to do shxt like that, IMO.

[srellim234]

My background- 30th wedding anniversary was Tuesday. Three kids, 24,8,6. Out of all our relatives a niece from my side and a nephew from the other side of the family are gay and living with their significant others. One relatives in the family (I'm not going to identify gay or straight) is HIV+.

Both have very loving and supportive relationships. You cannot judge the entire homosexual community by the nutcases you see dressed up in the parades in San Francisco. Most are blended into our society, working hard at jobs in all walks of life including the military. Yes, they are fighting and dying for us. They pay taxes, too.

My personal opinion is that the government needs to get out of the marraige business. It is a religious issue and the lines are too blurred betwen marraige and civil unions. In some countries you actually get "married" twice. The civil union is in front of a judge or a justice of the peace. Later the religious ceremony takes place. If we are going to have seperation of church and state, let the state do the civil unions and let the churches decide the religious issue of marraige.

Then we can have a rational discussion as to who should be eligible for civil unions.

[Jimefam]

I thought thats how it is here? I got married two years ago in florida and me and my wife had to go to court first get our marriage certificate then we had the church thing like 3 days later. The government shouldn't legislate morality period. That is why the founders of this country worked hard to get the separation of church and state into our constitution. That is just being destroyed now by the republican party.

[themadscientist]

I am ok with civil unions but the title of "marriage" should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. Two gay dudes need many of the same tools a legal union brings that a "traditional" couple would but they should not be legitamized with the title of "married".

[OriginalWheelman]

I thought thats how it is here? I got married two years ago in florida and me and my wife had to go to court first get our marriage certificate then we had the church thing like 3 days later. The government shouldn't legislate morality period. That is why the founders of this country worked hard to get the separation of church and state into our constitution. That is just being destroyed now by the republican party.

Separation of church and state is nowhere in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Read them sometime. As has been covered many times separation of church and state is a spin on the first amendment which states that there shall be no established religion. It does not mean government without religion, that is communism.

[OriginalWheelman]

Typically, what starts in CA ends up moving to other states.

Agreed, and there in lies the problem.

[Jimefam]

Separation of church and state is nowhere in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Read them sometime. As has been covered many times separation of church and state is a spin on the first amendment which states that there shall be no established religion. It does not mean government without religion, that is communism.

No spin, its well documented that jefferson said the first amendments reference to religion was intended to create a "wall of separation" between church and state. And as far as communism and a separation of church and state being the same thats . In communism the state outlaws the practice of religion. All a separation means is the government cannot interfere with matters pertaining to religion. For example, in the case of separation a government cannot outlaw the practice of religion like in communism. The way communism addresses religion is the complete opposite of a system that separates church and state. Nice try though

[szh]

I am ok with civil unions but the title of "marriage" should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman.

I am curious: why? This is not meant to be antagonistic at all. I just want to understand your reason for the above statement.

Two gay dudes

Or dudettes.

need many of the same tools a legal union brings that a "traditional" couple would but they should not be legitamized with the title of "married".

(I am not commenting on the OP inmate situation here in my comments) ...

One problem, I think, is that a civil union does not have the same "benefits" as marriage. In many states, as well in some Federal laws, the rights of people in these "civil unions" is different (and usually curtailed) from those who are "married".

That is the stated reason for the efforts to allow gay "marriages". Because the word has meanings and connotations and rights/laws that are not otherwise applied.

And, finally, it denies the right of some people to enter into the emotional aspects of "marriage". I am not gay, but I can appreciate that, as human beings, gays and lesbians can have the same, strong emotional attachment to the concept of marriage. To wanting to be married. To have the same emotional "being married" status that I have with my wife.

Who am/are I/we to deny them that right?

Z

[audtatious]

Who am/are I/we to deny them that right?

Z

Allow Polygamy as well?

[Jimefam]

Allow Polygamy as well?

I honestly cant see any reason as to why not allow a guy to have x amount of wives or the reverse. As long as everyone is an ADULT and consents who give a ****. We spend far to much time in this country worrying about what other people do.

[themadscientist]

I am curious: why? This is not meant to be antagonistic at all. I just want to understand your reason for the above statement.

Or dudettes.

(I am not commenting on the OP inmate situation here in my comments) ...

One problem, I think, is that a civil union does not have the same "benefits" as marriage. In many states, as well in some Federal laws, the rights of people in these "civil unions" is different (and usually curtailed) from those who are "married".

That is the stated reason for the efforts to allow gay "marriages". Because the word has meanings and connotations and rights/laws that are not otherwise applied.

