California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...yMarriage.html


Yay!! :D

Planning a wedding ISiddiqui?

No, I just champion the cause of equal rights.

Oh ok fair enough.

Beyond being vaguely aware a ruling was due soon, I haven't been following this specific case closely, so I'm left to ask: Is the ruling really a surprise to anyone?

Heck, being California, I'm genuinely surprised it was even as close as it was.

I'm suprised by the ruling. A few years ago, California voters passed a measure blocking gay marriages. There are very significant difference between Northern and Southern California as well as coastal and interior regions.

And the CJ who wrote the opinion is a moderate Republican.

Ah, I didn't even think about the RINO factor (if I had, I would be even less shocked, but still ...)

edit to add: And the linked article answer the other question I would have asked. Indeed, if they had taken the constitutional amendment route, the court would have been kept out of the process. I see where an effort to correct that tactical error is already underway.

The idea of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage seems odd to me. There should be a mechanism in place to prevent the banning of equal rights.

But if today's overturning of the voter's will is (state) constitutionally based (which I gather from a very quick skim of things) then amending the state constitution removes the court's ability to interfere (which is largely why 26(?) states have gone that more secure route).

The only "right" that exists in this case is what is constitutionally guaranteed, and the process allows for amendment. Basically, the difference lies in the procedure and who can assert their will upon the outcome.

I kind get what you're saying in an odd way though, I find it rather odd that the courts can unilaterally overturn the voters but that's the way the process works, leaving the more effective route (for many issues, not just this one) to be constitutional amendments where applicable.

I guess it depends on how you want to define "marriage". Think of the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

YAY CALI!!!

<unrelated topic soapbox>half a million people can't vote based on where they leave, what's the difference?</unrelated topic soapbox>

I get how the process works and that rights come from the Constitution. It just seems odd to me that people are willing to create an amendment specifically to remove certain rights from a subset of the population. I guess my real beef is that people find it acceptable to ban marriage in this way. This seems like one of those things that will be seen as a big embarrassment at some point in the future.

Who can spot the Freudian slip?

:D

I got mixed feelings on that. I don't have a problem with gay marriage (to be honest, I don't think the government should be involved in the marriage business), but I kind of hate to see that the will of the voters be overruled by the court system.

Could this become a big part of general election (in terms of who will appoint who, the reach of the court systems)?

But that is exactly why the court system has that power, to prevent the majority from passing laws that deny constitutional rights to the minority. You can argue (as many have) that gay marriage is not protected by the US Consitution or any state's Constitution (which, by the way, is overruled by the US Constitution), but the ability to strike down laws that are unconstitutional (laws that must have been passed by the majority of voters or legislators) is part of the checks and balances between the three branches of government.

The will of the voters can't set aside guaranteed rights.

Interestingly (okay, vaguely interesting at least) you could almost certainly find worse sentences to describe how I feel about the court ruling today.

edit to add

Just as I have a bigger issue with the fact that there is actually some need to codify the definition, instead of it being inherently understood.

Theoretically, if it was the will of enough voters and senators, etc you could repeal the 14th Amendment.

Leave West Virginia out of this.

As a resident of California, my thoughts exactly


Are you talking national? Or strictly in California?

Correct.

Nationally.

Sure, but that standard is (rightfully) extremely hard to reach.

Could be. I wouldn't mind seeing the Appeals court in the West be brought a little bit back from the far left.

Ah, but this is the very question at hand. Who establishes what are and aren't rights?

The Declaration established one standard ("endowed by our Creator with certain rights"), that a large portion of our nation, and certainly our court system, has since abandoned.

The Constitution created a system for voting on rights (the Bill of Rights, afterall, required ratification) and a court--not for determining rights, but for voting on laws that may or may not conflict with the Constitution.

Now, our courts have largely since abandoned this system as well, seeing themselves as the definer of rights, rather than the interpreters of law.

So, who establishes rights? There are three schools of thought:
1. Creator - as the Declaration declares
2. Vote of the people - as the Constitution largely establishes
3. The courts

Clearly, the courts are now typically in camp 3. But is this best? When one branch of government begins operating outside of the Constitutional bounds, and that's the branch that is responsible for interpreting the Constitution...do we have a problem on our hands?

If, however, the Constitution still has effect, then the people can still vote sufficiently to create, add, or take away rights as they wish--and the courts have no say in it. The curious situation that may arise soon is when the people pass a constitutional ammendment...and the courts rule it unconstitutional! :D

ONE branch?

