-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/california_supreme_court_overrules_gay_marriage_ban -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
[quote]What I am concerned about, however, is the legislative process and the way it's being usurped by the judiciary.[/quote]
I don't suppose that you actually read this 176 page decision, so I'll quote the most important part of it to you:
[quote]The legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples... but whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship... but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a "marriage" whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a "domestic partnership."[/quote]
The court is merely deciding whether the Californian CONSTITUTION allows California to give EQUAL RIGHTS to two different types of parties but call those parties different names.
There is no "legislative usurping" here, the Constitution is already legislated, it is the court's job to make sure that the state legislature does not pass laws that conflict with its own rules.
If the people of California are unhappy with this ruling, they can always vote to update their constitution. That would be the democratic way of doing it. So...
[quote]how can a group of justices invested with no legislative power possibly have justification to eschew the clearly expressed will of Californians? [/quote]
They were invested, by the legislature, with the power to make the legislature follow its own laws.
There is no "right" to get married, only requirements to be able to do so. The Court has clearly changed the requirements, with no legislation to support that.
Can you please quote for me the portion of the California constitution which provides for marriage of any sort being a "right?"
Yeah, didn't think so.
This is minority rule(and a very small minority at that), imposed on the voters by agendized judges. It's not the American Way of doing things; it's more in line with a dictatorship.
Homosexuals are not interested in being married, the data demonstrates that they do not want to be bound to one sexual partner. Rather, they want to destroy the institution of marriage and its Judeo-Christian roots to avoid any sense of social shame for their perverse sexual lifestyle choices and of course any concept of Divine Judgment against homosexual conduct.
The people of California are gathering names for a petition to amend the state constitution to ban homosexual marriage, but Governor SchwarzenKennedy has said he will not support it, giving lie to his former public statements that he did not support homosexual marriage.
Conservatives had a chance to change America back to a true Representive Republic, but they got drunk with power and even outspent liberals and now for decades, if not forever, we the American people will be forced to submit to the Left's dream of a socialist utopia in this nation and we will day by day lose our liberty.
The Initiative process is written by the voters behind the initiative and the California Supreme Court, as it has in the past, will simply say some words are unconstitutional and throw it out and overrule the people. I know, I live in this craphole!
[quote]Can you please quote for me the portion of the California constitution which provides for marriage of any sort being a "right?"[/quote]
I don't need to, though a right can be inferred from the fact that marriage is given extra rights in Cal. Const. Articles 1 and 13a. Regardless, the state legislature passed a law making that right: [b]Cal. Fam. Code §297.5[/b]
The question before the court is whether applying that law to same-sex couples but denying them the right to label it a "marriage" is a violation of California's Equal Protection Clause:
[quote]Cal. Art. 1 SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws[/quote]
The court found that forcing two couples to call the [b]SAME RIGHTS[/b] by two different names violates their equal protection rights. Agree with gay marriage or not, the logic here is simple.
If Californians don't like it, they should update their civil union statute (above) to not confer rights to same-sex couples. In fact, the court explicitly noted that it does not rule on whether or not same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry -- so the above law doesn't need to exist in the first place. Once they passed it, they put themselves in this position.
Wait 'til President Obama starts naming Justices to the high court and hundreds to the federal bench around the country.
Barack Obama must not be allowed to win this election.
I don't see how you can impute that to my reasoning. I wrote, quite clearly, that whether or not it is in the constitution is irrelevant because [b]California passed a law that gave gay civil couples the SAME rights as straight "married" couples.[/b]
The court's reasoning is that if you gave them the [b]EQUAL[/b] rights, it is not [b]EQUAL[/b] protection to force them to call those rights by different names. My conclusion being that if the Californians don't like it, they shouldn't have passed Cal. Fam. Code §297.5.
So please, next time read through my post and churn it in your head a bit before you use it to pander your anti-gay-marriage views. I don't care about your views, I only care to point out that the judicial decision here was fair and in accordance with the law.
