Loading ...CALIFORNIA, HERE THEY COME
The California State Supreme Court ruled today that state laws banning same-sex marriage violate its Constitution. Before you say the Court is ruled by judicial activists, please note it was a majority Republican-appointed Justices who made the decision. Second, go read the opinion. Third, to date no one has given me a practical, real-world reason why same-sex marriage should be illegal. And for the record, unless I screw things up, there is a very solid chance my girlfriend an I will tie the knot someday. I have yet to see how my next door neighbors getting married will harm that.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:11 am
As long as they pay their own way, I don’t care if dogs and cats start marrying each other. This is something to worry about in today’s world?
May 16th, 2008 at 6:02 am
This will lead to others who think that they have the right marry. Many men out there would not mind 2 or three wives. So how many years of court battles will it take for them?
May 16th, 2008 at 6:57 am
I couldn’t care less if they marry or not. It doesn’t affect me at all. What I do care about is the fact that it was voted on in a public referendum, the voters said “legal union”, and the court OVER RULED the will of the people. There is something terribly wrong with that.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Is traditional man-woman marriage threatened by same sex marriages…no. Will traditional marriages unravel and disintegrate…no. But here’s the problem. 4 judges out of 7, decided that since same sex marriage can offer love and responsibility to children the same as heterosexuals, then they ought to have the same rights. However, this overruled the citizens’ who already voted into law the establishment of traditional marriages. Not only did the court overrule the citizenry, but it invented a right that does not exist in California. These 4 judges tried to MAKE the law; not interpret it. Therein is the problem. State courts do this junk all the time and get overruled by the US Supreme Court, until a law is passed by the State legislature to legalize it. The written opinion of the California judges that love conquers all is a silly litmus test and a false standard that does not exist in law, and that puts the cart before the horse. By that standard, love exists among multiple partners and therefore polygamy is fair game if it can be shown they are responsible to their offspring, and therefore should be legal. Even further, Miss Piggy and Mr. Ed along with all the other farm animals. Love and responsibility is not the test. California citizens will have their say in November with the opportunity to legally overrule its 4 judges out of 7. Let the people decide; not activists judges.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:07 am
It is religion imposing itself upon the state, while the state is taxing a religious rite. So far, both sides have found the arrangement to be tolerable.
Changes to the rules of the game causes the equilibrium to become unstable. As the balance point shifts, so do the counter-balance points.
Listen for the counter-balance points to squeal and squawk as the stress increases.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:19 am
So Patriot Paul I take it that if some activist conservative movement counting on low voter turnout enacts a law against blacks, jews, baptists even, it would be ok with you because its the will of the people? That’s the same argument some of the Judges tried at Nuremburg used as their defense to Hitler’s actions. The government sanctioned and the will of the people was the final arbitrator? As a gay man I am neither for or against the right to marry. In fact I’d like government totally out of the marriage business. That being stated, if you allow gay people to marry along with it comes the increase in gay divorces, custody fights. You stimulate the legal economy for attorney’s, court costs, counsellors, child protection therapy, etc. I assure you we have no reason to fight to protect hetrosexual marriage with its high divorce rates etc. The whole mantra of the christian conservative community in seeking to protect something that has no defense in its abuse to those that marry each other and their children appalls me. Why can’t we start teaching reinforce the family unit, build responsibility among yourselves when you marry, teach your children to be good citizens instead of thinking the world owes them something. There is the fight I would join. As a gay man who is in a 22 year committed relationship with an alcoholic partner I have stood next to him in his fight while now no longer living together. If I had the right to marry him I wouldn’t do so. We protected ourselves with a bookshelf load of legal documents that are so binding marriage and its benefits would offer us less protection. He is fighting his demons now out of state due to my cancer fight. We stopped living together 5 years ago due to his problems, but I am still there. Show me a straight marriage that is hanging in there to that degree and enact a law to force straights to do the same as I am doing when they marry and I will then consider marriage a valuable tool in todays society. My own parents were married 28 years when they divorce back in the 70’s. Marriage is not what it was when my grandparents chose to commit themselves together as a family. When we fix the institution of marriage only then is it worth protecting. And even then not with a law that says only christian right wingers can engage in it. I expect now the attacks on every single phrase I have written to begin. Go ahead I plan on not checking in on this post.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:37 am
To: Missouri Democrat
Your argument is with California law. Also, I agree with dismal turnout of voters in an apathetic electorate. We constantly talk about the will of the people and the rule of law. No judge should put himself above it.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I agree with muppet boy that the people already decided this and the court shouldn’t have overruled it. At the same time, I don’t agree a state or the US Constitution should be ammended to include a ban on same sex marriage.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I am all for gay marriage. I think they should be as miserable as us heterosexual married people =)
Randy
May 16th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
The heart has reasons the intellect will never know.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Ahhh…so lawyers wearing black robes have decided that the People of California who enacted a law are too stupid to think for themselves.
