California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[tivodan1116]

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that "refers to" a great deal of our country or its government. It's not meant to be an exhaustive document, it's a framework. Come back to me when you understand the fundamental implication of what a "constitution" is for.

Your "will of the people" argument is fallacious as well. The government acts through the will of the people, and the Constitution is specifically designed to protect minorities from the government, i.e. TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The Constitution is specifically written to go AGAINST the will of the people in protecting the rights of the individual.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Sweet_Katie I disagree with the analysis and, therefore, believe in the will of the people.

Here you go, then... problem solved.

51 percent support same-sex marriage - San Diego Union/Tribune 5/28/08

"SACRAMENTO – A new poll finds that for the first time in the state's history, a slim majority of voters supports same-sex marriage, which the state Supreme Court declared legal this month."

.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sonart . Here you go, then... problem solved. 51 percent support same-sex marriage - San Diego Union/Tribune 5/28/08 "SACRAMENTO – A new poll finds that for the first time in the state's history, a slim majority of voters supports same-sex marriage, which the state Supreme Court declared legal this month." .

LOL



Where's the "will of the people" argument now?

[Rainbow]

It seems that gay and/lessbain marriage would be followed by new set of rules and regulations with concern to :
- tax ; new and/or additional tables
- services ; social issues

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: tivodan1116 LOL Where's the "will of the people" argument now?

You have issues.

[Adam Henry]

Quote by: Rainbow It seems that gay and/lessbain marriage would be followed by new set of rules and regulations with concern to : - tax ; new and/or additional tables - services ; social issues

A new set of rules & regulations, or simply extending the old ones more evenly?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sweet Katie You have issues.

A sense of humor is no longer allowed?

Sorry if I had a little fun at your expense, I was just being silly.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . 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. .

I disagree with this. Slavery was contested from the start - and banned in numerous states in the late 1700s. Washington once opined that he wasn't more assertive about ending slavery because it would have tore the nation apart, so it certainly wasn't a "traditional value" in America.

[Matt W]

Let's stay on-topic, please.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: doittoit They didn't create a law they over turned an exsisting law, assumoingly based on the Constitution or state constitution, as I said before determing when laws contridict is the Jurisdiction of the courts.

I notice that when people talk about gay marriage and they feel they have to say, "Of course I have nothing against gays, but....."

I will say it anyway. I think that gays should be permitted to have unions in all 50 states, I think women should receive equal pay for equal work and also some of my best friends are white people. OK? But there is a problem with allowing gay marriages and that problem must be addressed before any of this goes any further.

For the benefit of those people on this board from other countries, let me post our First Amendment (it was first for a reason--we hold it most dear): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

The California court declared that laws against same sex marriage are the same as laws against interracial marriage. So what is there to prevent the California government from declaring that opposition to same sex marriage is equal to racial discrimination?

Of course there would be no problem (or change in the law) if a human resources employee refused to hire a person based on their sexual orientation or the fact that they were in a same-sex marriage. That HR employee would be fired for discrimination. However, what has changed with this law is that it could soon be considered "harassment in the workplace" should any employee express their religious belief that gay marriage is against the laws of God. An employee could be sued or fired for the "free exercise of religion" and unfortunately it would be Congress (the government passing anti-discrimination laws) doing the prohibiting.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: tivodan1116 LOL Where's the "will of the people" argument now?

Polls do not equal a vote. Trust the people. Put it to a vote. (Again)

[Winter wind]

Quote by: tivodan LOL Where's the "will of the people" argument now?

...No...-_-

Quote by: Apeman Polls do not equal a vote. Trust the people. Put it to a vote. (Again)

Trust the people? The people can be short sighted and immoral as seen in it's reaction to the abolishment of slavery and the installation of civil rights. The people can be fickle, as seen in the change from a 70% approval rate for the Iraq war down to something in the low 20%. The people can focus on things that don't really matter, like flag pins, and who was associated with what. The people don't know much, as most American can't name three out of the five rights guarantied by the first amendment (speech, religion, press, petition, assembly).

The founders created a system of representation for a reason, they knew the people were not always right. I'm all for democracy as long as the first paragraph I wrote is recognized.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Winter wind ...No...-_- Trust the people? The people can be short sighted and immoral as seen in it's reaction to the abolishment of slavery and the installation of civil rights. The people can be fickle, as seen in the change from a 70% approval rate for the Iraq war down to something in the low 20%. The people can focus on things that don't really matter, like flag pins, and who was associated with what. The people don't know much, as most American can't name three out of the five rights guarantied by the first amendment (speech, religion, press, petition, assembly). The founders created a system of representation for a reason, they knew the people were not always right. I'm all for democracy as long as the first paragraph I wrote is recognized.

Yes, exactly. The whole point of our system laid out by the founders was to limit the power of government and slow down or even thwart the mob of democracy. It is why elections of presidents and congress are staggered and offset in increments of 4 years and 6 years.

