California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Halofan48 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.

Well I will agree that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional in a government that is not supposed to endorse anyone religion, so according to the Constitution, our law of the land, then the court made the right decision, so please excuse me while I swallow my pride and concede the argument.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Halofan48 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.

I do understand your reservations. I have my ones, as well.
Let those guys change the label, then :
- from "love"
- to "civil rights"
- to " ??? "

[doittoit]

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?

That would be the point of a system of checks and balances. The government can keep making legislation to circumvent these rulings.

[doittoit]

Quote by: GHook93 OK I stand corrected there. 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.

That's a big assumption. Surly there are judges that overstep their autority (and it's usually the same ones over and over) but that's one reason for the appeals process. It's also why there are seven supreme cort judges. Also, I find that when most people think that judges are making laws it's often unfounded.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: GHook93 OK I stand corrected there. 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.

They dismissed a law a law saying that people of the same sex cannot get married. Since this law was overturned since it violated the constitution, it means they can get married since there is no longer a law dictating that they can't. They didn't make a new law, just remove one that violated the constitution.

[xyzer]

Halofan48...Show us where in the US Constitiuion it says anything about marriage? What we have here is a unelected judicial branch overturning the will of the people? What makes it a travesty is that the majority seemed to equate marriage with cohabitation..indicating a traditional sacrament which has existed since the founding ot this country and which some laws are based can be so rudely overturned. The real issue is a court thwarting the legislative will of a majority for an invented right that isn't in the constitution? What will happen to the legality if such a homosexual union is not recognized by another state.
Also I'm bothered by this obvious catering to a small minority of citizens who want to manipulate the existence of others for thei own selfish ends.

I hope the next legislative effort includes impeachment of those judges who decided it.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Show us where in the US Constitiuion it says anything about marriage?

Amendment XIV -- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Marriage is such a privilege, protected by law.

Quote by: Xyzer What we have here is a unelected judicial branch overturning the will of the people?

It's the JOB of the judicial branch to determine when legislation is and isn't constitutional. Unless you think it would be just fine for... say... Mississippi to reinstate Jim Crowe segregation laws because it was the "will of the people".

Quote by: Xyzer Also I'm bothered by this obvious catering to a small minority of citizens who want to manipulate the existence of others for their own selfish ends.

Oh waaaah.... Brown vs. the Board of Education was also catering to a small minority of citizens who wanted to manipulate the existence of others for their own selfish ends.

It's homophobic bigotry that should no longer be catered to.

.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Sonart . Amendment XIV -- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Marriage is such a privilege, protected by law. It's the JOB of the judicial branch to determine when legislation is and isn't constitutional. Unless you think it would be just fine for... say... Mississippi to reinstate Jim Crowe segregation laws because it was the "will of the people". Oh waaaah.... Brown vs. the Board of Education was also catering to a small minority of citizens who wanted to manipulate the existence of others for their own selfish ends. It's homophobic bigotry that should no longer be catered to. .

agreed

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Sonart . Amendment XIV -- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice that it says "citizens of the United States" and not "homosexuals" or "heterosexuals." The only basis for the protections provided in the 14th Amerndment is American citizenship.

Marriage is such a privilege, protected by law.

Where does the Constitution say this? What business does government have even involving itself in marriage?

It's the JOB of the judicial branch to determine when legislation is and isn't constitutional. Unless you think it would be just fine for... say... Mississippi to reinstate Jim Crowe segregation laws because it was the "will of the people".

But it does not have the constitutional authority to insert their own interpretations in the place of the intent of those who wrote the Constitution (in the case of this particular decision, those who wrote California's Constitution).

Oh waaaah.... Brown vs. the Board of Education was also catering to a small minority of citizens who wanted to manipulate the existence of others for their own selfish ends.

Government needs to get out of the education business.

It's homophobic bigotry that should no longer be catered to.

Why should perverts be treated as if they're normal? What's next? The little old lady down the street being allowed to marry her cat? Government has no business involving itself in marriage. Giving certain citizens special recognitions, privileges, etc. based on their choice to mate is discriminatory.

[Sweet Katie]

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.

I'm all for gay marriage. What I'm not for is the California Supreme Court overturning a voter decision. The people of California put gas in their vehicles, drove to designated voting places, signed in, waited their turn for the opportunity to vote on Gay Marriage. And, the people of California voted that they do NOT want gay marriage. Why did they bother?

This overturn in California is wrong. It is not Democracy. It is a bunch of liberals deciding what is best for the country.

And, let me state again that I am not opposed to gay marriage. I would have voted for gay marriage. However, I would have accepted the defeat and would feel outraged by this. Democracy must come first, even if it provides an outcome not of our liking.

[Jack]

The will of the people cannot violate the Constitution, no matter how many of them vote in favor. This court simply said that the law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. If the people want to propose other legislation that doesn't violate the state Consitution, they can do so.

[ShadowFox]

Yep, the court simply found the law banning it to be unconstitutional so they removed the law. It's these sort of checks and balances that keep states from bringing back segregation and discrimination.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Jack The will of the people cannot violate the Constitution, no matter how many of them vote in favor. This court simply said that the law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. If the people want to propose other legislation that doesn't violate the state Consitution, they can do so.

