In the future, we’re going to think this entire “controversy” was as stupid as anti-miscegenation laws.
In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation’s biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.
Clearly, this totally affects us straight people. How ever will I go to Vegas for a quickie marriage now that the gays have ruined it?
Gah!
Wedding band on finger…melting!
Love and devotion to wife…fading!
Must…think…heterosexual thoughts!
Gah!
Wedding band on finger…melting!
Love and devotion to wife…fading!
Must…think…heterosexual thoughts!
DON’T LOOK AT THE DOG! DON’T LOOK AT THE DOG!
I MUST FIND A WOMAN TO MARRY ASAP BEFORE TEH GAY.
DON’T LOOK AT THE DOG!
Damn you, Duros. I hate it when I laugh with a mouth full of soda.
This sticky keyboard is all your fault.
Of course modern-day libs only support the “will of the people” when it serves their morally bankrupt agenda.
MrGreyGhost, are people being forced into gay marriages against their will? If so, I roundly condem that practice. If not, who friggin cares?
MrGreyGhost: Of course modern-day libs only support the “will of the people” when it serves their morally bankrupt agenda.
For example…?
Of course MrGreyGhost can relate, being that the GOP is the master of morally bankrupt agendas.
So if marriage is a right as people claim, why can’t people marry more than one person? We have no problem making that illegal. What’s good for gays should be good for Mormons, correct?
I’ve got no problem with it.
So if marriage is a right as people claim, why can’t people marry more than one person?
Good idea! Then eventually, everybody would be married to everybody else and we could just eliminate divorce!
“So if marriage is a right as people claim, why can’t people marry more
than one person?”
The court ruled that the state doesn’t have a right to reduce same sex couples to second-class citizens by denying them a right that same sex couples have. In other words, gay citizens should have the same right to marry as straight couples. That isn’t an argument that can be made in favor of polygamy because no one, straight or gay, has the right to marry more than one person at a time. To put it another way, would-be polygamists are not being denied a right that other citizens have so laws banning polygamy are not unconstitutional.
And that second “same sex” should obviously have read “straight couples.”
Polygamy I don’t have a problem with.
Polygyny I have a problem with because it commonly results in reduced rights for women.
Polyandry is so rare that it isn’t even worth discussing.
Of course, as fafaroo points out, there’s little connection between this debate and same sex marriage, so it is just another desparate attempt by some pathetic right-wing loser to change the subject. I know why people like Jay or MrGreyGhost do this; they can see that like they brethren of the 1960s, the anti-miscegenation crusaders, history is about to leave them behind.
It must suck knowing history will judge you to be a simple-minded bigots. Of course, the obvious solution for that is to not be simple-minded bigots.
Oh, and before any anti-same sex marriage people try to pretend you are not bigots and you are just trying to protect the traditional definition of marriage, try and remember that the traditional definition of marriage is barely 40 years old. Before 1967, the definition of marriage in a lot of states was the union of a man and a woman of the same race. To put that into perspective, McCain is older than the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage.
And 100 years before that, the definition was the union of a white man and a white woman, because black people couldn’t get married. Not too long before that marriage was akin to a man purchasing property, because that’s all a wife was, property of her husband.
It seems there has never been a traditional definition of marriage, because the definition has kept changing. If you weren’t too stupid to handle change, this wouldn’t be a problem for you.
Obama folks, if you want to return some love to Iowa related to the gay marriage issue, here is your way to do so.
http://actblue.com/page/iowaneedsu
“So if marriage is a right as people claim, why can’t people marry more than one person? We have no problem making that illegal. What’s good for gays should be good for Mormons, correct?”
Wow, Jay, you only stupidly compared gay marriage to polygamy and NOT beastiality as right-wing idiots are wont to do. I guess that’s progress.
I just got separated and am about to be divorced. Among the factors involved were the severity of my work hours, the disabilities of our children, personality, cultural, educational and now religious differences between me and my wife and above all, our mutual desire to be away from each other.