-
Is anyone surprised?
-
Anyone recall that a hispanic federal judge (lawyer) overturned another vote of the People of California that had something to do with illegal immigrants?
May 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Agreed. At least a couple of local lawyers have had prominent media exposure, chest-thumpin’ about the callousness and racism of those of us with these unfounded, irreasonable objections to our country being overrun by millions of undocumented workers. Why, we must be positively delusional to believe they have a net adverse effect on respect for the law, wages, infrastructure, and long term economics. Or, that the money these lawyers make money handling immigration cases has zero bearing on their opinion. A plumber donning a black robe might not make any more judicious a judge, but I concur there’s a few judges in California that ought to take-up plumbing.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Patriot Paul, you and I share a lot of ground, but not here.
The last thing I really want is a vote of the people- you know, those folks who really have very little interest in liberty, and who are all to happy to use the state as a means of oppression, ESPECIALLY when we can all self-congratulate ourselves that oppression by ballot box is DEMOCRATIC.
If majority rule is good enough to stop people from marrying, why is it not good enough to tax us into oblivion, if this is what the majority wants? Etc.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Good point Mike, but it’s a very sad state where we don’t want the people’s vote counted, or voice heard. This applies to all facets of government as you allude: taxes, spending, global warming, gay marriage, etc.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:59 am
“Ahhh…so lawyers wearing black robes have decided that the People of California who enacted a law are too stupid to think for themselves.”
I know! I think we should do away with judges anyway! Who needs them!
There’s this thing called the judiciary, and you might want to keep in mind that there are three branches of government, not two.
To say that this was judicial activism is to not know the facts . First of all, the ruling was made by 7 Republican judges. Secondly, this was about the California Constitution. You might want to check your 7th grade civics book for the the phrase “judicial review”. Then you probably should reaad the decision.
It’s amusing that no one has met Abdul’s challenge. The crickets chirping when he issued the challenge tell me everything I need to know.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:40 am
“Good point Mike, but it’s a very sad state where we don’t want the people’s vote counted, or voice heard.”
Jerry, why do you hate America? Why do you want to pretend that we only have 2 branches of government, not three? We have these neat little documents, they call them Constitutions. When the legislation oversteps bounds that are laid out in said Constitution, it is the duty of the court to overturn it… even if most of the country is for it (look at public opinion at the time about Loving v Virgina or Brown v. Board of Education).
May 18th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Marti I have said it before, and will likely say it again and undoubtedly will be criticized for saying it, however hear goes. I hear this vote of the people. Well if we had 100 percent voting and then let pick another hot topic issue, abortion. Let’s say all the women in America bound together and voted to make abortion illegal. Then all those opposing this particular issue Gay Marriage would rare up their ugly heads and say, where are the Judges to strike this down. These Chrisitan Conservative (not to be confused with real Christians meaning Christ-like) are book burners in the sense that the Nazis were. If you dont agree with them on every issue they will crucify you. Look how they wanted to take down John McCain? Look at how they attack anyone even of their own party that do not follow their particular brand of America. Those opposed to them get called UnAmerican, Marxist/Socialist, Enemies of Freedom, etc. You can’t win with them. The best we can do is waddle along and life as happy a life as we can. Politics is in a season of hate unlike any I have seen in the 40 years I have been participating in elections starting at age 13 working the polls and listening to the old-timers. It is enough to make an unapathetic person very apathetic.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
As expressed before, I think “gay marriage” is small potatoes in today’s world. Believing our fiscal future is our biggest problem, the self-sufficiency and participatory citizenship of my collective gay friends leaves the heterosexual balance in the dust. There are hateful fringes on this as surely as racist accusations if you don’t toe the line at City Council or for Obama (I don’t like Ms. Sanders, but respect her as I do Mr. Boyd). However, based on experience and assessment, I don’t have a similar outlook re illegal immigration. I read the local paper, the Economist, history, replies from my elected officials, and listen to (the demonized) talk radio and griping neighbors, but I’m not going to be pursuing court briefs any time soon. I have to take the word of lawyers, as I have to take the word of car salesmen. When I hear differing legal opinions, such as the re the recent Delph bill(s), it’s maddening. But, law interpretation seems to be a moving target with little unanimity. I agree with Marti re the three govt branches provide needed balance, with judicial review an essential insturment. But, I also distill from my inputs that there’s become more of a tendency to “legislate from the bench”, vs ascertain whether a point’s legal or not. Many examples of this I read and hear of eminate from the Surpreme Court or California. I don’t think my assessment of California judicial review, Ruth Ginsburg, or illegal immigration is misplaced, even if my suspicion of this particular California Constitution ruling is.