Calfiornia Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

[PersianLlama]

"All men are created equal"

Apparently that's a lie.

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

And so civil rights and equality fall in the face of a load of angry people.

Don't you just love how the equality laws are upheld? [/vitriolic sarcasm]

The problem I have with this is that yes, people have the right to vote, but should their votes change something which the entire country bases it's law system on?

Still, I, personally, disagree with this. I might add that, if I lived in California, I wouldn't have been affected by this, but some of my friends would have, and that makes me both angry at the majority of the voters and sad that this is happening.

To narrowly avoid quoting Star Wars directly -

So this is how equality dies...with a majority vote.

 

[kawligia]

Marriage only became a social institution when it adopted the religious institution. It was only in the last couple hundred years that secular government began to regulate marriage laws instead of the church.

Even in other cultures, marriage had its origins in religion.

Relax dude, under my non-regulation scheme, gays could get married as long as there was a religion, denomination, sect, or any other group that was willing to declare them "married."

But it wouldn't matter because there would be no tangible benefits for anyone to get married. Only the formal declaration of a "bond" between the people in question.

Well, regardless of the origins of marriage, marriage now is a social thing - not only religious. Marriage means a lot to most people, and not all of those people are religious. Saying that two peoples' marriage is fine if they can find a religion to marry them seems to leave out people who have no religion.

Should the state be allowed to marry people? I say yes, because the state is not supposed to be discriminatory towards minorities. My understanding of this at the moment is that the state can issue marriage licenses. I don't see why the state can't issue these licenses to same-sex couples

I just don't see this as a religious argument in any way.

If marriage is not regulated by the government, then the gay community can easily declare people married in their ceremony or whatever. I am saying that the government should stop caring whether people are "married" or not.

The government would not care whether someone was "married" any more than it cares whether someone is your girlfriend/boyfriend. It would be informal and unimportant in the eyes of the government, even if it remained formal and important in the eyes of religious OR SOCIAL institutions.

 

[Thanatos34]

i told you so. the voters spoke, the court rightly upheld their voice, if you dont like the way it ended than get the votes to change it next time. thats how things work in a democracy in case you didnt know.

are you saying that it is okay to put civil rights up for a vote? really?

It's not okay for the Court to overrule a Constitutional Amendment. That leads to a nasty precedent indeed. Like I said before, who then watches the Courts?

 

[megapenguinx]

Well actually you can. It is their job to review if a law is right or not. It's the governor's job to enforce it. State governments are basically miniature versions of the federal government. That being said, it really is a sad thing it wasn't overturned but I guess it'll be up on the ballot again soon.

No it's not. Judges are supposed to leave their morals at the door. Judges do not have the power, or at least aren't supposed to have the power, to nullify a constitutional amendment that was passed lawfully. They only check if something is legal. Not if it's moral. That's an inherent check on judicial power.

If anything, blame the asshelmets who voted for the amendment.

Either way, I think this state amendment, and pretty much any gay-marriage ban, violates the 14th Amendment several times. Hence the reason the Republicans are pushing for a new amendment. The US Supreme Court, the only court allowed to make the call that something is unconstitutional, would likely strike the law down if the case reaches them.

Ah my mistake, I guess I meant to say they are supposed to check that laws are constitutional (aka the right or not argument). I keep forgetting this is an amendment to an amendment (so shouldn't it still be up for review?). I still think it odd that they permitted it back in May and now they don't accept it. I still blame them, the voters who voted for it, and all the out of state influence that was brought in.

 

[Cliff_m85]

May I say what I tell everyone who asks me about gay marriage?

2009: Homosexuals shouldn't get married because they're too alike, they can't provide both a male and female role model for children. The children would face discrimination!!!!!



1960: Interracial marriages won't work because the people are too different, they would provide a confusing role model system for children. The children would face discrimination!!!!




Capeche?

 

[Thanatos34]

I am disappointed in California and all those who live there.

This. The judges are not at fault here, according to California's legal system, they can do naught else. This is a case for the Supreme Court, which should rule 5-4 for gay marriage. (I'm hoping Kennedy doesn't let me down here.)

 

[MusicalFreedom]

It's not okay for the Court to overrule a Constitutional Amendment. That leads to nasty precedent indeed.

and it's okay to easily amend the constitution through vote when it basically says "fuck minorities" aaaaaaaaaaaaa fuck this, i'm too angry to debate. i need a rest and some pictures of kittens to calm me down maybe some hot chocolate or something

 

[Thanatos34]

Marriage only became a social institution when it adopted the religious institution. It was only in the last couple hundred years that secular government began to regulate marriage laws instead of the church.

Even in other cultures, marriage had its origins in religion.