No gays or lesbians, married or otherwise, participated in or contributed to the end of this marriage. If these conservatives who bray about “family family family, marriage, marriage, marriage!” would fund some meaningful autism care for children rather than this goddamn war without end in Iraq, maybe I would take them seriously and maybe we could hold it together. But Teh Ghey is not the reason I am seeing my children on alternate weekends only. Gay marriage or marital aspirations were no threat to my marriage; right-wing politics and (newly, for my wife) right-wing (anti-gay) evangelical fundamentalist Protestant Christianity did far more damage.
I look forward to these theocratic, warlord wingnuts suffering, and I truly hope that more than a few of them drink themselves to death or shoot their brains out when their lobbyist or wingnut welfare salaries dry up under President Obama and a 58-Democrat Senate, and their mortgages foreclose. Maybe I will see them standing in line in divorce court too. Maybe I will pass their corpses on K Street on my morning pedestrian commute after they throw themselves off the roofs. If this sounds “elitist” [sic] or mean or “un-Christian,” good. This elitist has had his fill, and wants to see these wingnuts do a Michael Douglas from Falling Down.
Wow, Jay, you only stupidly compared gay marriage to polygamy and NOT beastiality as right-wing idiots are wont to do
Unfortunately, this is the kind of tactic used by people to deflect away from the issue. Nobody is comparing gay marriage to polygamy. The issue of polygamy is used to frame the issue in the context of which supporters of gay marriage see the issue: as one that is a constitutionally protected right.
The ones who are actually making a comparison are the ones foolish enough to equate gay marriage with blacks and whites marrying. They seem to forget that the common thread between a black man and white woman marrying and a white man and a white woman marrying is the man and the woman. Two men or two women marrying is not the same thing as a man and a woman marrying.
And if we allow ourselves to ignorantly claim that there is no traditional definition of marriage, it most certainly does open the door to have people argue that other kinds of marriage should be legalized. People get all up in arms when incestual marriage is brought up, but in ancient cultures in Peru and Egypt, such marriages took place. Is the ACLU going to throw in with two first cousins that want to marry and are the same people here going to support that? If not, I’d like to read the reasons why. If you’re going to make the argument, that marriage in and of itself is a constitutionally protected right, then you have to make a compelling case for why other forms of marriage other than straight and gay marriages can be banned.
But by that logic, we shouldn’t have allowed interracial heterosexual couples to marry because that would open the door to incestuous heterosexual couples wanting to get married. If we can still keep prohibitions against certain kinds of heterosexual relationships, we can still keep prohibitions against certain kinds of homosexual relationships. You’re right, mores play a large role in this. But as you note, mores change. And mores are beginning to hold (in some places, at least) that marriage shouldn’t be banned solely because the individuals involved are of the same gender.
Of course, we could just go back to the law in Texas as it was explained to me 30 years ago: “If it don’t make a baby, it ain’t legal!”
Jay, I’m tired of listening to these specious arguments from your side of the aisle. I disagree with you for many reasons, but mostly I disagree with you because you’re completely and totally wrong.
Why is it a specious argument? It’s not a difficult question. Those who support gay marriage do so under the banner of it being a right that is constitutionally protected (and thus taking up the issue with the courts when they know they’ve lost the issue at the ballot box). You should easily be able to defend that point of view. Quite frankly, I am tired of getting noting in response but, “You’re a bigot!!” which is a cop-out and a way to avoid providing a rational defense of your position.
I don’t support gay marriage as a right that is constitutionally protected. I support gay marriage because there is no rational reason to deny gay people the right to marry.
Your reasons above fall under the category of hysteria–”if we allow X, then surely Y and Z will follow!!!”
Reasons I have seen in the past include the argument that gay people have the same right to marry somebody of the opposite gender as everybody else, ergo, there is no discrimination involved. This argument completely undermines, however, the idea that marriage is a sacrament–because there is no greater mockery of marriage than one that begins with a lie.
What gay marriage opponents increasingly fail to demonstrate is their claim that gay marriage “attacks” the institution of heterosexual marriage. Two gays getting married does not cause the divorce rate to spike. Two gays getting married does not make you love your spouse any less.
With all the “rational” reasons to oppose gay marriage revealed as empty and meaningless, the only conclusion left is the one you hate to hear–people oppose gay marriage because they’re fucking bigots.
OK, Jay. Let’s try this.