Supposedly there is a law on the books in Cali that allows gays to have equal rights as a marriage, but I forget what it is called. I don't understand why gays seek legal marriage when marriage is largely a religious custom and not a legal one (yes there are legal rights involved, but in Cali they are arguing that they want to be married and not united under the other law).

Evangelists throughout the US now eagerly await the next disaster to strike California.

Easy, equality. They want to be able to do what everyone else does.

Probably the same reason that others are trying so hard ot keep gays from being able to use the word "marriage".

Did the other law allow shared insurance coverage and things of that nature?

While we agree on a number of things, I'm not surprised that this isn't one of them.

One thing should be clarified. The court didn't say that homosexuals have to be granted the right of marriage. It said that if California offers the right of marriage to hetero couples it must also offer that right to homo couples. It's pretty standard equal protection. California has every right to choose to offer only civil unions to all couples and allow marriage to be sanctioned solely by religious bodies.

I understand. I guess what I'm thinking is what revrew is getting at. What are the rights that are unconstitutional? Who determines those rights? What does marriage provide that a domestic partnership doesn't that is unconstitutional? Is it just the "label" of being married?

I absolutely anticipate this happening sooner rather than later.

lots of companies/programs/discounts etc. only apply to people that are "married" is the problem

jphillips' solution is what I have always supported - have the government get out of "marrying" and rewrite all laws to say "civil unions" and make everyone get a civil union, gay/straight/animal-marrying, and those that want to have a religious-sanctioned ceremony then can

From what I heard, the other law granted them all the rights of a married couple, with the exception that they were not "married" they were in some other sort of union.

I have no problem with giving gays equal rights, or extending rights to anyone that you desire to have those rights. However, marriage is a religious bond first and foremost. Since I can't think of a religion that allows gay marriage (although now days I'm sure one does) I think it is ridiculous to fight for a word.

Is it though? "Marriage" is far beyond being just a "religious bond". My girlfriend isn't religious, but I'm pretty sure she has never in her life said "Gee, I can't wait till my civil union day".

Marriage is a status granted by state and federal governments as well as religious bodies. As long as the state of California is going to determine who is and isn't married they have to allow homosexual as well as heterosexual marriages.

this is a shame. i don't like the direction this country is going in. i don't mind gays having some type of union, but gay marriage is a mockery of actual marriage. i blame Will and Grace and Ellen Degeneres for all of this. i'm just disappointed in all this. this country is getting too progressive. i spit on the ground in disgust.

If you move to California, then your boyfriend wont have to say that either.

The US court system has the power of judicial review. They can overturn any federal law if they deem it incombaitible with the US Constitution (and all admendments), and they can overturn any state law if they deem it incompatible with federal law or the US Consitution (and all admendments). At the state level, they can overturn state law if they deem it incompatible with their state's constitution.

IOW, if a law, or referendum or whatever, contradicts a higher law (the highest being the US Constitution), the courts can strike it down. In this case, the California Supreme Court said the "seperate but equal" civil union law contradicted a higher law (the (established through previous court decisions) state constitutional "right to marry") and overturned it.

He's not really the marrying type.

Completely agree. This issue is clearly the biggest crisis the US faces today.

+1. Marriage in the United States has zero to do with religion as it stands today. The marriage ceremony may by choice be made religious, but marriage itself is nothing more than a legally binding contract. If that pisses off a segment of the population, changing our laws to require civil unions for all, and to get rid of this word that ties it to religion and let every couple handle that as they'd like seems the only logical way to go.

it is and it isn't. some things are best left unchanged. there is clearly no practical purpose behind 2 gay people being married. they get to walk the streets hand in hand, the world has progressed enough where they can do that. but no, that's not enough. they need to be afforded the same advantages as a man/woman being joined together.

everything in life, especially with the government, is a slippery slope. you start allowing certain advantages where there wasn't any before, and soon enough others want the same thing. you really can't give people an inch, because they'll want the whole damn yard - i live my life according to that maxim. first its gay marriage, what is it tomorrow? you have to be able to look several steps down the road. what's next - allowing teens to get married? allowing men to take young brides? where does this all lead to? i rather not find out, which is why i rather not allow gay marriage. would the world have truly ended if they weren't able to get married? i'm just disappointed.

Where it leads is people not getting discriminated against because of what sex their legal-age and willing partner and lover is.

If you think it's going to lead to 13 year olds getting married (which is exactly what used to happen in these "religious ceremony" known as marriage), then I think you are far too paranoid.

