California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[JonoBN41]

DSTCHAOS, I appreciate your answering, but you seem to focus heavily on the financial aspect and I simply have never heard anyone state those reasons for opposing gay marriage. Maybe some people do. Something else to think about. Thanks.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Something else to think about. Thanks.

Yep. You're welcome.

[DeltAlum]

I understand the concept of checks and balances, and that some think court decisions these days may infringe on what should be a legislative process.

All that aside, my opinion is that if that's going to happen, this is a good decision.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Unfortunate, but not surprising.

This is what happens when judges decide what feels right and then seek to back that up with law.

Originally Posted by SECdomination

California courts would pull a stunt like this. Civil unions aren't enough? Why do gays (and all their supporters) feel the need to change the definition of marriage?
Not to be a complete prick, but I don't know any gay people and I prefer not to engage them in morality debates. Could someone please explain the need for this? I honestly thought that civil unions accomplished the same thing.




You would be.
I won't disappoint though. In fact, I'm not sure how much I can participate in this thread for the sheer amount of nausea it's already causing me.
So where are the rest of you anti gay marriage folk?

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6169783.story

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So far, our definition of marriage has only included as between a man and a woman. This court decision alters that distinction. I think such definitions are solely the province of legislatures and I agree with many that this is about as "activist" a decision as I've ever seen.

I agree that this kind of question belongs in the legislature.

Here's the opinion, BTW.

Originally Posted by Kevin

[A voter initiative overturning the decision will] be tough to do. . . . I'd be interested to know whether the California Supreme Court found that the protection here was in the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.

The Court relied on the California Constitution, not the United States Constitution. The voter initiative will be to amend the Constitution; according to the news this morning, supporters of the constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and woman already have enough signatures to get it on the ballot in November. That being so, they may ask the California Supreme Court to stay its decision until then.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with it, since in this case the court was considering a 2000 voter initiative that by statute limited marriage to a man and woman. Accordining to the Wiki, it passed with 61% voting in favor. I wonder if that might mean that this initiative also has a decent chance of passing.

Originally Posted by jon1856

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6169783.story

I really don't mean this to sound as flippant as it's going to sound, but my experience is that California courts are not likely to influence courts around the country very often. I recall one law professor describing California court decisions as "what did we eat for breakfast this morning" decisions. The reality is that in many parts of the country, as far as I have seen, citation of a California decision will be met with "yeah, well that's California."

That aside, this is a decision interpreting the California Constitution. Given that about half the states already have provisions in their state constitutions forbidding same-sex marriage (and I wonder if that number will rise now), the decision will be irrelevant in those states. In the remaining states, whether it is influential can turn not only on the predilictions of the judges but on how similar the language and jurisprudence of other's states constitutional provisions are to California's.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It'll be interesting to see what happens with it, since in this case the court was considering a 2000 voter initiative that by statute limited marriage to a man and woman. Accordining to the Wiki, it passed with 61% voting in favor. I wonder if that might mean that this initiative also has a decent chance of passing.

The California Supreme Court in doing this may well have delivered the State of California's electoral college delegates to John McCain assuming this Amendment can get on that ballot (which I'll bet will be a major fight).

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jon1856

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court . . .

Originally Posted by Kevin

The California Supreme Court in doing this may well have delivered the State of California's electoral college delegates to John McCain . . .

It's a plot.

. . . assuming this Amendment can get on that ballot (which I'll bet will be a major fight).

I don't know. According to the California Secretary of State's office, 694,354 are required to get a proposition for a constitutional amendment on the ballot. According to the NYTimes, proponants of the proposition have collected 1.2 million signatures, which are currently being verified. My understanding is that if they have 694,354 valid signatures (non-repetative signatures of registered voters), then it will be on the ballot. It may already be pretty much a done deal.

[TrojanWoman]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The California Supreme Court in doing this may well have delivered the State of California's electoral college delegates to John McCain

Please, we're still in California . . .

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Why do gays (and all their supporters) feel the need to change the definition of marriage?

I'm with you. I don't get it either. I never understood why gay people decided to turn their private lives into a political agenda.

Not to be a complete prick, but I don't know any gay people and I prefer not to engage them in morality debates. Could someone please explain the need for this? I honestly thought that civil unions accomplished the same thing.