Most anti-discrimination laws specify that you may not discriminate on the basis of several things including race or sexual orientation. I can’t refuse to rent an apartment to you because you are black or gay. We recognize that in housing, employment and a host of other areas it is discriminatory and unconstitutional to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation.
The law used to be that two people of different races could not marry. That was recognized as unconstitutional. Now the law in many places is that two people of the same gender can not marry. It is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
How would you handle the case of a transgender person? Someone who used to be male is now legally recognized as being female. Would you be opposed to their marrying a male?
Of course modern-day libs only support the “will of the people” when it serves their morally bankrupt agenda.
Don’t approve of gay marriage? Simple solution: DON’T MARRY A HOMOSEXUAL.
Sorry ’bout your keyboard, Sean.
Your reasons above fall under the category of hysteria–”if we allow X, then surely Y and Z will follow!!!”
Actually, it’s not hysteria. It’s just used as a reference point to get people to defend their position. Now you claim that your reasoning is there’s no ‘rational’ reason to deny people the ‘right’ to marry. Well, what’s ‘rational’ is obviously subjective so that’s really not a valid argument or one based on reason. If that’s what you believe, that’s great, but you cannot say to somebody else that they’re wrong simply because you say so.
What gay marriage opponents increasingly fail to demonstrate is their claim that gay marriage “attacks” the institution of heterosexual marriage.
I don’t buy into the whole notion of ‘attacking’ with regard to gay marriage. As a Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage. As a libertarian, I could care less if two gay people marry. My rights are not being infringed upon because of it. But also as a libertarian, I don’t like such issues being decided by the courts where some mythical ‘right’ to marry and have that right be recognized by the state is being discovered. This again is where proponents stray from reality when they bring up miscegenation laws and attempt to compare the two. Miscegenation laws (or anti miscegenation) laws specifically banned interracial marriage and provided criminal penalties for violating those laws. There’s no criminal sanctions in any state for two gay people to get married. Most states do not however, recognize such marriages.
I can’t refuse to rent an apartment to you because you are black or gay.
Actually, you can. Housing discrimination laws do not apply to personal dwellings (two family house) or even apartment buildings with less than a certain amount of units (like 6 or something).
Now the law in many places is that two people of the same gender can not marry.
See, that’s where you’re wrong. It is not against the law for two gay people to marry. It is the state recognition of that marriage that is at issue.
Polygamy I don’t have a problem with.
Polygyny I have a problem with because it commonly results in reduced rights for women.
Polyandry is so rare that it isn’t even worth discussing.
Polly Anna-ry is all we get from the right wing.
Is the ACLU going to throw in with two first cousins that want to marry and are the same people here going to support that?
Why not? It worked for Rudy Guiliani.
Anyway, why shouldn’t gay couples suffer just as much as the rest of us?
Your reasons above fall under the category of hysteria–”if we allow X, then surely Y and Z will follow!!!”
I agree, and so does my fiancee.
Jay: “Well, what’s ‘rational’ is obviously subjective so that’s really not a valid argument or one based on reason.”
I swear, sometimes his postings aer like reading a koan or trying to figure out the sound of one hand clapping. A rational argument is not one based on reason.
Jay,
What you are ignoring are the myriad laws that do discriminate based on the legal status of the relationship.
A very good friend of ours lost his partner of many years to a genetic immune disorder. It was his partner’s express wish to be cremated, but in Alabama only family members are allowed to request cremation from the Mortuary. And no, his gay lover of 20 years was not considered family. His biological family had disowned him due to his sexual orientation. So, sorry, but if you’re teh gay you can’t have your last wishes carried out because your family isn’t legally recognized by the state.
So much for the party of so-called “family values.”
That is what the gay marriage fight is really all about – civil rights. If the state recognizes civil marriage for heterosexual couples and endows that institution with certain privileges, then it is discriminatory not to make those same privileges available to homosexual couples, when the only difference is what goes on in the privacy of the bedroom (and only in a very technical sense at that). If your church does not want to conduct a religious ceremony for gay couples, fine. Mine does. What is at question is the recognition of that relationship by the state.
Now, if you want to argue that the state has no business recognizing any marriage – including for straight couples – well then maybe we could meet half way.
(fortunately our friend found a funeral home that was willing to look the other way with regards to the paperwork, so his partner was cremated)
Jay: As a Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage.