Relax dude, under my non-regulation scheme, gays could get married as long as there was a religion, denomination, sect, or any other group that was willing to declare them "married."

But it wouldn't matter because there would be no tangible benefits for anyone to get married. Only the formal declaration of a "bond" between the people in question.

Well, regardless of the origins of marriage, marriage now is a social thing - not only religious. Marriage means a lot to most people, and not all of those people are religious. Saying that two peoples' marriage is fine if they can find a religion to marry them seems to leave out people who have no religion.

Should the state be allowed to marry people? I say yes, because the state is not supposed to be discriminatory towards minorities. My understanding of this at the moment is that the state can issue marriage licenses. I don't see why the state can't issue these licenses to same-sex couples

I just don't see this as a religious argument in any way.

If marriage is not regulated by the government, then the gay community can easily declare people married in their ceremony or whatever. I am saying that the government should stop caring whether people are "married" or not.

The government would not care whether someone was "married" any more than it cares whether someone is your girlfriend/boyfriend. It would be informal and unimportant in the eyes of the government, even if it remained formal and important in the eyes of religious OR SOCIAL institutions.

Actually, gay people, (and anyone, actually), can get married in this fashion, it's just not recognized by the Federal government. Nor are they granted any privileges of it.

The way to solve this easily, though it is not, perhaps, the morally correct way, is to make civil unions have the same rights as marriages. It is a compromise, but I think it would work.

 

[cathou]

Marriage is a religious institution. Government has no business regulating a religious practice in the first place.

$0.02

religious marriage ceremony is a religious institution.


You actually know what marriage is right ? it's a contract. When you get married you sign a contract, between two people with two witnesses in front of a third party that have a legal authority to officialize it.

Now it could be a man and a woman in front of a priest in a church (religious ceremony) or it could be a man and a woman in front of a judge in a courthouse (civil ceremony).

And if you allow same-sex marriage, since most religion dont accept same-sex relationship, you do all same-sex marriage in courthouse with a judge.

I will be graduating law school in exactly 43 hours. Yes, I know what marriage is.

I am telling you that it was originally a religious concept that has recently (relatively speaking) been adopted as a secular social institution. As such, it is now regulated by the government which tells us who can and can't get married, how to get married, how to get divorced, etc. I see no reason for this government regulation of marriage and think that individual religious (or even non-religious) groups should decide these rules for themselves.

If we revised tax and filiation law slightly to no longer be reliant on government regulated marriage, there would be no reason for the government to have anything to do with marriage. People could marry who they want (gays) and people could exclude who they want from their definition of marriage within their own religious groups. And it wouldn't matter because there would be no secular effects of marriage. Only religious and emotional ones.

For example, the Catholics could refuse to recognize gay marriage or perform any gay marriage ceremonies. Gays could establish their own branch of Christianity that DOES accept gay marriage. With some somewhat minor changes in the law, it wouldn't matter to the government whether someone was "married" or not. So if they guy down the street hated gay people and his church refused to recognize gay marriage, it has no real effect on a gay couple that has been married by its own church. And that guy's religion will not (or should not) be offended by the gay church any more than it would be by any other religion since it has nothing to do with them or their beliefs.

It's the only way I see that can reasonably appease everyone.

ok, but isnt that an hyper complicated thing, because you need to change the way we fill our tax at the end of the year, and everything thing else that is legal stuff but changed by the fact that the couple is married or not, and end up with the same exact thing that you just allow same-sex marriage but give the right to religious group to refuse to married them ?

 

[Thanatos34]

It's not okay for the Court to overrule a Constitutional Amendment. That leads to nasty precedent indeed.

and it's okay to easily amend the constitution through vote when it basically says "fuck minorities" aaaaaaaaaaaaa fuck this, i'm too angry to debate. i need a rest and some pictures of kittens to calm me down maybe some hot chocolate or something

Lol. Take a deep breath, it won't be this way for long.

What I am saying, is that in the current American/Californian legal system, the judges are supposed on the basis of the laws, not on the basis of what is morally right/wrong in their opinion. The judges could do nothing else but uphold the ban, because it was passed in a legal manner. In order to fix this, the law needs to be reversed, and the only way that can happen is if the US Supreme Court decides to do so. It's a lengthy process, and a lengthy system, but it usually ends up correcting itself.

 

[Jerious1154]

You can't blame the judges here. Since Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment, they can't exactly rule it unconstitutional, which would really be the only way to overturn it. I'm just hoping that gay rights activists manage to get a repeal on the ballot next year and that the people of California get their shit together and recognize the importance of civil rights.

 

[scotth266]

i told you so. the voters spoke, the court rightly upheld their voice, if you dont like the way it ended than get the votes to change it next time. thats how things work in a democracy in case you didnt know.

are you saying that it is okay to put civil rights up for a vote? really?

