Calfiornia Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

[The Infamous Scamola]

How many times am I going to have to say this, democracy doesn't work!

 

[kawligia]

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

$0.02

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Thats why I live in Canada, its a friendly more accepting place.

 

[E.v.a.n.g.e.l]

My God, we live in a country that criticizes other countries because they lack civil freedom.
Kinda hypocritical.
The fact that our country is not letting some people get married because of their background, we are going against the ideal foundation of tolerance for all.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

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

$0.02

marriage is a social institution, since the government hands out legal benefits to married couples. furthermore, atheists can get married. furthermore, marriage has existed in different forms before christianity, which is what many people think of when they think "marriage". marriages often have a civil - keyword CIVIL, not religious - ceremony.

WEDDINGS are religious

 

[megapenguinx]

You can't blame the judges. They're there to uphold the law, even if the law is discriminatory. It's not their job to decide if a law is right or not. I don't even know why they went to a state court. They're bound by the law the plaintiff disagrees with.

The case has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the only body that deals with constitutional matters. If there's a good argument that the California law violates the US constitution, there's a good chance they will hear it.

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.

 

[kawligia]

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

$0.02

marriage is a social institution, since the government hands out legal benefits to married couples. furthermore, atheists can get married. furthermore, marriage has existed in different forms before christianity, which is what many people think of when they think "marriage". marriages often have a civil - keyword CIVIL, not religious - ceremony.

WEDDINGS are religious

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.

 

[Playbahnosh]

Boo California
/thread

this.

 

[bodyklok]

tsk tsk tsk

At whom?

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...

I'm calling poe's law on this.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

WEDDINGS are religious

This. Christian marriage is a christian institution, marriage itself is an ancient social institution that defies religious boundries.

 

[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.

 

[gibboss28]

They deserve the hordes of homeless people.

You get the bus, I'll get the karaoke machine and some loud speakers.

I'm not surprised by this but it doesn't stop it from being retarded.

 

[historybuff]

...

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 Separation 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.

This.

 

[SilentHunter7]

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.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Civil Rights should have absolutely nothing to do with Voting. Marriage is a Civil Right, whether you're doing it between a man or a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and a man. It's a CIVIL RIGHT. The population should have no right to decide what other peoples rights are, those rights should be there from the start with no way of changing them.(Except if it's for a damn good reason.)

 

[kawligia]

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.

 

[Biek]

Thats democracy for ya.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

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.

 

[A random person]

California, you let me down. I looked up to you. You were my role model for what social attitudes in America should be. What am I going to do now?

Well, there's always Sweden...