Why? Just “because I’m a Christian”? Hardly a thinking answer. isn’t an answer. What is the harm caused by or danger posed by gay marriage that makes it something that should be opposed?
Jay: as a libertarian, I don’t like such issues being decided by the courts where some mythical ‘right’ to marry and have that right be recognized by the state is being discovered.
Are you saying the courts shouldn’t recognize “some mythical ‘right’ to marry” for anyone?
Jay: Miscegenation laws (or anti miscegenation) laws specifically banned interracial marriage and provided criminal penalties for violating those laws. There’s no criminal sanctions in any state for two gay people to get married. Most states do not however, recognize such marriages.
So it’s the extent to which one is penalized that matters? If the state officially says “do this and we’ll actively penalize you by putting you in jail” that’s wrong. But if the state says “do this and we’ll passively penalize you by denying you legal status and the benefits that come with them” then that’s OK?
SDM: I can’t refuse to rent an apartment to you because you are black or gay.
Jay: Actually, you can. Housing discrimination laws do not apply to personal dwellings (two family house) or even apartment buildings with less than a certain amount of units (like 6 or something).
Nice way to not actually address the point being made, Jay.
SDM: Now the law in many places is that two people of the same gender can not marry.
Jay: See, that’s where you’re wrong. It is not against the law for two gay people to marry. It is the state recognition of that marriage that is at issue.
So, if there was no law against black people marrying, but marriages of blacks simply just weren’t recognized by the state, that would be OK?
“Those who support gay marriage do so under the banner of it being a right that is constitutionally protected …”
Be that as it may, that is, again, not why the California Supreme Court rejected the law. They rejected the law on the grounds that it was discriminatory, not because gay people have a “right” to get married. The law said only certain kinds of people can get married. That’s an unequal application of the law and so unconstitutional.
The court would have done the same thing if Californians passed a proposition saying only straight people could get driver’s licenses. No one has a right to drive, but that doesn’t mean that legislatures can pass laws granting the privilege to only certain segments of society, short of compelling reasons to do so, such as limiting the age at which someone can drive. But even that restriction doesn’t deny, entirely, the ability to get a license. Teenagers just have to wait for it.
The majority of the court found their was no compelling social or safety reason for limiting the privilege of marriage to only straight couples. Constitutionally, polygamy or bestialty doesn’t enter into it because, as I said above, laws against polygamy and bestiality do not say, well this group can do it, and this group can’t. No one can engage in either behavior legally and so the law is being applied equally.
The court did not “discover” or “create” some right that didn’t exist beforehand. It did, however, find the law unconstitutional, which is precisely their constitutionally defined role. It’s disingenuous to suggest that the Court “overruled” the will of the people in some grab for power. The court was acting exactly as it’s required to act by the constitution.
At the same time, if you are opposed to gay marriage because you are a Christian and believe that your personal morality should be enshrined in law, that is the very definition of unconstitutional discrimination.
Why? Just “because I’m a Christian”? Hardly a thinking answer. isn’t an answer. What is the harm caused by or danger posed by gay marriage that makes it something that should be opposed?
I didn’t say it was an answer Sean. I was just stating my viewpoint on gay marriage in that context. You need to read a little more carefully. My religious views can be separated from my political views.
Are you saying the courts shouldn’t recognize “some mythical ‘right’ to marry” for anyone?
Again Sean, read more carefully. It is not about whether or not it is legal to get married. I am opposed to a law that makes it crime for somebody to marry another. However, there is nothing in our constitution that says a state must recognize a gay marriage. Again, gays can get married in every state. It’s not illegal anywhere. The only legal question is whether or not the state should recognize that marriage. That is a question that should be left up to the legislatures and the public, not the courts.
But if the state says “do this and we’ll passively penalize you by denying you legal status and the benefits that come with them” then that’s OK?
It’s not a matter of whether it is ok or not. You cannot seem to comprehend the point at hand. It’s not about how I feel about the issue or whether one scenario is Ok or not. The comparison between the two is not valid for the reasons stated.
Nice way to not actually address the point being made, Jay.
Actually, I did. I was just correcting your error.
So, if there was no law against black people marrying, but marriages of blacks simply just weren’t recognized by the state, that would be OK?
