California High Court Rules Against Gay Marriage, Except Those Already Done

[Billnew]

California High Court Rules Against Gay Marriage, Except Those Already Done

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters' rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.

California High Court Rules Against Gay Marriage, Except Those Already Done - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Of all the places, would have thought California would embrace Gay marriages. Even if the majority disliked it, I would have thought the SC would have overturned it.
Majority of people pushed for the law, and the law won, even in California.

My stand remains:
If people support it, have a law written and it passes, then legislation process has been followed, and it is fair. Courtroom trumping the law is not due process, and does not represent the people.

Like it should, the marriages that were completed before the law was passed are still in effect.

 

[explodingboy]

Like it should, the marriages that were completed before the law was passed are still in effect.

Which will be a whole new can of worms now.

Out of state gay marriages aren't recognized but the Californian ones will be still.. except nobody new is going to be able to get one..

big can of worms in my book.

 

[Mercy Medical]

The fact that this was the court that legalized it in the first place and then came to this ruling drives me batty.

Civil rights should not be something up for public vote. End of story.

 

[PsychMJC]

Civil rights should not be something up for public vote. End of story.

 

[Maren]

Eh... Prop. 8 will be overturned soon; my guess is 2012 at the latest. All this decision means is that a gay marriage proposition will be on the next few California ballots.

 

[Maren]

The fact that this was the court that legalized it in the first place and then came to this ruling drives me batty.

Unfortunately, from what I know of the California Constitution both decisions were correct. I know it seems weird but they first ruling was correct in saying the law could not treat people differently on the basis of sexual orientation. The second ruling was upholding that Prop. 8 was a valid amendment of the California Constitution (which is far too easy to amend).

Civil rights should not be something up for public vote. End of story.

Agreed.

 

[Billnew]

Eh... Prop. 8 will be overturned soon; my guess is 2012 at the latest. All this decision means is that a gay marriage proposition will be on the next few California ballots.

Probably overturned by 9th circus.

Civil rights are decided by the people. So every right we have is or was voted on. Sorry to remind you. Even freedom of speech and press was voted on.

Society should not be able to decide what is a right and what isn't?

California has set its rules for amending their constitution, to easy?
Maybe, but I am not a Californian. Thus, I have no say in their "states rights".

inalienable rights? Even these were subject to discussion.

Marriage is not a right. It is a community celebration, written out by people. The bill of rights does not say a person has the right to marry.
Male or female, same sex or different.
Descrimination can not be tolerated. Society so far, has said that any person may marry any person of the opposite sex. Setting requirements, is not descrimination. States have the right to decide what marriage is.
Be it man and women or 2 like sexes. It is a states rights issue. Just as age of people to get married vary.(14-18) Is it descrimination for an 16 year old not to be able to marry in his/her state? No. States rights.

So please show me in the bill of rights, where homosexuals are having their civil rights violated by having due process?

 

[Maren]

Probably overturned by 9th circus.

Civil rights are decided by the people. So every right we have is or was voted on. Sorry to remind you. Even freedom of speech and press was voted on.

Actually, not really true. While you are correct that the people at one point voted on the Constitution and the various amendments, most of what we currently view as civil rights have been decided by the courts overturning laws that they deemed unconstitutional. This includes such things as segregation and interracial marriage bans, and even an state constitutional amendment to deny civil rights to gays.

Society should not be able to decide what is a right and what isn't?

California has set its rules for amending their constitution, to easy?
Maybe, but I am not a Californian. Thus, I have no say in their "states rights".

inalienable rights? Even these were subject to discussion.

Marriage is not a right. It is a community celebration, written out by people. The bill of rights does not say a person has the right to marry.
Male or female, same sex or different.

Actually, the US Supreme Court has judged that marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia and others) protected by the Constitution.

Descrimination can not be tolerated. Society so far, has said that any person may marry any person of the opposite sex. Setting requirements, is not descrimination. States have the right to decide what marriage is.
Be it man and women or 2 like sexes. It is a states rights issue. Just as age of people to get married vary.(14-18) Is it descrimination for an 16 year old not to be able to marry in his/her state? No. States rights.

So please show me in the bill of rights, where homosexuals are having their civil rights violated by having due process?

Except the 16 year old can go to a state where it is legal for him to marry, get married, and then return to his home state which will then recognize his marriage. So it is disingenuous to claim it is a states rights issue. By contrast, homosexuals, even if they live in a state that allows gay marriage, can not get their marriage recognized by the federal government unlike other married couples in the US (not to mention, states that do not allow gay marriage -- unlike the 16 year old -- will not recognize the gay marriage).

 

[fated]

Except the 16 year old can go to a state where it is legal for him to marry, get married, and then return to his home state which will then recognize his marriage. So it is disingenuous to claim it is a states rights issue. By contrast, homosexuals, even if they live in a state that allows gay marriage, can not get their marriage recognized by the federal government unlike other married couples in the US (not to mention, states that do not allow gay marriage -- unlike the 16 year old -- will not recognize the gay marriage).

Marriage is still legislated as an act of public good. Thus, the descriptor is still applicable though you challenge this position and call marriage a right. It sure is a sexy issue if it is a right.

