The California Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco’s highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.
Overdue.
#154–Scott==you are so locked into your own point of view, you have lost your empathy. Its been explained 3 times? Just read post #7 again and if you do want to continue/repeat/rephrase of the reasonable position of the courts should not legislate from the bench, I’ll give it another go.
OK bobbo,
I read #7 again. So what? 3-4,000 years of history said slavery was fine. Most of that 3-4,000 years said that homosexuals should be stoned to death.
And, yes, the courts do have the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of laws. The existing laws regarding marriage as only between a man and a woman are arcane, outdated, and unconstitutional. They are badly in need of change, just as were the laws regarding slavery in 1850 and the census in 1789.
That you see them differently than slavery and segregation laws is beyond my comprehension. To date, the only people I’ve heard argue that case were the god-hates-fags variety of induhviduals.
Clearly you are not among them.
I fail to understand how you make such an argument. You have brought in side issues that were completely inane to your argument including the entirely ridiculous marriage between a gay man and a lesbian woman, mental incompetence, and which branch of government the laws should come from.
Who really cares about any of these?
The point is that right here, right now, people are being denied the basic rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, you are fine with that.
I am not.
More than that, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
>>That should be left to the legislature
>>otherwise you are approving courts making
>>the law.
Oh no, Mister Bobbolina. I am approving the courts striking down Jim Crow laws that enforce discrimination. I’m pretty much always in favor of the courts striking down Jim Crow laws that take away people’s freedom. Whether they be reproductive rights, marital rights, the right to sit wherever you like on the bus.
Goddamn, man! This is America! Land of the <I
FREE, home of the brave. I’m actually somewhat surprised at your reluctance to grant same-sex couples the same societal benefits afforded to interracial couples.
Tsk tsk. Are you imagining you’re “God” now? And taking that “godhatesfags dot com” a little too seriously? Sheesh.
Give it up, Bobster. It’s not hurting you, it’s not hurting anyone. Live and fucking let live, will you?
Scott and Mustard===just call me “the Uniter.” Good to see you teamed-up==just sad its against me.
xxxx I just deleted several paragraphs of restatement. Here’s the nub==you guys are talking about gay rights, I’m talking about judicial activism.
Scott==do this experiment. Lets define “leg” as including “tails.”==Now how many legs does a cow have? Try not to anticipate, because I’m not being cute, just giving an example of judicial interpretation.
Bobbo again.
when discussing statutory interpretation, its not a stretch to use terms in a statutory manner. You are now only one small step to your own understanding of what “context” means.
You’re funny Bobbo. You know you’re reaching on that one. I like the condescending, pseudo-intellectual chicken hawk personae you portray on line. It does get people riled up – kind of like a market maker in a commodities trading pit. I can’t believe you’re that comically repugnant in person since the self loathing would kill you. Keep up the good work.
Bobster, you’re losing it.
The California Supreme Court did not “define marriage”; it ruled that the Jim Crow law banning same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. If anybody’s trying to include tails in the definition of “leg”, it’s the fools who crafted the discriminatory, freedom-sucking law in the first place. Is your distorted vision of who should be doing what in the legal system so cast in stone that you’re now coming out against equality and justice?? Tsk tsk tsk! Mr. Spock would be ashamed.
*******************************************
From the NYT:
A Victory for Equality and Justice
The California Supreme Court brought the United States a step closer to fulfilling its ideals of equality and justice with its momentous 4-to-3 ruling upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry.
The battle is far from over, even in California. Opponents of giving gay couples the respect, benefits, obligations and protections that come with marriage are already mobilizing to try to nullify the historic decision through a proposed state constitutional amendment likely to appear on the November ballot. All three presidential candidates oppose same-sex marriage, although the two Democrats at least support recognition of civil unions.
Still, the California verdict was a major victory for civil rights. At issue in the case was a ban on same-sex marriage based on a law enacted in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by voters in 2000. Both defined marriage as available only to a man and woman.
In striking down the ban for violating state constitutional provisions protecting equality and fundamental rights, the court’s 121-page opinion fittingly drew on a 1948 decision in which California’s high court removed the bar to interracial marriage 19 years before the United States Supreme Court followed suit.
The new opinion found that “the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice” is fundamental. The court said California’s strong domestic partnership statute was not enough to solve the inequality problem.
“An individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold rights,” wrote Chief Justice Ronald George, first appointed to the bench by Gov. Ronald Reagan.