As stated, it is a state recognized institution, so saying it is a religious bond foremost just doesn't fly really with this issue. Secondly, there are plenty of Prostestant Churches that allow gay marriage. This has caused splits in some denominations as well (the Anglicans and Lutherans come to mind).

Certainly not to the non-religious, who also get married.

Agreed. My wife and I are both atheists and we got married. Religion played no role whatsoever in our decision to get married or our ceremony.

I certainly hope one day in the future people will be able to look back at this debate and simply shake their heads, like we do now when discussing the old laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages.

Same dance. Different tune.

I'm sure they will. The fact that lots of people already do gives me hope that the others are either afraid or just slow to catch up.

This is stupid. Marriage existed as a social construct well before religion - there's also this wonderful thing called the Establishment Clause, that renders this a secular country. No one is telling your church to call this marriage - but they are telling your church that they shouldn't be able to define it for the rest of us.

They will - the people defending this on religious grounds are like the segregationists of old, defending a dying construct with ad-hoc moral grounds ("its the way we've always done it".) I have no desire to force a church to conduct a gay marriage - but I don't think the church has a right to define what marriage is for me either. The battle is over - amongst people our age, gay marriage isn't an issue. Bluntly, as the old die, their prejudices will go with them.

I haven't read the thread, so I hope I am not repetitive with what others may be saying, but my beef with gay marriage is that it would be a marriage. In my mind, that is a religious term. Unfortunately, the politicians aeons ago decided to legalize the terms of marriage, which is why this all sorts of a mess.

I am against gay marriage as so called, but I am 100% for civil unions, which (in my version) would serve the same function and enjoy the same rights as marriage. I would say marriage is the religious coupling in whatever form the religion may have it, while the civil union would become the legal definition, with all legal, tax, and insurance rights and what not. Marriage--whether gay or straight--would have no legal rights tied to it, and civil unions would be for all forms of formally linked "couples", no matter their composition.

It's the only way I know to preserve the sanctity of marriage while giving everyone--gay or straight--the same marital rights under the law.

You keep saying this - why? Marriage existed before religion, shocking as this may be. I think the government should grant everyone civil unions - people can call whatever they want marriage, and there need not be any official definition.

If both groups, non-believers and gays are "sinners", and do not deserve the title marriage, why is it that people only attack and take issue with the gays?

Yeah, the fact is that the term "marriage" - whether the word itself was originally referring to a purely religious wedding or not (I honestly don't know and can't be bothered looking it up) - is now the term that people associate with the government-recognised civil union of two people.

Because people are hypocritical idiots?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Dictionary makes a point of mentioning legal or religious.

So you essentially agree with me then. Strip marriage of the "legalities" and have a new definition to handle the official stuff like ownership issues, taxes, insurances, and what not.

Because those people don't consider themselves sinners on the same level as gay people, I would imagine. But you would have to ask them--I am not a member or supporter of the "Christian right thinks gays are sinners" group.

Yup, and I think that's what get's the Christian right riled up. Okay, let's change the name, at least in the officialese. And as Crap says, what you call it outside of the legal terms like "civil union", what you call it on your own is your own business.

Problem is they would fight something like that just as much as they fight against gay marriage. They would turn it around and say the usual "They are trying to take God out of the country" or something, and they would also argue doing that would "downgrade" their marriages.

All nonsense, of course, but nonetheless they'll fight the idea of "universal civil unions" and the taking of the term marriage out of legalities pretty damn hard.

Yup, that's one reason me and them don't see eye to eye too much.

So, basically, we are having an all out fight over gays getting married, just so they can call themselves married (or the conservatives don't want them to call themselves that)?

Whelp, that's two threads today where Hell Atlantic and I see eye to eye.

Erm. I would imagine there are also a number of legal rights (benefits, property, taxes, etc) that come along with being recognized as married by your state of residence.

Meh. Who cares.

Gay people? People who don't like discrimination?

As a resident of CA, I voted against the proposition banning gay marriage. I think the Government should deal with and treat individuals equally. The fact that the Republicans made a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage one of their first platform planks at the 2004 convention actually swayed me from registering as a Republican.

This ruling doesn't set well with me. I believe that the people have spoken, and it wasn't close. Add this to the fact that Civil Unions already accord same sex couples all of the same rights that married couples enjoy in the state. The people were clearly against the concept, and now a court has invalidated their will.

Now I'm in the weird situation that I may actually vote for the amendment to ban gay marriage, not so much in reversing my position as I'd be making a statement about judges making such rulings.

I'll also note that I doubt the amendment will pass, but it will definitely be on the ballot.

Nah.