The ends of the spectrum, in this case, gnaw at the moderates, who are reluctant to vote for change on an issue they don't understand.

Thus, I propose marriage as a best case scenario of future children. Even at 50% success rate, it is still better than the alternative of unmarried parents raising a their own child. This is the reasonable option that we propose. Thus, marriage is about a societal norm and a societal good, which is preferable to the various painfully dramatic situation that are more likely to occur elsewhere.

 

[Washington]

Which will be a whole new can of worms now.

Out of state gay marriages aren't recognized but the Californian ones will be still.. except nobody new is going to be able to get one..

big can of worms in my book.

Nah! The exceptions will simply be grandfathered-grandfathered in. Grandfathering is an old and legitimate process.

 

[Corey]

Marriage is still legislated as an act of public good. Thus, the descriptor is still applicable though you challenge this position and call marriage a right. It sure is a sexy issue if it is a right.

Considering that the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia has said that marriage is a human right (IIRC), your statement is a moot point.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Saw this coming. Been reading about it in the LA Times some time now. Of course...I don't think anti gay marriage groups should be clapping. I get the feeling most people recognize this, including the judges, as an teeny tiny speed bump and not much else.

 

[mpok1519]

this is only temporary. =)

 

[lawtonfogle]

Probably overturned by 9th circus.

Civil rights are decided by the people. So every right we have is or was voted on. Sorry to remind you. Even freedom of speech and press was voted on.

Society should not be able to decide what is a right and what isn't?

California has set its rules for amending their constitution, to easy?
Maybe, but I am not a Californian. Thus, I have no say in their "states rights".

inalienable rights? Even these were subject to discussion.

Marriage is not a right. It is a community celebration, written out by people. The bill of rights does not say a person has the right to marry.
Male or female, same sex or different.
Descrimination can not be tolerated. Society so far, has said that any person may marry any person of the opposite sex. Setting requirements, is not descrimination. States have the right to decide what marriage is.
Be it man and women or 2 like sexes. It is a states rights issue. Just as age of people to get married vary.(14-18) Is it descrimination for an 16 year old not to be able to marry in his/her state? No. States rights.

So please show me in the bill of rights, where homosexuals are having their civil rights violated by having due process?

You borderline on relativity far too much.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Nah! The exceptions will simply be grandfathered-grandfathered in. Grandfathering is an old and legitimate process.

The score is not currently in our favor, but they have left us a can of worms.

Solution: Heat the can till it explodes.

I'm calling for a national campaign to mock California for the gay marriages they currently have till they try to outlaw them. That should build the pressure enough until it explodes, which should leave the score in our favor.

 

[fated]

Considering that the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia has said that marriage is a human right (IIRC), your statement is a moot point.

If by moot, you mean arguable, then that would be correct.

Also, there is a different between a basic human right, and something which can be constrained by societal norms for the societal good. Thus, you are generally free, but there are points were the government draws the line. But, you always have the right of conscience and to your own life. You have a very strong right to free speech, and a somewhat more constrained right to gather. There are a number of constraints on who you can and cannot have sex with.

Thus, the meaning of 'human right' becomes also an issue for debate. The right to marry is extremely strong when it is a desire expressed by two parties of opposite sex.

The UN declaration doesn't state whether gays are included in its document, but it is safe to assume that the majority of countries don't include gays in the their definition. It is highly likely that many states have a related document that defines that fact, and other who don't, but want that legal protection should pass it as soon as possible.

 

[Gramaic]

California High Court Rules Against Gay Marriage, Except Those Already Done



California High Court Rules Against Gay Marriage, Except Those Already Done - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Of all the places, would have thought California would embrace Gay marriages. Even if the majority disliked it, I would have thought the SC would have overturned it.
Majority of people pushed for the law, and the law won, even in California.

My stand remains:
If people support it, have a law written and it passes, then legislation process has been followed, and it is fair. Courtroom trumping the law is not due process, and does not represent the people.

Like it should, the marriages that were completed before the law was passed are still in effect.

I'm glad the California Supreme Court had the wisdom to go with the will of the people. Thank God for Democracy. Just like one Christian commentator here in Southern California once commented after election day (his name is Frank Pastore, btw), "Just because the Republican party was defeated, it doesn't mean that conservatism was defeated." Marriage is between one man and one woman, it must be kept that way.

 

[ke1985]

this is good news...its weird how cali voted against and a state like Iowa allowed it.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I'm glad the California Supreme Court had the wisdom to go with the will of the people. Thank God for Democracy. Just like one Christian commentator here in Southern California once commented after election day (his name is Frank Pastore, btw), "Just because the Republican party was defeated, it doesn't mean that conservatism was defeated." Marriage is between one man and one woman, it must be kept that way.

Isn't there a saying about be careful what you wish for?

Anywho, lets rejoice. The world is still safe so that loser John and loser Susan can run off to a vegas all night Elvis chapel and get hitched after knowing each other three whole days! Superman eat your heart out.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Thank God for Democracy.

Your God concept is hardly the one to be thanked for democracy, I believe those thanks should go to us people. I would peg your God as more of a Theocrat myself.

*