Don't move to Californication

[yeahYeah]

Originally Posted by Bree

You didn't read the opinion... did you? If you had, you would realize that what SCOC did has little if anything to do with what Massachusetts did. The people of California already spoke. They passed a domestic partnership law granting the rights of marriage to gays some time ago.

If you had read the opinion you would recognize that this isn't what it was about at all. The issue decided was quite narrow.

So you have simply demonstrated that your accusation of judicial impropriety is utterly baseless since you don't even know what was decided.

if so, then why is the media, etc. portraying this is historic, etc if it's just the next step?

[afmo]

The people of California already spoke. They passed a domestic partnership law granting the rights of marriage to gays some time ago.


and if the people voted to reinstate segregation that wouldn't make it constitutional either...

[Pugs]

Originally Posted by yeahYeah

if so, then why is the media, etc. portraying this is historic, etc if it's just the next step?

For the same reason that they portrayed the overturning of school segregation as being historic.

[Son of Norway]

Comrades:

Gay marriage ban lifted. The sun still came up today. So far no visible changes in the landscape. Ever vigilant, I will place plastic sheets and duck tape on the windows for safety. Emergency supply kit updated, plenty of tin foil.

Will send update in 24 hours.

Able Fox Trot Tango out.

This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

[Brickboy240]

I really could care less if gay people marry. BFD. Get married and enjoy the benefits of marriage..I don't care. If being gay IS wrong...God will judge them later and its not my place to judge them. I know several gay people and they're really nice people that for the most part, want to be left alone. Despite what some think, they are NOT out to recruit your kids or convert you and if two guys tying the knot is a "threat" to your marriage...well...then your marriage is not that strong.

I don't dislike gay people or wish them ill will, however, you are not special because of your lifestyle choice or the fact that you might have been subjected to bad treatment by some narrow minded pinheads at some point in your life. I will treat you as I would any straight person...no better...no worse. You are not a saint because you suffered with your sexual preference while growing up...we all suffered with things in our pre-teen and teen years...ok?

(another areas where me and the far right part ways)

However, the trend of the courts overturning things that were put to a vote and voted against by the people is a disturbing trend. This could lead to the courts overturning much more important issues in the future. A scary trend indeed - but not illegal or unconstitutional.

If a state puts the gay marriage issue to a vote and they vote FOR gay marriage, then it should be law. If they shoot it down (which in CA, that surprised me...but hey...thats their vote) then the people's vote should stand as the law for that state. Where the opponents of gay marriage in CA fell short is they should have called for an ammendment to the CA constitution, then, the vote could not have been overturned. Didn't they know that the courts could (and probably WOULD) overturn their vote?

The court's overturning the vote of the people bugs me to an extent, but the court was well within their legal right as far as the CA constitution goes to do so.

The media and the left is seeing this as some sort of stick in the eye of the religious right. The religious right is seeing this as the gays are taking over. In reality...its probably neither, but don't put it past any political party to use this as a wedge as they always have.

- Brickboy240

[DanTheEldest]

Honestly, I don't have the time to read 170 pages of legalese, hence the question:

What specifically did the California court cite as being unconstitutional about the ban (i.e. chapter and verse the ban violated), and were they referencing the U.S. constitution or the California state constitution?

[Bree]

Originally Posted by yeahYeah

if so, then why is the media, etc. portraying this is historic, etc if it's just the next step?

You answered your own question. It is the media. That's what they do.

[Bree]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

Honestly, I don't have the time to read 170 pages of legalese, hence the question:

What specifically did the California court cite as being unconstitutional about the ban (i.e. chapter and verse the ban violated), and were they referencing the U.S. constitution or the California state constitution?

Dan...

The whole point is that Supreme Court justices do legalese. They evaluate cases in terms of the laws and the Constitution. Sometimes people don't like their decisions and then immediately claim that they are left wing idiots or legislating from the bench etc etc. The fact is that they are doing their jobs and most people have no real clue what their jobs actually are or what these decisions are actually all about.

Here is a very good opportunity to see what actually is going on. I encourgage you to dive into the opinion and read some of that legalese. I think it will put a different light on what these justices are doing no matter which side of the issue you are on. In this case, it is pretty surprising. So suck it up, carve out some time, and dive in. It really is time well spent.

[Krackels]

Originally Posted by chrisxd45t

So, it's okay when government and the majority are oppressive as long as it's something you agree with? That's the American democratic-republic I guess.

If 61% voted to ban all guns in CA would it be okay since the majority voted for it, or would it be tyrannical?

We have an amendment in the constitution giving us the right to keep and bear arms.

Show me where it says in the constitution that homosexuals are entitled to government endorsement by redefining marriage to be the joining of any consenting adult.

This fight for legalizing homosexual marriage is a measure to make homosexuality more accepted that's all.

Homosexuals already have the right in the state of California to join into domestic partnerships which give them every benefit of marriage except for the title "Married".

[Pugs]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

Honestly, I don't have the time to read 170 pages of legalese, hence the question:

What specifically did the California court cite as being unconstitutional about the ban (i.e. chapter and verse the ban violated), and were they referencing the U.S. constitution or the California state constitution?

Dan,

Basically the question that they were considering related directly to the California State Constitution. As a State Supreme Court that don't have the authority to rule on the Constitution of the United States. Their ruling can be informed by the Constitution of the United States and other legal precedents, but it cannot rule on somethings Constitutionality under the Constitution of the United States. Does that make sense?

The core issues being addressed are:

- Does the establishment of "Domestic Partnerships" that afford most of the rights of traditional marriage, while not being called or legally defined as marriage, violate the California constitutional right to marriage.

- Does the establisment of "Domestic Partnerships" that afford most of the rights of traditional marriage, while not being called or legally defined as marriage, violate the California Constitution's equal protection clause.

For both of these questions, it was found that the current statues establishing "Domestic Partnerships" for same-sex couples separate from marriage and defining marriage as an opposite-sex couple were unconstitutional.

Note: This is ONLY my interpretation and should not be taken as legal fact.