Once again, it has nothing to do with whether or not it is ok. I really wish you could see past the emotional part of this and use some reason when discussing the issue. If the state of California wanted to legally recognize gay marriages, then let the legislature and the Governor do it. People need to stop relying on a court making up the law as it goes along.
They rejected the law on the grounds that it was discriminatory, not because gay people have a “right” to get married. The law said only certain kinds of people can get married. That’s an unequal application of the law and so unconstitutional.
You’re wrong. Chief Justice Ronald George said the exclusion of gays having their marriages recognized in the state of California denied them “their fundamental rights to marry.” They also ruled basically that being gay is just like Black in the state of California, which makes no sense.
Constitutionally, polygamy or bestialty doesn’t enter into it because, as I said above, laws against polygamy and bestiality do not say, well this group can do it, and this group can’t. No one can engage in either behavior legally and so the law is being applied equally.
Sorry, but that doesn’t hold water. First of all, the ‘behavior’ is not what they do, but marriage itself. Therefore, one group can and one group cannot. So the law is not being applied equally. Incest in and of itself in California is not illegal. But California law specifically prohibits incestual marriages. The only conclusion that can be made from the court’s ruling is that those people are being discriminated against and therefore, those laws should be found to be unconstitutional. That door is now wide open.
It’s disingenuous to suggest that the Court “overruled” the will of the people in some grab for power. The court was acting exactly as it’s required to act by the constitution.
Actually they did overrule the will of the people which passed in 2000. Once again, their decision doesn’t hold up because while saying a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, they left in place other bans.
At the same time, if you are opposed to gay marriage because you are a Christian and believe that your personal morality should be enshrined in law, that is the very definition of unconstitutional discrimination.
I don’t, so that doesn’t concern me.
Now, if you want to argue that the state has no business recognizing any marriage – including for straight couples – well then maybe we could meet half way.
To be honest, I found it to be somewhat abhorrent that I had to go to the state and get a license that had to be given to my Pastor before he performed my wedding ceremony. I would be happier if the state got out of the marriage business altogether.
I am opposed to a law that makes it crime for somebody to marry another.
That’s great, but that’s not what we’re discussing.
That’s great, but that’s not what we’re discussing.
It is when you compare bans on same sex marriage to laws that made it a crime for interracial couples to marry.
I would be happier if the state got out of the marriage business altogether.
I hereby plant this flag on Common Ground.
Can I take it you’re also opposed to a U.S. Constitutional amendment that recognizes marriage as “only” between a man and woman?
Jay: I didn’t say it was an answer Sean. I was just stating my viewpoint on gay marriage in that context. You need to read a little more carefully. My religious views can be separated from my political views.
You need to read a little more carefull, jay. I wasn’t confusing your political and religeous views. I was simply asking you why if you could elaborate on why you are opposed to gay marriage beyond “I’m a Christian”.
Jay: Again Sean, read more carefully. It is not about whether or not it is legal to get married. I am opposed to a law that makes it crime for somebody to marry another.
Again, Jay, it would help if you read more carefully. I understand what you wrote. I just asked you to clarify it. Do you believe, then, that courts should then not recognize this “mythical right” for anyone. You said you don’t want the courts involved, and I asked how completely do you want them uninvolved.
If you like, I can just jump in and attack you for what I think you mean without asking for clarification. But I’d rather make sure I know what you mean before I jump to a conclusion you are wrong.
Jay: Once again, it has nothing to do with whether or not it is ok.
It doesn’t? Really? Whether something is “ok” or not has nothing to do with determining whether it is “ok” or not?
Jay: If the state of California wanted to legally recognize gay marriages, then let the legislature and the Governor do it. People need to stop relying on a court making up the law as it goes along.
What law did the court make up? The court interpreted the law and found it didn’t pass constitutional muster. That is exactly the role the court is required to play.
Jay: They also ruled basically that being gay is just like Black in the state of California, which makes no sense.
In other words, something you intrinsically are is just like something else you intrinsically are. There is sense there, Jay. Now you can argue that sexual orientation, unlike race, is something you can choose, and we can argue over how much sense a comparison makes. But you can’t just say it makes none at all.
