California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[blindthrall]

Snip, the post having to do with the judiciary being able to overturn unconstitutional laws

Excellent way to explain it. There is a further benefit to the judiciary-since they aren't elected, they don't have to worry about unpopular decisions getting them throw out of office. They are free from the tyranny of the majority, and can protect the minority without fear of reprisal.

Which is why Roe vs. Wade has stood for so long.

That being said, Who said it's "Good Law"? There's alot of old laws on the books that many lawyer point to for president. A "Good Law" could and has been used for precident for "Bad Law".

Also lifetime appointsments aren't always the best idea either. Anyone in California remember Judge Bird?

Lifetime appointments aren't a bad idea if the person in that position can't dictate policy. Judges can only strike down old laws, they can't formulate new ones. The problem with the legislative is that most of them know they're not going to be working for the government forever, so they make sure they'll have a job with certain interests afterwards, in exchange for voting certain ways. Or they at least make enough money to retire comfortably. I don't think all senators and representatives are like this, but I think it's the majority.

 

[TheDude7053]

Well I disagree with what the judge did, made thousands of votes invalid. I was voted in fair and square. so some asshole judge can come in and override it. why the fuck do we vote in the first place if my communist state government is going to do whatever the hell they feel like any way. I Love my country but I despise my government.

 

[blindthrall]

I don't understand why people get tax breaks for children either, having kids doesn't need to be encouraged.

Having kids doesn't come cheap. If you don't have kids you don't need any money to pay for diapers and college.

If you can't afford them, don't have them in the first place. Having a child without the means to support it is one of the most irresponsible things you can do, screwing up the child for life.

Also, these breaks encourage people to have children to allieviate tax problems. There's a couple in Allentown that have had forty children, and they don't work, since the government pays them. Why is this kind of behaviour encouraged? Rampant breeding will be the death of this species.

Um... That couple is an exception. In most cases, parents have less money with kids than they do without. And overpopulated countries do try to stop overpopulation. Like China, which banned having more than one kid some time ago. (Dunno if the law is still in effect.) You're saying people shouldn't have kids if they can't support said kids, but that's the beauty of it - thanks to government help, they can afford it. Sure, they might have been unable to afford kids otherwise, but you can never be completely sure about whether your economy's going to be okay in a year. So whether you have government support or not, you can never be sure you'll be able to raise your kids. It's always a gamble. And that forty-kid-family? Most people would say that having to raise forty kids is deterrant enough as it is. Which is why most couples don't have that many kids.

China doesn't have that law anymore. And you're assuming the US isn't overpopulated? Where do you live, because I want to be there. And I would argue that's the ugly of it, that the government should not be encouraging reproduction. In countries like Japan and Italy, with negative poluation growth, yes, but not in America. If you want to have children, and you want them to have a decent life, you have to earn it, not have the government hand it to you. If you just want children, but don't care about the decent life part, then you're a piece of shit(not you, Queen Micheal, personally)who doesn't deserve children in the first place. And the economy doesn't fluctuate so much that a great job will become shitty in a year. Besides, that's what unemployment is for, which is a whole other form of social insurance.

Having a child is putting a strain on the future. That should carry with it responsibilities. People need to accept that sometimes, for your child to have a good life, you might have to have a shitty one.

 

[Matt_LRR]

yes and no. the only time I know that popular vote is secondary is during presidental elections. All other times I belive popular vote decides.

Anyone: if you know the real answer, please correct me.

Actually, you're right - I've made a mistake in my description above, only the president is not elected by popular vote. Lower levels of office are. So yes, the people do have the ability to remove government officials by popular vote.

That doesn't change the fact that you're missing the point of having independent branches of government that serve different purposes.


The power of the people is to voice their wishes, (and elect the people that represent them).

The power of the representatives is to act in the best interest of the people (not necessarily according to their wishes.) And to enact laws.

the power of the judiciary is to enforce laws found to be legal, or overturn laws found not to be.

The power of the executive is to execute or veto laws made by the legislaiture.

The judiciary is appointed, but can be dismissed by the legislaitive branch.