I believe Ben Franklin said something like "People unwilling to fight for their rights do not deserve them"? No idea if that's the actual quote, I haven't had history class in forever.

Point is, if people are unwilling to fight for their rights, they will lose them, plain and simple.

I honestly think that enough is enough. If gay activists are willing to quit waving their sexuality in my face, I'd be ok with them getting married.

 

[Thanatos34]

i told you so. the voters spoke, the court rightly upheld their voice, if you dont like the way it ended than get the votes to change it next time. thats how things work in a democracy in case you didnt know.

are you saying that it is okay to put civil rights up for a vote? really?

I believe Ben Franklin said something like "People unwilling to fight for their rights do not deserve them"? No idea if that's the actual quote, I haven't had history class in forever.

Point is, if people are unwilling to fight for their rights, they will lose them, plain and simple.

I honestly think that enough is enough. If gay activists are willing to quit waving their sexuality in my face, I'd be ok with them getting married.

Are you referring to the quote, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither?"

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

...

This isn't about about whether or not the law was just or not, it was about whether or not the law that was written was legally implemented. That's it.

It is very important that judges not engage in activism-- so-called 'legislating from the bench'-- because that would undermine the concept of Seperation of Powers.

Yes, Prop 8 is narrow-minded nonsense. But don't go asking the judicial system to subvert the legislative process just because people are myopic. Fix it the same way it was broken: via a legislative initiative.

Like it or not, chaps, this man is correct.

 

[Thanatos34]

...

This isn't about about whether or not the law was just or not, it was about whether or not the law that was written was legally implemented. That's it.

It is very important that judges not engage in activism-- so-called 'legislating from the bench'-- because that would undermine the concept of Seperation of Powers.

Yes, Prop 8 is narrow-minded nonsense. But don't go asking the judicial system to subvert the legislative process just because people are myopic. Fix it the same way it was broken: via a legislative initiative.

Like it or not, chaps, this man is correct.

I have to agree. The problem should be resolved by the US Supreme Court. I was actually stunned that California's Supreme Court, typical a liberal bastion, actually did the correct thing, as far as interpreting the law goes. If you infringe upon Separation of Powers, then you eventually get an oligarchy.

Just hold on a little longer. The US Supreme Court will decide for GLB marriage. It just has to get there now.

 

[Nimbus]

My opinion: Since only gay people were affected by prop 8, only gay people should have been allowed to vote on it. I realise that this idea is stupid and impossible to implement, but it makes some kind of lateral-thinking sense nonetheless.

 

[Shycte]

Yes!!!! Go California!!! I though for sure that they would give in to the ignorant masses and let the gays get married. Thank God that there are still SOME people with brains in the US.


I thought for sure that all hope was gone when Obama was elected...

Care to elaborate why you don't think some humans shoul ahve the right to get married just like the other guy?

Or are you just going to sit there like a troll, not able to defend your point?

Just want to hear your side that's all...

 

[manaman]

Have i mentioned recently I think your consitution sucks and is highly contradictory, no well I just did. If you uphold equality as a virtue it should be iron clad, public dissuasion should not be allowed to factor in regardless.

The constitution governs the federal goverment. Federal goverment likes to imposed this on states with promises of taking away money for state programs if they do not comply with federal mandates.

States however only have to comply with the lowest restriction level allowed by the goverment. Such as the age of consent is listed at 16, states can then decide it is 20, 39, 42 or whatever, they cannot decided it is 15.

Edit: Oh and it is a democracy, how in the hell can you have a goverment that upholds the rights of the people if they don't allow the society to speak for itself, and decided these rights for itself?

That said they way to fix is to help people to understand your point of view and get more people that share it to get off their asses and vote. For all the people whining and getting upset, but making no moves other then their jaw to ***** some more: that is not the way to accomplish anything.

Besides this is not about the legal status since many gay couples can enjoy the same legal status as a marriage in many states (including Washington), they just do not want it called a marriage. That right there is the problem. It is basically a way of institutionalizing racism. They can make them seem to be less of a person because they do not have the same rights a straight man or woman. You cannot restrict the rights of a minority group and still consider your self a free society.

Gay people are people, and restrictions on them are just wrong. Just plain wrong.

Also for all those Christians out there who want to say "Well so is homosexuality, god said so" First of all it said a man shall not lie with another man as he would a women - ie gay men are bad, not gay women. Also the old testament and its rules are pretty much thrown out in your religion by the new testament, and if you listen to Jesus you should not judge others, but rather live your life as a testament to the lord and allow the sinners to come around in their own time.

Basically all the preaching, soapbox activism, hateful protests against abortion clinics, and hating homosexuals is not what your religion is about. Go ahead and pray for them all you want, nobody will stop you.