SDM: Nice way to not actually address the point being made, Jay.
Jay: Actually, I did. I was just correcting your error.
Nope, still ducking it.
Jay: Actually they did overrule the will of the people which passed in 2000.
And what, exactly, is wrong with the court overruling the will of the people? It is the court’s job to determine what is constitutional and what is not. If the people pass an unconstitutional law then, yes, it is the court’s sworn duty to over rule them. If the people don’t like it they can get together a large enough majority to change the Constitution. It’s that pesky checks and balances thing.
Spider, I am opposed to that as well as being opposed to a flag burning amendment and an amendment outlawing abortion.
Jay: I would be happier if the state got out of the marriage business altogether.
Agree with you all the way there.
State not involved in marriage at all. No license required to get married. No privileges granted to folks because of their marital state.
For determining beneficiaries and who gets to make medical decisions, etc, etc. let couples (man-woman ones, too) register with the state as a domestic partnership or civil union. Something completely separate and apart from marriage.
“You’re wrong.”
Not really. The majority opinion wrote:
“…Our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.”
They were focussed, then, entirely on determining the constitutionality of the statute as worded which asked that the state recognize only same sex marriages. They looked at both court precedent on the “right of marriage” as found in the California constitution and specifically at the equal protection clause of the constitution.
They did not create some kind of new right for gay couples. Sixty years of California supreme court rulings have determined that the state constitution implicitly includes a right to marriage. Furthermore, however, the court never defined marriage previously based on the identity or gender of the plaintiffs in question:
Plaintiffs challenge the Court of Appeal’s characterization of the constitutional right they seek to invoke as the right to same-sex marriage, and on this point we agree with plaintiffs’ position. In Perez v. Sharp — this court’s 1948 decision holding that the California statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional — the court did not characterize the constitutional right that the plaintiffs in that case sought to obtain as “a right to interracial marriage” and did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge on the ground that such marriages never had been permitted in California.”
Instead, the Perez decision focused on the substance of the constitutional right at issue — that is, the importance to an individual of the freedom “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” — in determining whether the statute impinged upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right.
Once you remove the specific details of race and gender from the equation, the court found that the right of marriage cannot be applied unequally under the equal protection clause, especially as it did not find any compelling reason to do so. The statute in question did not apply equally so it was struck down. The key determination here wasn’t the definition of marriage itself but the equal application of the right to marry.
The court stated that if the statute had made a distinction between state recognized unions and religiously recognized marriages by limiting the state to recognizing only civil unions, leaving marriage up to churches, the statute would not have been unconstitutional. I think this speaks directly to your comment: “I would be happier if the state got out of the marriage business altogether.” The court left open the possibility for this to actually happen, but would anti-gay marriage activists in general be happy with that? I doubt it. What they want is for the state to recognize and enforce their own, specific morality and impose it on the rest of the population which is why they worded to proposition the way they did.
So again, the court ruled only on the constitutionality of the statute as worded which is its proper constitutional role. It did not overturn the will of the people, as neither legislatures nor voters are allowed to enact laws which are unconstitutional.
To call what the court did “legislating from the bench” does only one thing: undermine the constitutional authority of the courts in this country. That, as far as i’m concerned, is far more dangerous to this country than allowing gays to get married.
It did not overturn the will of the people, as neither legislatures nor voters are allowed to enact laws which are unconstitutional.
Actually, some unconstitutional laws DO get enacted. Some don’t get that far, some don’t get enforced while the matter of constitutionality is settled. But there have been laws on the books that have gotten stuck down years later as unconstitutional.
And when that happens the court, if it’s doing its job, certainly does overturn the will of the people.
“And when that happens the court, if it’s doing its job, certainly does overturn the will of the people.”
You know, “overturning the will of the people” is a pretty loaded phrase and it isn’t even remotely close to accurately describing what happened here or in other cases.
Yes, unconstitutional laws get enacted and enforced but that’s because courts only review what comes before them, and law only come before them if there’s some specific case or appeal based on the law. I’m not a lawyer but that’s my general understanding.