The legislaitive branch is elected, but their laws can be overturned by the president or the judiciary.


basically, you have one group directly accountable to the people, and indirectly accountable to the constitution making laws, and another group directly accountable to the constitution and indirectly accountable to the people vetting those laws.

The whole purpose of this system is to prevent the majority from enacting laws that opress a minority, or which violate the basis of the foundation of the country.

Sometimes that involves striking down a popular law, which is why the judiciary is insulated from being directly accountable to the popular vote.

-m

 

[Howlingwolf214]

There is no logical reason why Gay people should not marry so Congratulations to California, you've made the right decision in my opinion.

 

[Queen Michael]

I don't understand why people get tax breaks for children either, having kids doesn't need to be encouraged.

Having kids doesn't come cheap. If you don't have kids you don't need any money to pay for diapers and college.

If you can't afford them, don't have them in the first place. Having a child without the means to support it is one of the most irresponsible things you can do, screwing up the child for life.

Also, these breaks encourage people to have children to allieviate tax problems. There's a couple in Allentown that have had forty children, and they don't work, since the government pays them. Why is this kind of behaviour encouraged? Rampant breeding will be the death of this species.

Um... That couple is an exception. In most cases, parents have less money with kids than they do without. And overpopulated countries do try to stop overpopulation. Like China, which banned having more than one kid some time ago. (Dunno if the law is still in effect.) You're saying people shouldn't have kids if they can't support said kids, but that's the beauty of it - thanks to government help, they can afford it. Sure, they might have been unable to afford kids otherwise, but you can never be completely sure about whether your economy's going to be okay in a year. So whether you have government support or not, you can never be sure you'll be able to raise your kids. It's always a gamble. And that forty-kid-family? Most people would say that having to raise forty kids is deterrant enough as it is. Which is why most couples don't have that many kids.

China doesn't have that law anymore. And you're assuming the US isn't overpopulated? Where do you live, because I want to be there. And I would argue that's the ugly of it, that the government should not be encouraging reproduction. In countries like Japan and Italy, with negative poluation growth, yes, but not in America. If you want to have children, and you want them to have a decent life, you have to earn it, not have the government hand it to you. If you just want children, but don't care about the decent life part, then you're a piece of shit(not you, Queen Micheal, personally)who doesn't deserve children in the first place. And the economy doesn't fluctuate so much that a great job will become shitty in a year. Besides, that's what unemployment is for, which is a whole other form of social insurance.

Having a child is putting a strain on the future. That should carry with it responsibilities. People need to accept that sometimes, for your child to have a good life, you might have to have a shitty one.

"Where do you live, because I want to be there," you ask. It's Sweden, and it's a great place, so I can easily understand why you'd want to be here. But yeah, I guess you do know more about whether the USA is overpopulated, I won't contradict you there. But I still can't understand one thing: Isn't it better for parents to have the monetary support of the government when they have kids? Isn't it better for the kids to have that money than to have to rely on their parents' income alone? Because the more money the parents have, the better a future the kids'll have.

Edit: I'm going to bed now, so I might not read what you post as a reply, if you do so. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[VanityGirl]

Uhmm... I don't care. Yay for any homosexuals though.
Doesn't effect me, but good for them.

 

[MongoBaer]

yes and no. the only time I know that popular vote is secondary is during presidental elections. All other times I belive popular vote decides.

Anyone: if you know the real answer, please correct me.

Actually, you're right - I've made a mistake in my description above, only the president is not elected by popular vote. Lower levels of office are. So yes, the people do have the ability to remove government officials by popular vote.

That doesn't change the fact that you're missing the point of having independent branches of government that serve different purposes.


The power of the people is to voice their wishes, (and elect the people that represent them).

The power of the representatives is to act in the best interest of the people (not necessarily according to their wishes.) And to enact laws.

the power of the judiciary is to enforce laws found to be legal, or overturn laws found not to be.

The power of the executive is to execute or veto laws made by the legislaiture.

The judiciary is appointed, but can be dismissed by the legislaitive branch.

The legislaitive branch is elected, but their laws can be overturned by the president or the judiciary.


basically, you have one group directly accountable to the people, and indirectly accountable to the constitution making laws, and another group directly accountable to the constitution and indirectly accountable to the people vetting those laws.