In California, 3 members of their Supreme Court come up for a reconfirmation vote in 2010. People have to wait and the process lumbers, but there is a chance that the will of the people will be done.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Winter wind ...No...-_- Trust the people? The people can be short sighted and immoral as seen in it's reaction to the abolishment of slavery and the installation of civil rights. The people can be fickle, as seen in the change from a 70% approval rate for the Iraq war down to something in the low 20%. The people can focus on things that don't really matter, like flag pins, and who was associated with what. The people don't know much, as most American can't name three out of the five rights guarantied by the first amendment (speech, religion, press, petition, assembly). The founders created a system of representation for a reason, they knew the people were not always right. I'm all for democracy as long as the first paragraph I wrote is recognized.

And are we represented by Bats? Earthworms?

Who wears the black robes? Platypi?

Oh! That's right, people.

But instead of trusting the people as a whole based upon how they choose to vote or not vote, we should put our faith in the very few in the Judicial branch.

No thanks.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman But instead of trusting the people as a whole based upon how they choose to vote or not vote, we should put our faith in the very few in the Judicial branch. No thanks.

Fine... so next the time the legislature passes a law you don't think passes constitutional muster, you can take it up with a pod of platypi.

For the rest of us, when someone files a complaint that a law or a government action is unconstitutional - especially regarding new, contemporary issues - our state and federal constitutions clearly specify that the folks whose job it is to decide those cases is the judiciary.

If you don't like it, Apeman, then amend the Constitution.

.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Adam Henry A new set of rules & regulations, or simply extending the old ones more evenly?

It seems to be modified ones, it would be fair to say.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sonart . Fine... so next the time the legislature passes a law you don't think passes constitutional muster, you can take it up with a pod of platypi. For the rest of us, when someone files a complaint that a law or a government action is unconstitutional - especially regarding new, contemporary issues - our state and federal constitutions clearly specify that the folks whose job it is to decide those cases is the judiciary. If you don't like it, Apeman, then amend the Constitution. .

You realize that the extent of this decision was to change the name of a same sex union from "civil union" to "marriage", a term heretofore reserved for opposite sex couples. No other changes were affected by this decision.

So even after California conferred upon a "civil union" all the legal rights previously established for a "marriage", it was deemed unacceptable by some that a differentiation between a civil union and marriage be maintained. Even though the same plaintiffs have repeatedly ensured we know the difference by constantly referring to their union as a “Gay” Marriage.

So the people voted to maintain a verbal differentiation. Four people decided that the others were wrong.

As for the constitution, it does not define marriage in any way. So no change is required. Just as the court of 7 decided 1 way today, the vote could teeter in the opposite direction. And on more important issues.

Therein lays my concern.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Apeman81 You realize that the extent of this decision was to change the name of a same sex union from "civil union" to "marriage", a term heretofore reserved for opposite sex couples. No other changes were affected by this decision. So even after California conferred upon a "civil union" all the legal rights previously established for a "marriage", it was deemed unacceptable by some that a differentiation between a civil union and marriage be maintained. Even though the same plaintiffs have repeatedly ensured we know the difference by constantly referring to their union as a “Gay” Marriage. So the people voted to maintain a verbal differentiation. Four people decided that the others were wrong. As for the constitution, it does not define marriage in any way. So no change is required. Just as the court of 7 decided 1 way today, the vote could teeter in the opposite direction. And on more important issues. Therein lays my concern.

First of all, where does it say marriage has to be between a man and a women?

Second, How would you feel if this was interracial marriage instead of homosexual marriage and the court overturned the law banning it?

[Apeman81]

"Halofan48;511237]First of all, where does it say marriage has to be between a man and a women?"

I clearly stated that in this case, "it" does not define marriage"

"Second, How would you feel if this was interracial marriage instead of homosexual marriage and the court overturned the law banning it?"

I am a white man married to a black woman. I would feel the same.

It is a danger to establish the decision of the few who occupy the court as the de facto establishment of law over the will of the people.

BTW, The verbiage of Prop 22:

Proposition 22: Text of Proposed Law
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with
the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds a section to the Family Code; therefore,
new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to
indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the ‘‘California Defense of
Marriage Act.’’
SECTION 2. Section 308.5 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Apeman81 You realize that the extent of this decision was to change the name of a same sex union from "civil union" to "marriage", a term heretofore reserved for opposite sex couples. No other changes were affected by this decision. So even after California conferred upon a "civil union" all the legal rights previously established for a "marriage", it was deemed unacceptable by some that a differentiation between a civil union and marriage be maintained. Even though the same plaintiffs have repeatedly ensured we know the difference by constantly referring to their union as a “Gay” Marriage. So the people voted to maintain a verbal differentiation. Four people decided that the others were wrong.

"the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place"
- Earl Warren