California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[Jack]

The Associated Press: California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings. The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion. The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march. The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry. "What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California. California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

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.

[LadiesMan217]

Frankly, I do not care if gays can marry or not. I do not support it but if the choice was up to me I don't think I could deny them the right. Having said that, I am very angry at the fascist way it was overturned. The people of California voted on that ban and passed, also in every state that put it on the ballot in '04. It is highly disturbing that 4 people can override the votes of millions of people. Some people see this as a step forward for human rights, that may be true but it is a leap backwards for democracy. Democracy is dying my friends and if it dies then human rights will be the least of our concerns.

[Rog]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Frankly, I do not care if gays can marry or not. I do not support it but if the choice was up to me I don't think I could deny them the right. Having said that, I am very angry at the fascist way it was overturned. The people of California voted on that ban and passed, also in every state that put it on the ballot in '04. It is highly disturbing that 4 people can override the votes of millions of people. Some people see this as a step forward for human rights, that may be true but it is a leap backwards for democracy. Democracy is dying my friends and if it dies then human rights will be the least of our concerns.

agree.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Frankly, I do not care if gays can marry or not. I do not support it but if the choice was up to me I don't think I could deny them the right. Having said that, I am very angry at the fascist way it was overturned. The people of California voted on that ban and passed, also in every state that put it on the ballot in '04. It is highly disturbing that 4 people can override the votes of millions of people. Some people see this as a step forward for human rights, that may be true but it is a leap backwards for democracy. Democracy is dying my friends and if it dies then human rights will be the least of our concerns.

It is no error that founding fathers gave us a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy. We the people are essentially a fourth branch in the system of checks and balances and as such are not omnipotent. However, we do have final veto powers...

[Halofan48]

lol, i like the fact that you don't have to live in CA to get one. Might convince more people to live here due to this and give us more power in congress

Anyway, it's good that we are starting to evolve beyond this prejudice.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 I am very angry at the fascist way it was overturned. The people of California voted on that ban and passed, also in every state that put it on the ballot in '04. It is highly disturbing that 4 people can override the votes of millions of people. Some people see this as a step forward for human rights, that may be true but it is a leap backwards for democracy. Democracy is dying my friends and if it dies then human rights will be the least of our concerns.

Bull. What is highly disturbing is that people like you think that the "majority" should be able to "vote" for whatever they want, civil rights be damned.

If things were done your way schools would still be segregated, the police would have no reason to respect our constitutional protections against search and seizure, and interracial marriage would be illegal.

Absolute democracy is simply a tyranny of the majority. There are checks on that concept for good reason.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Bull. What is highly disturbing is that people like you think that the "majority" should be able to "vote" for whatever they want, civil rights be damned. If things were done your way schools would still be segregated, the police would have no reason to respect our constitutional protections against search and seizure, and interracial marriage would be illegal. Absolute democracy is simply a tyranny of the majority. There are checks on that concept for good reason.

Agreed. Also, if it were up to people and individual states on these matters, women wouldn't be able to vote, and we'd likely still have slavery. What the state supreme court did was recognize that the government of California cannot, under rule of the states constitution, deny a couple a marriage license due only to sexual orientation.

[LadiesMan217]

Go ahead and tell me that I am wrong but if it would have been Roe v. Wade that they overturned then you would be singing a different tune.

[Jack]

How are those two rulings comparable?

[LadiesMan217]

They aren't but that is not the point, if there were four pro-life court justices that overturned that ruling then you would see that situation the same way that I am seeing this one. And the court justices overturning this ban that the American people voted on, it completely defeats the purpose of voting.

[Matt W]

So, the rule of law means nothing to you?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Go ahead and tell me that I am wrong but if it would have been Roe v. Wade that they overturned then you would be singing a different tune.

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.

[GHook93]

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!