The whole purpose of this system is to prevent the majority from enacting laws that opress a minority, or which violate the basis of the foundation of the country.

Sometimes that involves striking down a popular law, which is why the judiciary is insulated from being directly accountable to the popular vote.

-m

Point taken but you've missed something there. I don't think it's a recient occurance, but many more laws are being created/made from the bench. Vermont's rulling a couple of years back about gay mariage didn't rule on the law, it created it. So the checks and balances are't working as they have in the past.

EDIT: wrong word used.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Spoiler: snip

yes and no. the only time I know that popular vote is secondary is during presidental elections. All other times I belive popular vote decides.

Anyone: if you know the real answer, please correct me.

Actually, you're right - I've made a mistake in my description above, only the president is not elected by popular vote. Lower levels of office are. So yes, the people do have the ability to remove government officials by popular vote.

That doesn't change the fact that you're missing the point of having independent branches of government that serve different purposes.


The power of the people is to voice their wishes, (and elect the people that represent them).

The power of the representatives is to act in the best interest of the people (not necessarily according to their wishes.) And to enact laws.

the power of the judiciary is to enforce laws found to be legal, or overturn laws found not to be.

The power of the executive is to execute or veto laws made by the legislaiture.

The judiciary is appointed, but can be dismissed by the legislaitive branch.

The legislaitive branch is elected, but their laws can be overturned by the president or the judiciary.


basically, you have one group directly accountable to the people, and indirectly accountable to the constitution making laws, and another group directly accountable to the constitution and indirectly accountable to the people vetting those laws.

The whole purpose of this system is to prevent the majority from enacting laws that opress a minority, or which violate the basis of the foundation of the country.

Sometimes that involves striking down a popular law, which is why the judiciary is insulated from being directly accountable to the popular vote.

-m

Point taken but you've missed something there. I don't think it's a recient occurance, but many more laws are being created/made from the bench. Vermont's rulling a couple of years back about gay mariage didn't rule on the law, it created it. So the checks and balances are working as they have in the past.

You'd have to give me more details with regards to the case for me to comment.

But every distinct ruling in court technically creates law (in the sense that it creates precedent, which later rulings have to account for).

This ruling, as in that one, is potentially a case of judicial activism, (and regardless of whether it actually was or not, the opposition will certainly argue that it was), but again, this ruling will be reviewed on appeal, and postentiall y looked at again in supreme court, so it's not like there isn't a bunch more vetting of this ruling to go yet. If this judge is seen to have ruled in accordance with personal belief rather than standing law, his ruling will likely be overturned.

Essentially: still working as intended. all checks and balances in place.

-m

 

[MongoBaer]

I don't remember the full details but I know it was one of the first court rullings on this issue. I vaugely remember the sturm und drang about it at the time becuase of the judge(s) rulling that there was the right existed and ORDERED the state goverment to create the law to be in complance with it. Maybe back late '90s early '00. (between '98-05, maybe.)

 

[SultanP]

Hell, it's about time. Land of the Free my ass. This might be a blow to "true democracy" but I'm fairly sure anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass would hate to live in a true democracy, especially in a country that large.

 

[Guest_Star]

Thoughts?.

Good for them I guess? I fail to see the fuzz.

What I carnt understand is how this is such an issue that it warrants almost 600 posts on a gaming forum.
Yeah, the US seem like an ass backwards strange country in some regards. "In God we Trust" and so on.
But, the diff between marriage and not in this case, it's just wording, aint it?
Cohabitation, partnership etc... that's basically the same thing, innit?

Or have I misunderstanded?

 

[StoneHeart]

This needs to end soon.
I'm tired of hearing about gay marriage

 

[Matt_LRR]

I don't remember the full details but I know it was one of the first court rullings on this issue. I vaugely remember the sturm und drang about it at the time becuase of the judge(s) rulling that there was the right existed and ORDERED the state goverment to create the law to be in complance with it. Maybe back late '90s early '00. (between '98-05, maybe.)

Read up on it. Baker Vs. Vermont.