And, finally, it denies the right of some people to enter into the emotional aspects of "marriage". I am not gay, but I can appreciate that, as human beings, gays and lesbians can have the same, strong emotional attachment to the concept of marriage. To wanting to be married. To have the same emotional "being married" status that I have with my wife.

Who am/are I/we to deny them that right?

Z

A union is a legal arrangement, a marriage is socially recognized institution that for the length of its existence has been the formula of one man and one woman. Grantded by way of the european model but America was founded by predominantly people from that area with that paradigm. Certainly many civilizations and cultures have a different model.

If the aim is legal protection then that can be accomplished without the mainstream legitimizing title of "married". I beleive that this is less about the legal aspect with the foot soldiers of this movement as it is getting the title. Gay marriage is not mainstream, it is not normal, sorry about that. As such they don't get the title.

I do beleive though that if two dudes, two chicks, a dude and a mule, two chicks, a dude and a lawn chaair want to hook up that is their business and if they truly are some sort of couple and live together then they should be entitled to certain rights so give them some form of civil union.

[OriginalWheelman]

No spin, its well documented that jefferson said the first amendments reference to religion was intended to create a "wall of separation" between church and state.

Where? Prove it.

[themadscientist]

Where? Prove it.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jeff...0.htm

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

Happy?

[OriginalWheelman]

http://etext.virginia.edu/jeff...0.htm

Happy?

A letter Jefferson wrote is not a legally binding document. Just because Jefferson wanted it that way does not mean it is that way. Article 1 reads as follows...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say that there should be a wall of separation. Jefferson's opinion on the subject does not make it so. It was not Jefferson's own bill of rights, several men helped create it. It was, in fact, not even Jefferson's idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...ights

Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

Jefferson wasn't even in the country at the time.

Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as Ambassador to France, wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights

Next.

[themadscientist]

First you asked me to prove Jefferson said it. I shut you down there. You then fall back to him not being involved in the constitution which is true. However I think quotes from a prominent man of the time carries great weight. You think it doesn't so let's just dispense with the foreplay, shall we?http://www.jmu.edu/madison/cen...s.htm

I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822 (Madison, 1865, III, page 265)

He wrote the damned thing!

[HashiriyaS14]

Allow Polygamy as well?

Yeah, why not? What does it have to do with me?

I have no problem with people practicing polygamy, but obviously it should still be illegal for them to practice it with anyone who's underage (as they seem to like to do).

[AZhitman]

I think the POINT of the matter is this:

With all else going on in our country, CA has the time and resources to dedicate to this?

Inmates can't vote, possess a firearm, hold elected office or go to the 3pm matinee... why is marriage even being discussed?

Someone with some hair on their balls needs to step up and say:

"NO. Next issue."

Simple.

[rn79870]

Greg, it's that pesky thing called the constitution. California has one and it requires all her citizens to have equal rights. Maybe the proper complaint should be against the laws that do not remove ALL civil rights from an inmate. They still have the right to own property, to marry, to procreate, to write their elected officials, etc.

[AZhitman]

Agreed, and I'd hoped you'd say that.

Is someone pressing this issue, or is it more a matter of wanting to make sure all the "loose ends" are wrapped up?

No pun intended, I swear.

[audtatious]

Yeah, why not? What does it have to do with me?

I have no problem with people practicing polygamy, but obviously it should still be illegal for them to practice it with anyone who's underage (as they seem to like to do).

What about from a legal perspective? You can have groups of people (polyamory) intermarrying each other and throwing out kids then have one divorce one person but not another who may be intermarried to another person married to the same people (polygamy + Polyandry). What about kids in these scenarios, you don't think there can be a negative psychological issue with it? Should be interesting drama for shows like Montel.

Bah, aint gonna happen and I'm just being an idot fear-monger as "It takes a village" to raise a child. Then again, 50 years ago nobody would have thought gay marriage would have ever been an issue either.

[szh]

Greg, it's that pesky thing called the constitution. California has one and it requires all her citizens to have equal rights. Maybe the proper complaint should be against the laws that do not remove ALL civil rights from an inmate.

An interesting point for sure.

They still have the right to own property, to marry, to procreate, to write their elected officials, etc.

They do lose the right to vote for example!

Z

[szh]

Allow Polygamy as well?

Surprisingly enough, I would be okay with that AS LONG AS the people involved were adults and made consenting decisions.

The problems stem from the fact that the girls (and, yes, it is usually one male - more than one female) are generally underage and not been given the proper information to make an adult consent. Without the benefit of understanding that it would be okay to say "No" too.

Z