In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call
their unions marriages. But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of
Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. [b]This
court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do
so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must disse[/b]nt[/quote]. Yet another court decision unsupported by law. So much for democratic rule...
In a vote, we usually don't use the MINORITY dissenting opinion to support the idea that the MAJORITY opinion was wrong... you know, logic and all.
I just read through that dissent, it doesn't even address the majority's reasoning. It picks at the majority's dicta and argues with that instead. I guess he figured he could get away with it when majority decided to write a 130 page opinion that others were not likely to read...
As for the whole "rights" business, Charlio and Hairy Polemic already had the exact same right to marry as me or anyone else did, regardless of their sexual orientations. What they have now, at least in CA and MA, is a special right, because of their orientation.
You want a second class marriage? Be my guest -- marry someone of your own gender and tell yourself that separate really is "equal" after all.
The shit will hit the fan as soon as the homos demand a Christian church marriage.
Neither that or we can always kill all the judges.
Thanks for your tolerance of diverse views(/sarcasm). There is no "right" to marriage, as it is conditional on various requirements, unlike real rights, which are granted to every adult American.
This word parsing is pure shit, and I expect the people of CA, who voted over 60% to resist changing the definition of marriage to suit a small minority pressure group, will defeat this latest leftie attempt to destroy the fabric of our society.
BTW, I don't think there's anything wrong with you for disagreeing with me; you're just wrong on the law.
Obviously Rob, you need a civics lesson.
Courts are not legislatures.
Go look it up, it's true.
More like - fine, the citizens don't have to recognize something they don't want to recognize.
There's nothing in California's state constitution that guarantees a right to marriage, and the people's will in this instance is clearly expressed.
This country was founded on the idea that the people govern themselves. The folks in California are having a hard time with that what with these judges sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.
Rose Bird was only 63 when she died nearly 9 years ago, but her legacy lives on.
The fact that the "Democratic" party has "delegates" and "superdelegates" designed to override the will of the people shows that.
That's ridiculous.
The "seperate but equal" argument doesn't work. The reason the court struck down those laws are because there was no equality. But by your own admission, the two "classes" both have equal rights. So much for "it's not equal".
Um, to the best of my knowledge, high courts exists to determine the constitutionality of an act, action or lower court ruling.
Applying the will of the people is properly a legislative or executive function.
I don't believe the Supreme Court rulings in [i]Marbury v. Madison[/i], [i]Brown v. Board of Education[/i], and [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] equaled 176 pages combined!
If it takes that long to justify a ruling, something is mighty wrong.
Sophistry and pedantry can kill lots of trees, Bat.
Thank God we have the UN to protect us... and the trees!
You are almost the perfect republican.
bedroom but I understand that not everyone sees it that way.[/quote]
This is about marriage, not "the bedroom". If all it takes is sex to make a marriage, we might as well call all the heterosexual couples living together "married"; it's the same thing. Marriage is about a whole lot more than simply what goes on in the bedroom.
This is about a small minority hijacking an institution that is as old as civilization itself.
Wrong again, Lestat; only against the will of the criminals, not the ones the law protects from the criminals. Lynching was a tactic of the Dem terrorist group, the KKK.
You're the perfect leftie: supporter of terrorism against Republicans in the South, and soft on criminals.
Let me explain in small words.
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the majority. It has no other purpose in a democracy, where the majority controls the government.
Actually the whole purpose of the Bill of rights was to protect what the majority believed to be God given rights from the temporary whim of society.
Considering the BoR were passed by an overwhelming majority, pointing to them as a counter example of "the will of the people" is folly.
'Undeterred by state, federal law, new constitutional right invented'[/quote]
That's hilarious.
And no, "superdelegates" are unique to the Democrat party. They make up about 20 percent of the delegates and have only been around since the 1980's.
But you already knew that because you're not an idiot.
The government is in the bedroom? Holy shit!