The finding of the case was that the stautes in vermont law were inequitable, and they required the legislaiture to formulate a statute rectifying the inequality. (and the legislatiure created a statute pertaining to civil partnership). The court actually declined to go so far as to permit issuance of a marriage license to the plaintiffs on the grounds that the question of "marriage" was one to potentially be tried in the future - the issue at hand was that the state was inequitably treating it's people. They found statute to be insufficient and asked that it be corrected. (in a unanimous decision of 4 judges in state supreme court, by the by.)

In any case, the law still went through the legislative process.

-m

 

[Necrofudge]

Your suggesting the human race would be better with serious mental disorders like austism in the gene pool ?

Are you suggesting all gay couples have these defects and can mate?

 

[MongoBaer]

I don't remember the full details but I know it was one of the first court rullings on this issue. I vaugely remember the sturm und drang about it at the time becuase of the judge(s) rulling that there was the right existed and ORDERED the state goverment to create the law to be in complance with it. Maybe back late '90s early '00. (between '98-05, maybe.)

Read up on it. Baker Vs. Vermont.

The finding of the case was that the stautes in vermont law were inequitable, and they required the legislaiture to formulate a statute rectifying the inequality. (and the legislatiure created a statute pertaining to civil partnership). The court actually declined to go so far as to permit issuance of a marriage license to the plaintiffs on the grounds that the question of "marriage" was one to potentially be tried in the future - the issue at hand was that the state was inequitably treating it's people. They found statute to be insufficient and asked that it be corrected. (in a unanimous decision of 4 judges in state supreme court, by the by.)

In any case, the law still went through the legislative process.

-m

Ok. So are you saying that if you were required to do something you're not ordered to comply? I think so many people have an issue with that rulling is the implied command issued from the bench. The same could be say of the california rulling. The implied or inferred statement is "We choose to ignore your reglious believes because the conflict with our beliefs".

As I said before this becoming more common. If the law doesn't say what you want, sue to make it so. Appeal until you get the result you want.

Not saying it's right or good or anything like that or it's not used by both sides. It just makes it more of a situational rulling like situational ethics.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Ok. So are you saying that if you were required to do something you're not ordered to comply? I think so many people have an issue with that rulling is the implied command issued from the bench.

You're not wrong, though I didn't see any mention of anyone attacking the decision on those grounds specifically in discussion of the controversy over the ruling. Most of the controversy appeared to be in regards to the actualy construction of the statute as to whther it would relate to marriage or civil union. (and in regards to the fact th tmany felt the judges were abdicating their responsibilty to find in the case to the legislaiture)

Additionally, and I'm not versed in what vermont empowers their judiciary to do, per se, but the ruling in that case was one of equal rights, not of gay marriage. The court found that vermont's standing law was lacking, and that the lack of statute was allowing a violation of the states constitution. Therefore they put it to the legislative brance to remedy the inequity in vermont law. This isn't something that's necessarily outside their breadth of power. They also didn't tell the legislature how to write, or specifically how to create the law, they just forwarded a list of things it would need to create equal protections.

[quot]The same could be say of the california rulling. The implied or inferred statement is "We choose to ignore your reglious believes because the conflict with our beliefs".[/quote]

The same could not be said of the california ruling. The california ruling is one of 'despite your desire to prohibit this variety of marriage, we find that enforcement of this law violates the protections already promised all americans in the federal constitution.'

The only implication is that the law cannot be upheld, because it violates a higher law.

As I said before this becoming more common. If the law doesn't say what you want, sue to make it so. Appeal until you get the result you want.

That's what the system was built for. To give the people the ability to challenge the law, because the law is not always just.

Not saying it's right or good or anything like that or it's not used by both sides. It just makes it more of a situational rulling like situational ethics.

Such is the nature of precedent based law. If you have a new situation, you have to make a new judgement and set precedent. If you have a common situation, then you defer judgement to existing precedent. Half of argumentation in court is trying to explain why your case is (or isn't) a situation for which precedent exists.

-m

 

[Normalguyinthehouse]

I think, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone gay.

 

[MongoBaer]

With everyones conscent, I would like to spin this topical tangent your way.

Given:that same sex mariage is legal and accepted
Given:that arguements for tradional mariage (male/female) are void

What forms of mariage would not be permissible?

I'm not tring to flame bait but provoke a conversation. I'm using the "group mariage" from the book "Friday" as my reference point.