I do know gay people, but I do try to avoid the morality debate with them. I have decided that I will not try to convince them of my view point as I will not be convinved by theirs. I just stick to weather and general chit chat.

I won't disappoint though. In fact, I'm not sure how much I can participate in this thread for the sheer amount of nausea it's already causing me.
So where are the rest of you anti gay marriage folk?

I'm here.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I'm with you. I don't get it either. I never understood why gay people decided to turn their private lives into a political agenda.

How did gay people turn their private lives into a political agenda?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

How did gay people turn their private lives into a political agenda?

It seems to me that the only real difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they decide to "sleep" with.

Case in point ---

A good friend and I were in grad school at the same time. She is gay (lesbian) and I'm straight. We're both Black females of the same age. We both have similar backgrounds in terms of family. She is Catholic, I'm protestant - basically both of us are of Christian religions. She had struggles in grad school, so did I.

The only major difference is that she went out with girls, I went out with guys. Our similarities ended at the bedroom door, if you will.

I think that what ever you do in your private life is your business. Some people are into S&M, threesomes and bondage - I don't see any of those people at the court house demanding equal rights.

No one is going to know what you do in the privacy of your home unless you put it out there. No pun intended.

Oh, another thing about my friend. She is from the Chicago area and I'm from Texas - maybe that is another significant difference.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

It seems to me that the only real difference between a gay person and a straight person is who they decide to "sleep" with.

Oooook.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I think that what ever you do in your private life is your business. Some people are into S&M, threesomes and bondage - I don't see any of those people at the court house demanding equal rights.

When discussing sexual behaviors, it is important to remember that there are many private things that are considered deviant and/or criminal. Private business has never just been private business. That applies to heterosexual activities and to many behaviors that were considered homosexual.

But let's pretend that private business is private business. The average homosexual would agree with you and isn't into overt or flamboyant sexuality, anyway. They just want to be able to live their lives with the same rights and responsibilities and mind their own business. So why is it okay for heterosexuals' private business to be public (marriage, in this instance) but not for homosexuals' private business (marriage, in this instance).

If you think gay marriage is wrong, that's your business to think that. I used to think that and think that less and less as the years go on. But personal opinions that are majority opinions often translate into policies and laws---and people struggle to find reasons to justify their belief that something should remain illegal.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Civil unions aren't enough? Why do gays (and all their supporters) feel the need to change the definition of marriage?

Definitions are changed and added to all the time. A pen is no longer a quill dipped in ink, phones need not be connected by wires, and automobiles aren't necessarily powered by internal combustion engines. But we didn't take up petitions to ban ball-point pens, cellphones, and electric or hybrid cars just because they didn't fit the existing definition. And who would propose banning online bulletin boards such as Greek Chat simply because it's not an actual board attached to a wall? When women were elected to the House of Representatives, they weren't "congressmen", they are called congresswomen. Things change. We progress.

When has mankind - oops humankind - ever constrained itself from experiencing something new out of fear of a definition?

The terms "married" and "spouse" are written into innumerable policies including insurance coverage, probate laws, tax laws, and trying to find out someone's condition at a hospital, just to name a few. Civil union might sound as if it's good enough, but is not the same thing.

[summer_gphib]

The courts have too much power, and have had too much power for far too long. For me, personally, I don't really care. I don't see that there are that many tax benefits for average people, but hell most of my tax customers lie about their marital status anyway, especially if children are involved, it is monetarily beneficial to claim head of household. Illegal if you are married and have not been separated, but very common. Of course it all depends on the tax bracket. I deal with more EITC customers than the higher-tax bracket clients.

Anyway, I'm getting way off course.

I would like to see a nation-wide vote. What has happened to democracy in this nation? It is ruined by an outdated electoral-college system, and a court system that is out of control. Oy vey. I'm on my soap box.

I have often wondered what would happen if the very concept of judicial review were challenged, going back to Marbury vs. Madison.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Definitions are changed and added to all the time. A pen is no longer a quill dipped in ink, phones need not be connected by wires, and automobiles aren't necessarily powered by internal combustion engines. But we didn't take up petitions to ban ball-point pens, cellphones, and electric or hybrid cars just because they didn't fit the existing definition. And who would propose banning online bulletin boards such as Greek Chat simply because it's not an actual board attached to a wall? When women were elected to the House of Representatives, they weren't "congressmen", they are called congresswomen. Things change. We progress.

God my generation sucks.