Meanwhile, in the real world - this issue is about whether the state will or will not recognize a contract. The bedroom, anybodies bedroom, has nothing to do with anything.
Mike, maybe you can hook up with Puzzlefeet there and you two can concoct your own realities together. Puzzlefeet can go on thinking that the Republicans have superdelegates and you can go on thinking that marriage = bedroom.
So much hostility.
Here's what Rob said:
Now what would "the will of the people" be?
The law, perhaps?
Who represents "the will of the people"?
The various representatives and the people themselves through direct issue ballot measures.
Now what is the court's job?
To apply the law AKA the will of the people.
Rob was right.
Rob especially:
[quote]There's nothing in California's state constitution that guarantees a right to marriage, and the people's will in this instance is clearly expressed.[/quote]
I already pointed out to you that [b]Cal. Fam. Code §297.5[/b] grants the right. It's not in the constitution, but rights are not limited to what is in the constitution -- people can make laws too. The constitution, via equal protection, necessitates that Cal. Fam. Code §297.5 apply equally to all couples. The people are perfectly within their rights to express their wills by repealing said law.
[b]Once again, the majority EXPLICITLY writes that its decision does not touch on whether or not there is a constitutional right to marriage. So what is your hang-up on this constitutional argument? Why do you keep talking about the constitution and marriage rights?[/b]
I know that you want to be "right", but to disagree with something in full face of opposing facts is just plain bad pool. You're beginning to make me think that your favorite peroration is "nyah nyah."
[b]The court said that if you grant gay couples a civil union right, equal protection prevents you from forcing them not to call that right a marriage. [/b]
Lesson: If your state is against gay marriage, don't grant a civil union right.
Wrong again. The express purpose of not only the Bill of Rights, but of the entire Constitution is to limit the power of the govt(the minority) over the people of the United States(the majority). I know you don't know this, but neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights is a partisan political document, even though you ignorant and stupid lefties are trying real hard to politicize it.
"Forcing them"? All laws force criminals to stop their criminal and antisocial activities; does your version of "equal protection" stop us from fighting crime?
Now you're being ridiculous.
[quote]The Court did not say that gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage.[/quote]
Maybe you had better inform all those celebrating gay couples, then. They think it does.
Please consult Federalist #11 and #51. That is as much free education as I will give you. After this, you'll be getting invoices.
I cite the Law of the Land, you cite opinions. I don't remember the Supreme Court giving any rulings on the Federalist Papers. You can spin them any way you want, there is no "right" to be married, if you don't meet the requirements. End of story.
Your tiny minority wants to change one requirement(the most basic one) to suit your selfish reasons, at the expense of all the rest of us.
BTW, do you have any numbers on the actual percentage of gay people who even want to hijack the institution of marriage for themselves?
This whole so-called "gay marriage" flap is really over politics, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the benefit of the vast majority who isn't "gay".
Yep RZ. So they had to rule in accordance with the equal protection clause of their constitution. The court said that if the state makes a law that grants gay couples the same union rights as straight couples, it would not be equal protection to call those rights by a different name.
[quote]I cite the Law of the Land, you cite opinions. [/quote]
You didn't cite anything. I gave you a reference where you can go and look up Madison's actual, explicitly written reasons for the Bill of Rights. Do you even know what the Federalist Papers are?
I actually [i]cited[/i] something earlier on:
[b]Cal. Fam. Code §297.5[/b]
(Notice my elegant use of abbreviation -- [url=http://www.legalbluebook.com/]bluebook[/url] style.)
[quote]The Court did not say that gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage. [/quote]Perhaps, hairy, but the good people in California are about to rectify that. We in Texas have already passed a state constitution amendment to afix marriage as ONLY between 1 man and 1 women. That should nullify the courts decision. If I got it right, the constitution of a state is the supreme law overulting any legislative or judicial actions to the contrary. I may be wrong but I thought citizen supported propositions also trump legislative law. If so, the California supreme court has committed another malfeasance. Impeachment anyone?