He noted that “tradition alone” did not justify the denial of a constitutional right to same-sex couples, any more than it did to interracial couples. Coming on the heels of John McCain’s rant against so-called “activist judges,” the decision provides a refreshing example of a Republican-dominated state court transcending ideology and political pressures to render a scrupulously fair ruling based on law, precedents and common sense.
It is unclear what impact this ruling will have on the presidential elections. Polls show the nation divided on the issue, and there remains considerable debate over how a similar decision by Massachusetts’ high court affected the 2004 election. Same-sex marriage is the kind of issue that is likely to resonate with socially conservative voters. But neither of the Democratic candidates supports gay marriage, and voters this year seem far more focused on a shaky economy, a seemingly endless war and skyrocketing gas prices.
What matters more than election tactics is that the California court’s ruling stands, and that voters reject the ballot initiative. It is encouraging that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will uphold the ruling and oppose the antigay ballot measure.
Since the presidential candidates’ positions on gay marriage seem based more on tactics than principle, we do not expect them to shift ground. We would like to hear all of them support Mr. Schwarzenegger in opposing a constitutional amendment. Mr. McCain’s reaction that he “supports the right of the people of California” rather than judges to decide the question was not encouraging.
#161–QB==nice literary flare.
#162–Mustard==I see the NYT put a different twist on the story than did this thread’s header. None of us “should be” opining on this without reading the actual case. As stated, I don’t care about the issue enough to take the 2-3 hours that would require. (reading the case and referenced footnotes with their linked cases.)
Again–should gays have all the rights of married people?==Yes.
Should the courts legislate this under the guise of civil rights?==No. Marriage by definition is a licensed activity, not a right==and thats not me pulling your leg==thems just the facts which is why the Court is wrong to legislate from the bench regardless of how much you like the outcome.
bobbo,
I think Mr. Mustard has made the point exceedingly well. The court is doing its job by protecting people from an unconstitutional law. I’m done … unless you actually bring up a new point. rehashing the same stuff is not getting anywhere.
Oh, and Musty and I are teaming up against a particularly flawed idea of yours, not against you. Imagine the level of respect we’d be completely and utterly failing to give a religious wacko that were arguing legislation based on the bible.
>>religious wacko that were arguing
>>legislation based on the bible.
That would be a hat trick, Scottie. You, me, and Mister Bobbolina against the wackos. Spiritual beliefs are for personal growth and understanding, not for making laws.
#160–Myself.
The answer is 5 if you follow the constitution and 4 if you make it up as you go along.
Ha. Bobbo, you just had to have the last word.
Wait for it….
#166 – Mister Mustard,
Spiritual beliefs are for personal growth and understanding, not for making laws.
I can’t remember ever disagreeing with you about the use of religion or spirituality as a source of laws. I think you have a perfect track record on the point of keeping such beliefs out of our legal system.
#163, bobbo,
Should the courts legislate this under the guise of civil rights?==No. Marriage by definition is a licensed activity, not a right==and thats not me pulling your leg==thems just the facts which is why the Court is wrong to legislate from the bench regardless of how much you like the outcome.
You are so wrong. Make that SOOO wrong.
The Courts can’t and didn’t legislate this from the bench. They gave a legal ruling on the constitutionality of a specific law. They ruled that it failed to provide the protections of the California Constitution.
As soon as marriage is guaranteed as a right to ONE group of people, it becomes a right to all. It may be regulated, that is fine and acceptable. BUT, all regulations must be fairly and uniformly applied. Any restrictions may only be implemented if the benefit is for the publics good. For example, you don’t want blind people driving, typhoid carriers serving food, or child sex offenders running day-cares. But society is not served by denying anyone not 20/20 driving privileges, banning anyone who has ever had a cold from restaurants, or stopping everyone named Dick from being a Nursery School teacher.
Here the State has the burden of proving that same sex couples would harm society IF they were married. Since the State failed to meet that burden, the Court had little choice but to rule the discrimination is harmful.
No matter haw many times you repeat it. The Court applied the law, they didn’t “legislate from the bench”.
No, one does not need to read an entire opinion to understand it. Very few people ever do unless they are using that decision as precedent in another argument. Most long opinions give a long winded analysis of the arguments, promoting the applicable and shooting down the inapplicable and those decisions the Court believes wrong. Then comes a summary. (although sometimes it comes before the analysis) of why the prevailing party wins or loses (sometimes there are several parts). That is what most people will read to sense the entire opinion.
