California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[Jack]

I like how, when the courts render a judgment that someone disagrees with, suddenly the court is liberal or activist. Where are those accusations when these people agree with the judgments? Maybe I'll start another thread asking those who like to toss those terms around to define activist for me. I suspect they have no idea what they're talking about.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I guess it means judges who use their bench to enforce their own opinion rather than the documents, but everyone likes to think the documents agree withthem

[LadiesMan217]

Nice red herring fallacy.... Anyway, I believe the courts should always err on the side of personal freedom. If they "overturned" Roe v. Wade, they would not be doing that. What is inconsistent about my position? Again, I think the courts should always rule in favor of the broadest possible interpretation of our liberties, and the narrowest possible interpretation of government powers. I would argue against a court overturning Roe v. Wade, but I was not being critical of your position. I am critical of your rationale for your position - that the "will of the people" should always be the determining factor in what is legal or not. That rationale shows both an ignorance of history and an ignorance of the job of the courts, which is to preserve the rule of law against, among other things, the tyranny of the majority.

Gay marriage aside, this sets a dangerous precedent for future rulings that may not fall in line with your interpretation of our liberties, it is highly subjective and such power should not be allowed to such few people. This is also a slap in the face of the voters. Tyranny of the majority? Haha, but tyranny of the minority is acceptable?

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Gay marriage aside, this sets a dangerous precedent for future rulings that may not fall in line with your interpretation of our liberties, it is highly subjective and such power should not be allowed to such few people. This is also a slap in the face of the voters. Tyranny of the majority? Haha, but tyranny of the minority is acceptable?

So if the majority said yes to slavery, segregation, no womens rights, etc. , we should simply accept that while we still claim to be a country where all men are created equal?

[another day]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Gay marriage aside, this sets a dangerous precedent for future rulings that may not fall in line with your interpretation of our liberties, it is highly subjective and such power should not be allowed to such few people. This is also a slap in the face of the voters. Tyranny of the majority? Haha, but tyranny of the minority is acceptable?

It's not a tyranny of the minority for them to want the same rights as the majority.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: LadiesMan The people of California voted on that ban and passed, also in every state that put it on the ballot in '04.

Which is exactly the problem with California's Referendum system. While well intentioned to get past politicized legislatures, the referendum system has been usurped by either special interests who sponsor confusing and even conflicting propositions, or special interest appeals to public emotions that can be clearly unconstitutional. It's not fascist for the Court to rule on it, it's their friggin' job, and if the law is found to be unconstitutional, then it is.

As some have already pointed out, the fact that so many southerners supported the old southern Jim Crowe laws didn't make those laws either right or constitutional.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I guess it means judges who use their bench to enforce their own opinion rather than the documents, but everyone likes to think the documents agree with them

I see. And you know exactly what about the Constitution of the State of California to conclude the Judges are opposing 'the documents"?

Quote by: GHook While I am all for gay marriage, this is another abuse of the the separation of powers by the liberal court judges. Gay marriage should be legal. It should be national in my opinion. However, it is not the courts job to make laws. It is their job to interpret them. This is liberal judiciary officer crossing over and becoming a legislator!

Nonsense.

First off, it's not a "Liberal court"...

--"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."-- Los Angeles Times

Secondly, it is specifically the job of the High Courts to rule on what is and is not constitutional.

From the U.S. Constitution...

Article III, Section 1: -- The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section 2: -- The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,...

That's what the Supreme Court does... hear cases on constitutional law and decide what is and isn't constitutional. Period.

California Constitution, Article 6, Section 1 -- "The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record."

California Constitution, Article 1, Section 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; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution"--

The latter -- equal protection of the laws -- is apparently the standard by which the Court ruled.

Quote by: GHook It is abuse of power. Do it the way it was supposed to be done. Have the legislators overturn it.

If a State legislature voted to overrule Brown v. Board of Education, by establishing racially segregated public schools, or voted to establish a poll tax in direct opposition to the 24th Amendment, or re-establish Jim Crowe laws in direct violation of the 15th Amendment, do you suppose they could just go ahead and do that, because it represented the will of their voters?

Or does unconstitutional mean unconstitutional?

.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Another Day It's not a tyranny of the minority for them to want the same rights as the majority.

If you can look beyond the fact that the result was something that was good then you will see that that is exactly what it is, and it may not be good the next time.

[ShadowFox]

Ladiesman, the court found the law banning homosexual marriage to be unconstitutional under the California State constitution. If this is true, then the law cannot be allowed to exist. It's like saying "Oh, but we don't want to have people marrying out of their own race!" Tough. If such rules were passed, this country could not make any claim to treat all people equally. We'd be the country where "All white males are considered equal" If we only relied on the majority opinion.

[another day]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 If you can look beyond the fact that the result was something that was good then you will see that that is exactly what it is, and it may not be good the next time.

Whatever, look at things on an individual basis on the merits of human rights and the constitution. Your argument doesn't work in this case. You can't just throw out the rights of a minority because it could possibly lead to a slippery slope scenario in the future.

[Tycoon]

We'd be the country where "All white males are considered equal" If we only relied on the majority opinion.

"All animals are created equal; some animals are just more equal than others."

But Halofan48 is giving the important message that law cannot be made simply from the opinion of the majority. Minorities have to be protected, etc.

[ShadowFox]

Ah, yes, a reference to George Orwell's Animal Farm, yet it would carry truth if we did what the majority wanted.

[Tycoon]

Ah, yes, a reference to George Orwell's Animal Farm, yet it would carry truth if we did what the majority wanted.