But, this post is about 4 people determining that "homosexual" "marriage" should be given the same status as traditional marriage. The people of California may have a say on their determination this November.
It seems to me that what marriage is was disregarded by the ruling. It is as if marriage is whatever society says it is regardless of the historical, traditional, and religious significance. Regardless of the offense to the vast majority of society. Equal rights is a sophisticated way of overturning what to the majority is a sacred institution in favor of the perverseness of an extremely minute but vocal, fringe of society. The disproportionate representation and significance this miniscule faction receives can hardly be accurately described as equality.
[quote]"Pro-family" organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman (even if the marriage was entered into in another state that allows same-sex marriage), passed in 2000 by a margin of 1.7 million votes.[/quote]Looks like someone was foreseeing the courts adverse decision.
[quote]Perhaps, hairy, but the good people in California are about to rectify that.[/quote]
If they amend their constitution, that's their perogative. It's call democracy.
[quote]I may be wrong but I thought citizen supported propositions also trump legislative law. [/quote]
Constitution > Legislative Law > Propositions > Public Opinion
So no, the court did just fine upholding the greater power. And you're right, the people of California can always amend their constitution like it was amended in Texas. Or, easier still, they can repeal Cal. Fam. Code §297.5.
HG,
California already passed Cal. Fam. Code §297.5. So obviously their idea of civil union is not traditional. Your argument is with them, not me.
[quote]This is about marriage, not "the bedroom".[/quote]
lik
[quote]Meanwhile, in the real world - this issue is about whether the state will or will not recognize a contract. The bedroom, anybodies bedroom, has nothing to do with anything.[/quote]
It's called metaphor fellas...all the cool kids are using them.
lik
[quote]Puzzlefeet can go on thinking that the Republicans have superdelegates and you can go on thinking that marriage = bedroom.[/quote]
Would you feel happier if she referred to them as [url=http://www.politicalbase.com/groups/republican-unpledged-delegates/13788/]Unpledged Delegates[/url]? ;)
I would like to thank HP for his illuminating comments and explanations. If any thinking person reads them and puts two and two together then any thinking person should come to an understanding of the ruling and how to fix the perceived "problem" it creates. I'll be the first to admit that the law can be confusing but even I can see how the decision flows from the Constitution and that Constitutional change is required if Californians don't want same sex marriage.
I applaud the California Supreme Court's lack of judicial activism in this case and its desire to see the issue decided by the people of California...as it should be.
I am not qualified to argue scientifically whether or not one is born homosexual, but from a theological perspective we are all born with a propensity to evil. IMO, that extends to homosexuality. But, whether it is sin theologically, or a birth defect, or both, it doesn't make homosexuality normal or healthy. It certainly doesn't mean one 'born' homosexual must act upon it, nor does it justify perverting marriage.
Abortion is another good example of a horrible evil. People often speak of the atrocities of religion, or more recently, atheism. But let's face the harsh, cold reality that like legislated religion, legislated science poses a serious threat. This reality is played out in legalized abortion. For all the atrocities committed by theocracies and atheocracies (if that is a word), the atrocity that is abortion has surely surpassed them all in degree and maybe even in number. It is one thing to kill off the weak and feeble as well as every jew. It is another to kill off millions of innocent, defenseless unborn children and justify it with corrupted science. For all you who think science and gov't is a safe mixture for determining justice and social norms, have you even considered abortion? Stein got it right when he suggested that a science beholden to government is a threat to society.
[quote]This reality is played out in legalized abortion.[/quote]
Your perspective is refreshing and open to discussion. See you around soon.
[quote] It is one thing to kill off the weak and feeble as well as every jew. It is another to kill off millions of innocent, defenseless unborn children and justify it with corrupted science. [/quote]
Or innocent Ukranians, or Armenians.