Now in all your responses you have been all over the place. Most things you have been called on and have failed to respond. I’m still waiting to understand this 3-4000 year history of marriage you claim. Or what is wrong with Down Syndrome afflicted marrying.
Marriage is a right. If you don’t think it is then tell me how many times a Judge has refused to allow a heterosexual to marry? Has a Judge ever taken away a marriage license from a married couple that didn’t want a divorce? Just think about those answers before you post more garbage.
I realize I”m late to this, although with 170 posts it is hard not to be.
> Marriage is a right.
From the perspective of the State, I disagree. Yes, people can consider themselves married without need of getting consent from the State and thus from that perspective it is a right. However, the State is not obligated to recognize that union with respect to the privileges conferred upon that union and therein lies the rub.
The core issue here is that the State wants to afford privileges upon a segment of population that meet certain qualifications. They are at liberty to do so as long as it done without prejudice. That is the key: without prejudice. When the DMV restricts drivers that have faulty vision, their purpose is public safety. If opponents can find a justification for allowing the State to discriminate based on something other than sexual preference, then that law will be allowed. However, it is clear that no legal justification can be made to allow the State to confer privileges based on certain unions without it being based purely on sexual preference. In other words, the only way to make marriage to be defined as between a man and a women is to permit State sanctioned discrimination.
#170–Gawd==you say: “The Courts can’t and didn’t legislate this from the bench.” /// You can argue whether or not the Court did legislate from the bench but you can’t argue they “can’t” legislate from the bench.
You continue in a fundamentally flawed way by saying: “BUT, all regulations must be fairly and uniformly applied” and what you post is completely legislative in nature–not constitutional analysis.
The analysis is not “what harm” results to whatever group but rather what did the words mean at the time they were written. Here, the court said 4 legs instead of 5. IE==either you understanding what a word definition is, or you supply your own changing meaning.
As far as judges taking away a marriage==it happens all the time:–annulment.
Your analysis survives better when ignorance is used as a shield and not as a sword.
#171–Thomas==actually, I agree with you although I would say depending on the discrimination to be applied, the State has to reach different “burdens” of appropriateness. And right now, I believe sexual orientation is prohibited by statute, not by Constitutitonal provisions? (I could easily be wrong on that.) I don’t know how the mix of those two “law sources” interact with one another. If the 175 page Ca Sup Ct opinion went into THAT issue, I would read it with interest. Anybody know?
#168–QB–no. Everyone should post as long as they have something to say. Last word posters always want the last word. I posted in order that anyone following the thread and interested in the riddle would have one answer to consider.
I had a dream last night. I was getting married to my wife. When the priest said you are married and we kissed, magically an acre of grass grew and two cows, 2 sheep, 2 goats, 2 pigs, and 2 chickens appeared. What if the universe actually performed that way?
>>As far as judges taking away a
>>marriage==it happens all the time:–annulment.
Bobster, you dearly do love to watch yourself type, don’t you?
You’re tossing out irrelevant red herrings the way Johnny Appleseed tossed out apple seeds. Sheesh.
Btw, a judges don’t “take away a marriage” in an annulment, any more than they do in a divorce. They simply grant the petitioners’ request to terminate (or void, in the case of an annulment) the marriage.
The real question emerging here is =///”why is -=bobbo=- promoting discriminatory modern-day laws promulgated by hatemongers and homophobes?”. Inquiring minds want to know.
The real question here is understanding a line of argument regardless of the outcome it reaches. When an undesirable outcome is reached, the response should be not to argue with the validity of the argument, but to select a different argument.
Instead, we have two camps of people. The 5 leg vs the 4 leg camp and neither able to grant the others point of view.
Me?==I’m not voting.
>>Me?==I’m not voting.
Excellent. You’d probably put in a 2000-word “write-in” ballot, with weird punctuation, and cause the polling process to grind to a halt.
In any case, let us revel in the knowledge that even the Republican-leaning Supreme Court of California has agreed that Proposition 22 is a discriminatory, unconstitutional law, and needed to be overturned.
Or they have usurped the authority/role of the legislature in an unconstitutional exercise of jusidical acitivism AND its anti-democratic.