Well, at the moment, that is what gay rights are struggling against. The government is doing what the majority wants.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Jack I like how, when the courts render a judgment that someone disagrees with, suddenly the court is liberal or activist. Where are those accusations when these people agree with the judgments? Maybe I'll start another thread asking those who like to toss those terms around to define activist for me. I suspect they have no idea what they're talking about.

Well, liberals are the Evil Power who are responsible for all wrongs wherever they occur in history.

It is time for some LIBERAL FACTS (like Chuck Norris facts):

If you can't find your tooth brush, liberals made off with it in the night. If you can find your tooth brush, liberals used it to clean your toilet.

Liberals are the reason Waldo is hiding.

Hitler cited Bill Clinton as his number one influence when he dissolved the Reichstag.

The Anti-Christ referenced in the The End of Days prophecies of Christianity is actually Al Gore.

As a matter of fact, the British wanted to give the English colonists representation in Parliament. But the Liberals wouldn't let them.

The Romans and the Jews were framed! It was the Liberals who killed Christ.

Seriously though:

While I am all for gay marriage, this is another abuse of the the separation of powers by the liberal court judges. Gay marriage should be legal. It should be national in my opinion. However, it is not the courts job to make laws. It is their job to interpret them. This is liberal judiciary officer crossing over and becoming a legislator!

"Creating law" is a necessary consequence of interpretation. If you interpret a law as not in keeping with the state's constitution, then the law must be revised until it conforms to the state's constitution. Since it is impossible for there to be formal procedures in the state's congress for overseeing this process, the courts do it.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Gay marriage aside, this sets a dangerous precedent for future rulings that may not fall in line with your interpretation of our liberties, it is highly subjective and such power should not be allowed to such few people. This is also a slap in the face of the voters. Tyranny of the majority? Haha, but tyranny of the minority is acceptable?

sigh... First of all, there is no such thing as "tyranny of the minority".

Second, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a ruling to be "dangerous" when, in deciding between government power and personal liberties, a court errs on the side of personal liberties. The danger comes from making precedent in favor of government power - that is what is known as creeping fascism.

[Compugasm]

Is it too early still to say "I told you so"; that the grand republic hasn't crumbled now that gay marriage is legal. I'm waiting for gods wrath, society to fall apart, or children marrying their parents.... waiting....

[GHook93]

Quote by: Sonart . First off, it's not a "Liberal court"... --"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."-- Los Angeles Times .

OK I stand corrected there.

Secondly, it is specifically the job of the High Courts to rule on what is and is not constitutional. From the U.S. Constitution... Article III, Section 1: -- The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Section 2: -- The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,... That's what the Supreme Court does... hear cases on constitutional law and decide what is and isn't constitutional. Period. California Constitution, Article 6, Section 1 -- "The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record." California Constitution, Article 1, Section 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; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution"-- The latter -- equal protection of the laws -- is apparently the standard by which the Court ruled. If a State legislature voted to overrule Brown v. Board of Education, by establishing racially segregated public schools, or voted to establish a poll tax in direct opposition to the 24th Amendment, or re-establish Jim Crowe laws in direct violation of the 15th Amendment, do you suppose they could just go ahead and do that, because it represented the will of their voters? Or does unconstitutional mean unconstitutional?

It is the Supreme Courts job to hear cases that Federal Question (constitutional and unconstitutional) and cases of diversity.

Laws can't be made to defy the constitution and will be voided ab initio (hence the constitutional test), but some courts ignore their power and in effect try to create laws that aren't their. I believe that is the case here.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: GHook93 Laws can't be made to defy the constitution and will be voided ab initio (hence the constitutional test), but some courts ignore their power and in effect try to create laws that aren't their. I believe that is the case here.

Care to justify that belief with language from the decision? Or are we to just take it as your unfounded belief, nothing more?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GHook It is the Supreme Courts job to hear cases that Federal Question (constitutional and unconstitutional) and cases of diversity.

--"The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and, consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and that those limits may not he mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it were a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act must govern the case to which they both apply."-- U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

If two, opposing sides of an argument claim to be correct based on the Constitution, either U.S. or State, it is up to the appropriate courts to decide. Period.

Quote by: GHook Laws can't be made to defy the constitution and will be voided ab initio (hence the constitutional test), but some courts ignore their power and in effect try to create laws that aren't their. I believe that is the case here.

Laws are made in defiance of the Constitution all the time, but the only means to legally test them is to challenge those laws in the courts as violations of the Constitution. The case here is that the California Supreme Court decided, once an appropriate challenge had worked it's way up, was that the law - regardless of the will of the people - was a clear violation of an individual's rights to equal justice under the law granted by the Constitution of the State of California.

.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Jack The Associated Press: California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban Finally an indication that sense and reason can still prevail over religious influence in a state supreme court. I'm also pleased that gays might now be free to enjoy the benefits granted to heterosexual couples in a formalized relationship.

Can you precise religous factors, please ?
Can you precise benefits - in comparison to heterosexual couples, please ?

The homosexaulism-base marraige carries the following factors :
- financial ---> taxes
- social ---> services

Yet, another aspect may surface :
- other individuals may claim their rights to marry anything they are in-love for
Today, the whole case concentrates on Homo Sapiens, solely.
Tomorrow ?
(Some guys reject such option, since it sounds ridiculous, today. What about tomorrow, with next generations to come ? )

The whole case is Not about marriage, but outcomes, since we know very well that the crucial factor of child upbringing has been neglected by parents and/or guardians, except for DNA-related cases.

A note aside
When rights for minority have been granted - and equal majority ones, what happens to either side :
- minority
and/or
- majority
Which party stands for minority and/or majority ???

[ShadowFox]

Rainbow, the marrying of animals will be a hard case for anyone. It would be extremely difficult for another species of animal to give us authentic consent in a language we can understand and agree upon.