Well written Nieman. As TDR used to say, 'Bully! Bully! '
To those who have been trying to allege that this is merely an interpretation of the California Constitution, really beware when Leftists are allowed to interpret [i]anything.[/i] When they can't get what they want by plain meaning or majority vote, they resort to more devious means. That behavior was on clear display when William Jefferson Benedict Arnold Clinton weaseled, 'that depends upon what the meaning of the word [i]is[/i] is.'
It's not a new slippery dodge, but has been adopted by the Left wholeheartedly:
[quote]"When [i]I[/i] use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
"The questions [i]is[/i]," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question [i]is[/i]," Humpty Dumpty replied, "[b]who is to be master. That's all[/b]." [/quote]
Another tactic long used by the Left is to fight the existing law, morals, standards and conventions, seek to change them, oftentimes through court actions rather than popular vote or legislation, and then vigorously defend the Law, using it as a cudgel against everyone who disagrees.
If anyone has seen the latest Harry Potter flick (Order of the Phoenix) there is a thinly-veiled criticism in how Leftists take over organizations from above and exercise a saccharine, totalitarian rule over all others.
They say that trends that start in California trickle out into the rest of the USA. I am hoping that this is changing, if it ever was true.
First, because it would seem that in the concentration of Leftists, such as the anti-Marine caterwaulings of the Berkelyites, they have come to a critical mass of stupidity, departing far from the American mainstream.
Second, after watching Hollywoods' icons darlings and icons destroy themselves: Boy George, Michael Jackson, George Michael, Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, etc., etc... the Mainstream is less willing to follow their example. Indeed, Hollywood is rapidly becoming examples of depravity and how NOT to do it.
I certainly do hope this most recent bit of judicial fiat gives rise to a backlash and course correction.
[quote]To those who have been trying to allege that this is merely an interpretation of the California Constitution, really beware when Leftists are allowed to interpret anything.[/quote]
The Court currently has six Republicans (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one Democrat (Moreno).
Oh man. Beware when Republicans interpret anything contrary to what the fringe wants -- the fringe will forget they they are Republicans!
So much for veiling your bias.
The fringe, btw, was in reference to homosexuals, not liberals in general, and definitely not the court.
You'll both have to acknowledge that there is a certain cosmic balance inherent in this conversation. After all, Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller considered themselves Democrats and look at the in house reception they got!
I think liberalism/secularism may be that slippery road to hell.
I am stunned that Gov. Arnold will not support a constitutional amendment.
Again. The court did not establish marriage as a right. The citizens of California, in passing Cal. Fam. Code §297.5 did. The court merely said that now that you have created the right, you can't not call it "marriage." I will keep repeating this until it seeps through your thick skull.
I'm not surprised at all; this is what we can expect from a RINO. Imagine a RINO as President.
What is superior here, the will of the people clearly expressed via the initiative process and the popular vote denying marriage rights to people of the same gender; or is the judiciary strangely empowered to overrule the will of the people by playing legalistic gymnastics? Are we now a [b]'nation of the courts, by the courts and for the courts?'[/b] Are not the legislative, judcial and executive branches servants of the people or are they the masters of the people? Are we a free people or servants of an elite, liberal ruling class.
Marriage was instituted by God, whether or not you recognize His existence; and as such, civilized nations have historically recognized that institution and defined it, as does Scripture, as being only between a man and women. It has been recognized as a unique and positive good for the family and society as a whole. But, now a few people that choose to rule a judicial plantation, have decided that it is their will to deny the rights of the citizens through the initiative process (petition to redress an evil act) to reaffirm marriage as it has been historically defined.
There is no manner in which two people of the same gender can fit within the definition of marriage or family, whatever they have is only a terribly bastardized form of real marriage, using the name but violating all that it represents to the family and society. Strangely, the homosexual community do not really want marriage, as it restricts their multiple sexual partners lifestyle choice. No, they want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage rather than rise to the level of true marriage, they want to drag heterosexual marriage into their gutter of sexual promiscuity and moral license.
If you or anyone would call homosexual relationships marriage, if over time every human being on earth said it is okay to call it marriage, that fact notwithstanding - it will never be real marriage, but something morally, spititually and socially inferior and that to the harm of future generations.