But when a court finds a law unconstitutional, they are acting within their constitutionally defined role which is an ESSENTIAL PART of our democracy. It isn’t an assault upon it, as the phrase “overturning the will of the people” would imply. Conservatives who use the phrase and others like it, such as “legislating from the bench” are essentially undermining the authority of the courts to do their job and that’s dangerous. I heard a local LA talk show host today liken the California Supreme court to a dictatorial council. You think that’s healthy in a democracy like ours? I don’t.
But when a court finds a law unconstitutional, they are acting within their constitutionally defined role which is an ESSENTIAL PART of our democracy.
They are not however, acting within their role when their decisions fall outside of accepted jurisprudence. Remember, this wasn’t a unanimous decision. It was 4-3, not 7-0. The dissenting judges in this case ruled correctly that the court was overstepping its bounds and acting as legislators and that is not the role of the judiciary.
Chief Justice George rejected the minority’s viewpoint that this decision could lead to further decisions that would legalize polygamous and incestuous marriages because there is justification to ban such unions because of their “harmful effect on families.” Well who is he to say that it will have a harmful effect? Haven’t religious conservatives argued the same about gay marriage? The Chief Justice’s comments are a total contradiction to his own decision – that marriage is a “fundamental” right.
Here are two dissenting viewpoints:
“[A] bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves,” Baxter wrote. “Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.”
Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan said in a separate dissent that although she personally supports “gay marriage,” she believed the court overreached.
“Four votes on this court should not disturb the balance reached by the democratic process, a balance that is still being tested in the political arena,” she wrote. “Certainly initiative measures are not immune from constitutional review. However, we should hesitate to use our authority to take one side in an ongoing political debate.”
The sad part is, this issue probably would have been resolved at some point by the state legislature and the Governor’s office. Now with this decision, it gives a lot of fuel to those who want to enact an amendment to the state constitution that will ban gay marriage. This decision will merely make it easier for that amendment to pass.
“The sad part is, this issue probably would have been resolved at some point by the state legislature and the Governor’s office.”
… Are you really that fucking stupid, Jay?
The California legislature did pass a gay marriage law. Schwarzenegger refused to sign it.
“This decision will merely make it easier for that amendment to pass.”
Bigots and assholes don’t need reasons to be bigots and assholes.
The California legislature did pass a gay marriage law. Schwarzenegger refused to sign it.
Mr. Potato Head…..Mr. Potato Head!! Learn to read. I wrote:
“The sad part is, this issue probably would have been resolved at some point by the state legislature and the Governor’s office.
I didn’t realize that Schwarzenegger was going to be Governor of California for life. His current term ends in a couple of years. Guess what dummy? The voters get to choose a new Governor!! If a candidate that supports gay marriage gets elected. he could have signed the bill.
If you weren’t such and asshole that just looks for any reason to call people names, you would have realized that. But you didn’t.
Because you’re an asshole.
“They are not however, acting within their role when their decisions fall outside of accepted jurisprudence.”
Dude, the majority opinion was based on 60 years of previous California Supreme Court rulings. This is hardly an opinion out of left field. At the same time, all the decision really did was reject the statute as written as unconstitutional. The Court left open the possibility of rewording the statute in such a way that is wasn’t unconstitutional. At the same time, as you point out, there is still the possibility of amending the California constitution. It’s all part of a democratic process. To attack the court’s decision as somehow anti-democratic is pure demagoguery aimed at subverting the authority of a democratic institution, that is, the courts.
To attack the court’s decision as somehow anti-democratic is pure demagoguery aimed at subverting the authority of a democratic institution, that is, the courts.
So the dissenting justices were looking to subvert the authority of a democratic institution they were a part of?
That makes sense.
So the dissenting justices were looking to subvert the authority of a democratic institution they were a part of?
That makes sense.
Right. Because no democratic institution would ever undermine their own authority by, oh, I dunno, consistently choosing not to act as a check on the power of the Executive branch for example.
“So the dissenting justices were looking to subvert the authority of a democratic institution they were a part of? That makes sense.”
What? Dude. You just made my point. The Court’s ruling was based on a democratic principle of majority rules. The court heard arguments, discussed the issue, issued opinions and voted on which way to rule. The with the most “votes” won. So even the court’s decision was democratically arrived at. Now anti-gay marriage advocates want to attack the very process through which judicial rulings are made by declaring the majority opinion anti-democratic.