As posted above by someone else, although I don’t think its the case, this issue could activate the red homophobe voters in California thus giving McCain a boost if not a win in gaining California’s electoral votes in the general election. It worked last time.
>>Or they have usurped the authority/role of the
>>legislature in an unconstitutional exercise of
>>jusidical acitivism AND its anti-democratic.
Bobbie, if you don’t think a role of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of new laws, then what do you think it IS?
Since time immemorial, California law stated that marriage was “a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary.” No reference to the sex of the parties.
Proposition 22 was NOT enacted by the legislature (so much for your argument on that point), it was an “initiative”, authored by State Senator William Knight (well-known homophobe, whose son is gay [koff, koff] and was married until Dad marginalized his marriage) and rammed through by the god-hates-fags contingent, that sought to deprive citizens of civil rights enjoyed by the heterosexual community.
#179–Mustard==taking what you say at face value, you still have to fit those words into the context of the language and culture at the time. The language also doesn’t talk about brother/sister, multiple parties, etc which would also be cases of “discriminaton.”
As stated with Thomas, there are additional laws against discrimination based on “sexual orientation” so the case is pretty close IF statutory law interacts with constitutional law.
I’m tired of this discussion so will retire by giving the best argument: “The constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.” Every other argument becomes irrelevant.
>>“The constitution means what the
>>Supreme Court says it means.”
So I guess that means the score in Cali is
Freedom-lovers: 1
Hatemongers: 0
Mission accomplished!
If the issue ever gets to the Supreme Court (US) it will be determined that who can be “married” can be restricted. See polygamy. I doubt this will happen unless a suit brought to force a State to recognize a gay marriage from another state.
>>See polygamy.
See the US Supreme Court decline to take on the issue.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0227/p25s01-usju.html
Sorry for the long URL, but the tinyurl server is down right now.
#173 – Bobbo
It was a little tiny joke, no? Ah, you crazy Americans…
#178
I do not think the issue is so simple as to whether it fits the legalize of a single law.
I think there is a larger issue here with respect to State sanctioned discrimination. If we agree that narrowly defining marriage as between two people of opposite gender is State sanctioned discrimination, then there is a greater question as to whether that is permitted regardless of Constitutional Amendment. Is the government still allowed to encode discrimination into their Constitution or does this represent a higher boundary of liberty beyond which no Constitution can pass?. I think it does.
#172, bobbo,
The analysis is not “what harm” results to whatever group but rather what did the words mean at the time they were written. Here, the court said 4 legs instead of 5.
Geeze !!! How many stupid pills do you take every day ? How the eff did you come with that comment. Any court will look at what is before them in order to apply the law. This case was a challenge upon the constitutionality of a law. It was a librarian group parsing lexicons.
As far as judges taking away a marriage==it happens all the time:–annulment.
Yup. Too many stupid pills.
When a court dissolves a marriage it is called a divorce. If a church or other secular group dissolves a marriage it is an annulment. The two are not synonymous and are not recognized as binding upon the other. A marriage is a legally binding contract between two people. Because there are also societal benefits to marriage, a court is required to dissolve that contract and condition that dissolution as required.
Many divorced people are still married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Even if they have remarried, the Church only recognizes the first marriage.
Again, you veer to avoid the subject. A subject you want to make yourself an expert on yet you know so little. You even admit as much in the very next post.:
And right now, I believe sexual orientation is prohibited by statute, not by Constitutitonal [sic] provisions? (I could easily be wrong on that.) I don’t know how the mix of those two “law sources” interact with one another.
Since you don’t know why the Court decided the case how can you suggest they “legislated” from the bench? You have no idea on the applicability of Constitutional Law v Statutory Law? Moran !!! And here you have been castigating others, telling us how the court is wrong, saying it isn’t a “right”, and whatever the fuck else comes out of your brain.
You get credit for admitting such. You lose any respect for blowing comments out your ass.
#176,
The real question here is understanding a line of argument regardless of the outcome it reaches.
Your whole point is to be a troll because no one else will play with you.
#178,
Or they have usurped the authority/role of the legislature in an unconstitutional exercise of jusidical [sic] acitivism [sic] AND its anti-democratic.
Maybe the Court has just done the job that our system of government demands of it.
#180
As stated with Thomas, there are additional laws against discrimination based on “sexual orientation” so the case is pretty close IF statutory law interacts with constitutional law.
Such as? I know, I’m just wasting my time expecting an answer from you.