[quote]Marriage was instituted by God, whether or not you recognize His existence; and as such, civilized nations have historically recognized that institution and defined it, as does Scripture, as being only between a man and women.[/quote]
If the people of California agree with you then they will pass an initiative which alters the Constitution in such a way that same sex marriage won't be allowed. The initiative that passed last time didn't do that and the Supreme Court is bound to abide by the Constitution...that's the "drawback" of living in a society ruled by law.
r108
[quote]Playing word games with the institution of marriage, for the benefit of your small minority pressure group, to the detriment of the vast majority of the population, and the structure of human civilization, is very bad law. [/quote]
What you call "word games", others call interpretation of law. I wish you would quit advocating that the judiciary ignore the Constitution...if you don't like the Constitution then change it.
Good grief.
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC, August 26, 2005
[quote]GAY MARRIAGE BAN INITIATIVE WINS SUPPORT FROM McCAIN
Sen. John McCain said Thursday that he supports an initiative that would change Arizona's constitution to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples.[/quote]
First, a Conmstitutional Amendment should be on this years ballot. So, we had already moved in that direction. By the news today they have over 1.5 million signatures, people in this state are in a bad mood about this decision, and they will get this initiative on the ballotthis year unless the Attorney General plays games.
Next, you will find no one, not a living soul that more honors and defends the Constitution than this writer. Unlike liberal moroins, I believe in the rule of law, not judicial tyranny.
This court played legal gymnastics, they legislated from the bench, they did not as you state it, simply interpret the Law. They overturned the will of the people clearly expressed through the initiative process. It was clear the people did not want Gay Marriage by the LAW they passed. There is absolutely no right in law for Gay Marriage and nothing in law that demands if someone is granted legal rights to engage in a personal relatioonship contract, in this case civil unions, that this fact in any manner gives them the right to call that contractual relationship marriage.
This was a deliberate perversion of the state Constitution, legislating from the bench and judicial tyranny over the people. It is just plain wrong and you damn well know it mr. darrow.
robert108 on May 17, 2008 at 08:19 am
I see and am glad, you no longer use terms of endearment when refering to this spineless puppet.
[quote]This was a deliberate perversion of the state Constitution, legislating from the bench and judicial tyranny over the people.[/quote]
It was a faithful interpretation of California's Constitution as near as I can tell. What you have to realise is that when you're governed by a Constitution then your laws and initiatives must respect that Constitution and all of the processes and requirements that the Constitution entails and prescribes.
If you don't like a statute then you change it. If the Constitution says you can't change it then you change the Constitution if you feel strongly enough. When you live in a society governed by laws then you follow the laws...it isn't rocket science.
Why should I accept your subjective interpretation of the decision as to its being on sound Constitutional ground? Hell, even the Justices here, in other states and the Supremes in D.C. have differing opinions on every decision as to wether or not they were on solid Constitutional ground. Your opinion has very little weight compared to these seasoned Constitutional scholars, it is just your biased view of the matter, that's all! My belief is that is was judicial activism at its worst.
I've read your comments carefully. What I hear you saying is that the people of California rejected same sex marriage in an initiative a few years ago and that the Supreme Court should respect their wishes. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has ruled that that the Constitutional provision ensuring Equal Protection trumps any statutory provision which would exclude same sex partners from that protection. I have yet to read read any contrary opinion that addresses this admittedly narrow and technical point but I'm certainly open to being corrected.
You know and state that there is a process to amend the Constitution such that same sex marriages do not receive Constitutional protection and I'm not arguing that point. I'm just advancing my opinion that the decision appears logical to my understanding of how the law works, particularly the necessity that any statutory provision satisfy the requirements of the relevant Constitution. You call that judicial activism, I call it the Supreme Court doing its job.
[/quote]
You're confused as usual, e; I have never used any terms of endearment for McCain. He's no more of a spineless puppet than any other leftie.