California Supreme Court Rules that Separate is NOT Equal

[BigBadWlf]

A generation ago California was among the first states to stand up to discrimination and bigotry and strike down laws preventing interracial marriage. The state continues its long history of providing for equal rights for everyone and today the state Supreme Court ruled that a substitute for marriage was not sufficient striking down the states ban on the legal recognition of same sex marriages.

Good for them

It’s a good day for anyone who values equality and justice.

Sadly, those advocating hatred and bigotry are still working to hack apart the California constitution by amending it to say that minorities they don’t like are not equal.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm not convinced that amending a state constitution will beat the 14 Amendment

 

[gengwall]

Sadly, those advocating hatred and bigotry are still working to hack apart the California constitution by amending it to say that minorities they don’t like are not equal.

Prop 22 did not amend the CA constitution, although the CA Supreme Court did in a blatantly unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers.

 

[gengwall]

I find it interesting that those applauding this opinion keep referring to "separate but equal" when the majority never used the phrase or referenced Brown v Board of Ed. This was not a "separate but equal" case and the majority used no such reasoning in their decision.

 

[LittleNipper]

A generation ago California was among the first states to stand up to discrimination and bigotry and strike down laws preventing interracial marriage. The state continues its long history of providing for equal rights for everyone and today the state Supreme Court ruled that a substitute for marriage was not sufficient striking down the states ban on the legal recognition of same sex marriages.

Good for them

It’s a good day for anyone who values equality and justice.

Sadly, those advocating hatred and bigotry are still working to hack apart the California constitution by amending it to say that minorities they don’t like are not equal.

Now if only two homosexuals can beget children by being engaged in only same sex relationships ------ Oh, I guess even the earthquake state's legislature has its limitations. What a bunch of sanctimonious baffoons. Homosexual couples will NEVER be equal with GOD established marriages ----- but they will play at makebelieve.

 

[selfinflikted]

A generation ago California was among the first states to stand up to discrimination and bigotry and strike down laws preventing interracial marriage. The state continues its long history of providing for equal rights for everyone and today the state Supreme Court ruled that a substitute for marriage was not sufficient striking down the states ban on the legal recognition of same sex marriages.

Good for them

It’s a good day for anyone who values equality and justice.

Sadly, those advocating hatred and bigotry are still working to hack apart the California constitution by amending it to say that minorities they don’t like are not equal.

Huzzah!

Thanks for posting, Wolfie

 

[wanderingone]

I find it interesting that those applauding this opinion keep referring to "separate but equal" when the majority never used the phrase or referenced Brown v Board of Ed. This was not a "separate but equal" case and the majority used no such reasoning in their decision.

What they said is

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.

I'm not sure why the similarities aren't clear to you but either way they struck down the ban as it should have been.

 

[gengwall]

What they said is



I'm not sure why the similarities aren't clear to you but either way they struck down the ban as it should have been.

That is not the argument in Brown.

 

[selfinflikted]

That is not the argument in Brown.

Brown vs Board = separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

This Ruling = separate marriage institutions are inherently unequal.

It's basically the same thing. Don't split hairs

 

[gengwall]

Brown vs Board = separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

This Ruling = separate marriage institutions are inherently unequal.

It's basically the same thing. Don't split hairs

Don't declare a precedent was used which was never cited in the opinion. The court did not invoke Brown in any way. This case was only and ever about a label, not the institutions involved. In Brown, both types of educational facilities were still called "schools".

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Go CA! I haven't heard about this yet but I haven't had the news on today.

 

[gengwall]

Go CA! I haven't heard about this yet but I haven't had the news on today.

Oh my goodness, it's all the rage here on CF. You'ld think the sky was falling, or conversely, the oppressed masses have finally been released from their shackles. Much ado about nothing, really, since the decision has absolutely no impact on the legal rights of gay couples.

 

[selfinflikted]

Don't declare a precedent was used which was never cited in the opinion. The court did not invoke Brown in any way. This case was only and ever about a label, not the institutions involved. In Brown, both types of educational facilities were still called "schools".

The gist is still the same, whether cited or not. Still splitting hairs, imo.

 

[gengwall]

The gist is still the same, whether cited or not. Still splitting hairs, imo.

Really. You imply that the court is using the precedent of one of the biggest civil rights cases ever, a case cited whenever anything close to a "separate but equal" mistake has been made in the law, and yet the court in the decision neither invokes the phrase "separate but equal" nor makes even a passing or footnoted citation of the case. That's quite an oversight by the court if a righting of a "separate but equal" violation was their intent. Usually, courts don't relie on us to read between the lines and get the "gist" of what they are saying. They are pretty good at documenting the use of a precedent when it exists.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm not convinced that amending a state constitution will beat the 14 Amendment

it won’t. amending state constitutions is just a stalling tactic. Everyone knows just like segregation , Jim Crow and bans on interracial marriage that discrimination ‘s days are numbered.

 

[gengwall]

it won’t. amending state constitutions is just a stalling tactic. Everyone knows just like segregation , Jim Crow and bans on interracial marriage that discrimination ‘s days are numbered.

Good grief. Get your facts straight people. Prop 22 did NOT amend the CA Constitution (nor did Jim Crow amend any states constitution).

 

[BigBadWlf]

Prop 22 did not amend the CA constitution,

Various right wing groups in California are and have been collecting signatures to ballot an amendment to the state constitution making it all right to discriminate.

although the CA Supreme Court did in a blatantly unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers.

Yes how dare the California State Supreme Court do its job and say that ha law designed to discriminate against a minority is not lawful…shocking and shameful behavior on their part. If they keep doing that where will it stop? Soon they will be trying to say that laws discriminating against Jews or worse blacks are wrong….oh the horror!…won’t somebody think of the children?

 

[gengwall]

Various right wing groups in California are and have been collecting signatures to ballot an amendment to the state constitution making it all right to discriminate.




Yes how dare the California State Supreme Court do its job and say that ha law designed to discriminate against a minority is not lawful…shocking and shameful behavior on their part. If they keep doing that where will it stop? Soon they will be trying to say that laws discriminating against Jews or worse blacks are wrong….oh the horror!…won’t somebody think of the children?

Good grief. All the court did was say you can use a particular label to describe a relationship. There was no discrimination in the law of gay couples.

 

[selfinflikted]

Really. You imply that the court is using the precedent of one of the biggest civil rights cases ever, a case cited whenever anything close to a "separate but equal" mistake has been made in the law, and yet the court in the decision neither invokes the phrase "separate but equal" nor makes even a passing or footnoted citation of the case. That's quite an oversight by the court if a righting of a "separate but equal" violation was their intent. Usually, courts don't relie on us to read between the lines and get the "gist" of what they are saying. They are pretty good at documenting the use of a precedent when it exists.

You sure are in an argumentative mood today, aren't you?

The point is, the ban was struck down. No one said the courts evoked any "Brown vs Board" precedent, only that it's ruling was similar. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

EDIT: oh, and GOOD GRIEF!

 

[gengwall]

You sure are in an argumentative mood today, aren't you?

The point is, the ban was struck down. No one said the courts evoked any "Brown vs Board" precedent, only that it's ruling was similar. Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

LOL - yes I am, although I'm not so sure why. Probably has something to do with people's ignorance of the law and the effect of the opinion in the case.