The court agrees with you - they just think the people spoke in 1879.

on what points did i make do you agree with me on this topic, out of curiosity?

i expected to be in the clear minority, which turned out to be correct, but i'm surprised to see we feel the same way about this, you of all people LOL.

I really thought your initial post in this thread was being satirical. I was a lot less sure of the second post, but still hopeful.

Now that I realize they were not, well... yeah.

I'm quite sure that when Loving v. Virginia was decided, a majority of people in the state of Virginia were against whites and blacks marrying. I'm not sure what role the will of the people should have when laws violate the Constitution.

Seriously dude - why don't go to Hicksville, USA, and you can spend time discussing how things were better in the good ol' days when those minorities and women knew their place, and men were men. You come across as a complete idiot here, and you weren't exactly working of high expectations.

I believe there actually is a town called Hicksville not very far from where Hell Atlantic lives.

Not especially. Laws have always been about a society, or at least the majority in a society, deciding what behaviors are acceptable and/or unacceptable. A majority of people in California decided that they didn't want a same-sex union to have equal status with heterosexual marriage, and yet a court violated the will of the people saying they cannot pass laws that violate perceived rights of people because of their sexual proclivities. And yet, American society certainly does. Pedophiles have it a lot worse than gays ever did -- they are basically marked as sex offenders for the rest of their lives -- don't know of any gays that have to register as gays when they move to a new community. Adultery is ironclad grounds for a divorce. People caught having sex with animals are charged with crimes.

What is to keep pedophiles from following the same game plan homosexuals used to fight for their "rights"? You might laugh, but 40 years ago, this same discussion about state recognizition of same-sex marriage would be equally "ludicrous."

The difference is that homosexual couples are beyond the age of consent. Pedophiles prey on children too young to consent and animals are not capable of consensual sex. Adultery isn't illegal, but would presumably be grounds for a divorce of a homosexual marriage as well.

The people don't get to make laws that violate the Constitution.

OMG! They're gonna let queers marry!!! What's next, dogs??

Agreed with Chief on all counts.

Wasn't that the purpose of a civil union?

The courts have a duty to overturn unconstitutional laws, whether the laws were passed by the legislature or by voters. That's a fundamental part of their job, and there's no point in having a constitution if the courts don't do it.

Marriage is granted under the age of consent.

And if laws cannot be made that violate the constitution, then why is Polygamy illegal? Especially if it is amongst people who are adults and beyond the age of consent?

Because it's generally part of religion

Actually there has been a lot of discussion (at least in law school discussions and law review articles) that based on the court's precedents (not even counting anything about homosexuality) that a ban on polygamy probably wouldn't be able to stand anymore.

Interesting. Is that the next fight, once the this fight is next? Do you see this becoming a big issue in the presidential race over the appointment of judges?

Age of consent is an arbitrary age selected by adults for children...so can that be considered constitutional? And anyone who thinks animals are not capable of consent have obviously never tried to give a dog a bath that didn't want one. :)

And if the Supreme Court is the end-all and be-all that some here like to make the case -- the High Court at one time upheld the Constitutionality of certain people being the property of other people...so what happened with that?

No. Mostly because most people don't care about polygamy (except when they unearth a cult and they express horror at the 14 and 15 year olds that have been forced into a plural marriage).

I don't think America is ready to sanction polygamous marriages, Imran, just my own opinion.

That's the point...doesn't matter what the people want or are ready for...right now, it's all about what the courts decide.

I thought what Isiddiqui was saying was that if a court overturned a law against polygamy, that nobody would really care. I don't think that's correct.

Maybe he was saying something else, though.

I think you underestimate the conservative attitude towards having more than one wife in the United States of America.

The way I read hist comment is that most people don't really think about polygamy, there aren't many people trying to push for legal polygamy, so while most people might be against it, it's not really an issue they care that much about. As in, they don't spend any real amount of time paying attention to it, except when a large polygamist group is raided and on the news everyday.

They'll care about it, probably care about it a lot, just at the point that it looks like it may become legal, if that ever happens.

You mean its all about what the Constitution mandates :).


What I meant is that most people don't care enough about it to challenge the illegality of polygamy (the chances of it becoming the "next fight"). Most of the people who get busted for polygamy are usually guilty of having someone underage get married, so that usually trumps the polygamy stuff.

Though I do think one way a court could easily strike down polygamy without bringing a lot of other stuff into it is by invoking a Brown v. Board standard, which is polygamous marriage is inherantly unequal.

(Not that I'd agree, but it could work as an argument).

They stick to having women on the side