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).