[GHook93]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Frankly, I do not care if gays can marry or not. I do not support it but if the choice was up to me I don't think I could deny them the right. Having said that, I am very angry at the fascist way it was overturned. The people of California voted on that ban and passed, also in every state that put it on the ballot in '04. It is highly disturbing that 4 people can override the votes of millions of people. Some people see this as a step forward for human rights, that may be true but it is a leap backwards for democracy. Democracy is dying my friends and if it dies then human rights will be the least of our concerns.

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

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: GHook93 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!

Another post by someone who throws around phrases like "separation of powers" while clearly being clueless about what they mean and the actual function of the courts.

So Brown v. Board of Education was a bad decision? They should have let the schools remained segregated until the racist white majority decided to "allow" blacks their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law?

The majority should be able to vote in whatever laws they want???????

[GHook93]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Another post by someone who throws around phrases like "separation of powers" while clearly being clueless about what they mean and the actual function of the courts.

Also no need to insult I got A's in both Conlaw I & II. I used to think like you before I took these classes and learned what the legislative, judicial and executive branches' jobs were!

So Brown v. Board of Education was a bad decision? They should have let the schools remained segregated until the racist white majority decided to "allow" blacks their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law?

NO, because that overturned another bad court made law, the Separate, but Equal doctrine. Read Brown. It is about the court rejecting the Ferguson v. Plessy ruling on separate, but equal doctrine. I have no problem with laws get overturned by such matters, but this law (much like Roe v Wade - and I am very pro-abortion) is clearly the courts making laws.

Once a court makes a law it becomes a focal point of future cases and then becomes political. I prefer the legislators making the laws.

[doittoit]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Frankly, I do not care if gays can marry or not. I do not support it but if the choice was up to me I don't think I could deny them the right. Having said that, I am very angry at the fascist way it was overturned. The people of California voted on that ban and passed, also in every state that put it on the ballot in '04. It is highly disturbing that 4 people can override the votes of millions of people. Some people see this as a step forward for human rights, that may be true but it is a leap backwards for democracy. Democracy is dying my friends and if it dies then human rights will be the least of our concerns.

We are a democratic republic, and part of the reason of being a republc is exactly this: protecting the rights of the minority. That protection is inherent in our constitution and should be in our local laws as well (and usually is). As such it becomes the Judicial's responsability to determine when laws contradict and which has precedent. This should never of been allowed to be determined by a mass vote because it allowed the majority to determine the rights of the minority. This decision should of always been left to be deternined in the courts.

[GHook93]

Quote by: doittoit We are a democratic republic, and part of the reason of being a republc is exactly this: protecting the rights of the minority. That protection is inherent in our constitution and should be in our local laws as well (and usually is). As such it becomes the Judicial's responsability to determine when laws contradict and which has precedent. This should never of been allowed to be determined by a mass vote because it allowed the majority to determine the rights of the minority. This decision should of always been left to be deternined in the courts.

America and the courts should protect the minority, but it is their job to determine when a law is unconstitutional. It is not their job to create laws. Its the legislatures job to do that!

[doittoit]

Quote by: GHook93 America and the courts should protect the minority, but it is their job to determine when a law is unconstitutional. It is not their job to create laws. Its the legislatures job to do that!

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.

[Derek Wolff]

Frankly, I do not care if gays can marry or not. I do not support it but if the choice was up to me I don't think I could deny them the right. Having said that, I am very angry at the fascist way it was overturned. The people of California voted on that ban and passed, also in every state that put it on the ballot in '04. It is highly disturbing that 4 people can override the votes of millions of people. Some people see this as a step forward for human rights, that may be true but it is a leap backwards for democracy. Democracy is dying my friends and if it dies then human rights will be the least of our concerns.

As said before we live in a Representative Democracy, not straight Democracy. The purpose of the supreme court is to overview cases and decide if it coincides with the constitution. Although the constitution is subject to interpretation of the individual I completely agree that homosexuals were afforded their rights within the constitution, the same clause that gives the right to religious freedom. The Supreme Court has exercised their given power in the proper manner of the constitution of the United States.