There is nothing in the Constitution that refers to gay marriages. And the arguement used to support gay marriages as a Constitution right could be interepted in many, many ways . . . I disagree with the analysis and, therefore, believe in the will of the people. And, again, I am for gay marriage. But, I am against the intereptation of the Constitution to serve liberal ideas.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Sweet Katie There is nothing in the Constitution that refers to gay marriages. And the arguement used to support gay marriages as a Constitution right could be interepted in many, many ways . . . I disagree with the analysis and, therefore, believe in the will of the people. And, again, I am for gay marriage. But, I am against the intereptation of the Constitution to serve liberal ideas.

Ya, because if it wasn't for early translations allowing rights, we would still have slavery, segregation, and no womens rights.

Besides, this even falls on discrimination based on sex since you're denying a person the right to a contract with a person because of sex. Confused? Here, i'll spell it out for you. Lets say a guy wants to get married to another guy. Marriage is a contract. So, by saying you cannot have this contract with this person because you are of the same sex, it's discrimination.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Halofan48 Ya, because if it wasn't for early translations allowing rights, we would still have slavery, segregation, and no womens rights. Besides, this even falls on discrimination based on sex since you're denying a person the right to a contract with a person because of sex. Confused? Here, i'll spell it out for you. Lets say a guy wants to get married to another guy. Marriage is a contract. So, by saying you cannot have this contract with this person because you are of the same sex, it's discrimination.

The advancements you are stating came from officials elected by the people to change the current laws. They were mutually agreed upon. Way back in the day, when the Republicans fought for the rights of African Americans in the United States, it was not just "decided" that these rights should be given. The Republicans were a powerful group back then because they were progressive and that progressive thinking led to majority power. The liberal oppression of the people's voices in California should be overturned because it is not by the people for the people. It is by the liberals against the people. Perhaps another generation will vote differently on this matter. But, you cannot take your personal views and inflict on the majority. It is against the Constitution to vote on a matter, declare majority rules, and then overturn that decision.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Halofan48 Besides, this even falls on discrimination based on sex since you're denying a person the right to a contract with a person because of sex. Confused? Here, i'll spell it out for you. Lets say a guy wants to get married to another guy. Marriage is a contract. So, by saying you cannot have this contract with this person because you are of the same sex, it's discrimination.

The Consistituion states that all men are created equal. It does not state anything about sexuality choices. This is reading into the Constitution and changing the will of the people.

[LadiesMan217]

The Consistituion states that all men are created equal. It does not state anything about sexuality choices. This is reading into the Constitution and changing the will of the people.

Actually thats the Declaration of Independence, a completely different document that does have the authority to give citizens rights, it is basically just a letter to England saying, "Hey, we are a country now and we are going to govern ourselves instead of you!".

[LadiesMan217]

Edit: I meant to say it does NOT have the authority.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Sweet Katie There is nothing in the Constitution that refers to gay marriages.

Both the California and U.S. Constitution delare that all American citizens have the right to EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. That means the EQUAL legal right to marry.

Quote by: Sweet Katie The liberal oppression of the people's voices in California should be overturned because it is not by the people for the people.

The "People" as wonderful and all-knowing that they are, cannot over-rule the Constitution, except by Amending it. Period.

Quote by: Sweet Katie Way back in the day, when the Republicans fought for the rights of African Americans in the United States, it was not just "decided" that these rights should be given.

By "Back then" I presume you mean the Lincoln Republican party of 1860, which was pretty much the reverse of today's Republican party.

Modern Republicans OPPOSED civil rights in the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc., in favor of "Traditional Values".

For example, despite the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence, certain 'Traditional Values' blinded most Americans to the obvious contradictions. For instance, despite the fact that "All Men are (supposedly) Created Equal", it was a traditional value in the U.S. - until 1868 - that slavery was a perfectly acceptable and legal institution.

Until about 50 years ago, it was a 'Traditional Value' in the U.S. that blacks and other races could be legally segragated and discriminated against, by law.

Until about 40 years ago, it was a 'Traditional Value' that women could be legally discriminated against and denied equal protection of the law.

Until about 30 years ago, it was a 'Traditional Value' that homosexual conduct was against the law, and that gays could be legally discriminated against and denied equal protection of the law.

And they're still denied equal protection.

Quote by: Sweet Katie But, you cannot take your personal views and inflict on the majority

If the will of the majority violates the constitution, and someone challenges that law as a violation of the Constitution, then it is the JOB of the Court to rule on "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,"

Quote by: Sweet Katie It is against the Constitution to vote on a matter, declare majority rules, and then overturn that decision.

Where in the Constitution does it say that, Katie?

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

Another 'Traditional Value' that has yet to be addressed... it is a traditional value in this country that Christianity is the dominant religion and therefore can dictate law.

Amendment 1 -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

In 1863, Congress made a law respecting the establishment of religion on U.S. currency... specifically, "In God We Trust"

in 1954, Congress made a law respecting the establishment of religion on the Pledge of Allegience recited in public schools.

Both are clear and unequivicable violations of the U.S. Constitution. and I await the day someone forces the Court to rule on them,

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: LadiesMan Actually thats the Declaration of Independence, a completely different document that does have the authority to give citizens rights, it is basically just a letter to England saying, "Hey, we are a country now and we are going to govern ourselves instead of you!".

Indeed. It was essentially a PR document featuring a list of grievances, explaining to the rest of the why we were rebelling, and why we should be recognized as a sovereign nation.

.