Judge: California can't ban same-sex marriage

[lifesaver]

Originally posted by KSig RC
As far as I can tell, the reality of the gay marriage issue is that the real split comes in a quasi-Federalist argument of whether it is a state or federal issue. In reality, it's both - each state can mandate marriage as it sees fit, but the federal government does have provisions to recognize marriages between states for purposes of taxation and other 'rights' such as medical care. (I've already posted my diatribe on this situation, so I'll leave it here)

I do agree with the mandate to protect the rights of the minority, but you run into a sticky situation here, in that the minority doesn't have the rights that you're trying to protect. In fact, the 'majority' would have to extend these rights - and majority rule still carries the day in our representative democratic system. You had a nationwide vote when you elected those leaders.

Again, while you're getting trite here, it's important to emphasize the importance of judicial review to our system of checks and balances. Personally, I think that the Federal Supreme Court doesn't want to touch this issue - you'll see some interesting rulings from the state courts along the way, though, just like this one, which you'll recognize as not exactly following the normal process of review.

This is definitely not a perfect system - in fact, in many states I would fear putting my eggs in this basket right now, as a negative judicial review would be mandate for removal of other 'traditional' rights. However, there really doesn't appear to be any reason other than religion for banning gay marriage, and hopefully upon review this is made clear and is decisively outlined by the courts.

Hopefully, this is a solid step in the right direction.

I agree, it is a step in the right direction.

A couple of points tho. (It seems like we agree on the issue so I'm just splitting hairs here). You have to agree that strictly interperted, yes, its only the rights granted to the minority by the majority that they enjoy. HOWEVER, through the evolution/interpertation of the constitution, rights of the minority (not religious or ethnic in this case, simply the non-majority) have been expanded, not contracted, so it would seem that in keeping with that trend, the natural extention of those protections will continue.

I dont advocate the elimination of the representative democracy or anything. (far from it, see my other posts on how I dont think stupid people should even be alowed to vote). My point about voting as a nation to ban gay marrage was a rhetorical statement to RUgreek's statement of "well thats what we voted for." Only in the most liberal of interpertations coudl it be said that we voted for it. All bans on gay marrage have been at the state or local level. The 1996 DOMA law didnt ban gay marrage on the federal level, one part of it (and the part relevant to this debate) said the governmet would not be recognizing it if a state were to legalize it.

I was being trite because those on the far right have this habit of wanting to eliminate all judicial review. JR is critical to our evolution as a nation and is enshrined in the constitution FOR THAT REASON. Some of our most important steps forward have been because of JR and it just seems scary how they want to severely limit JR. If someone was squacking about limiting congress' power (especially while the republicans hold the majority) there would be riots on the airwaves. Its crap.


<--------------------------- degree in Pol. Science and finally gets to put it to use.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by lifesaver
I agree, it is a step in the right direction.

A couple of points tho. (It seems like we agree on the issue so I'm just splitting hairs here). You have to agree that strictly interperted, yes, its only the rights granted to the minority by the majority that they enjoy. HOWEVER, through the evolution/interpertation of the constitution, rights of the minority (not religious or ethnic in this case, simply the non-majority) have been expanded, not contracted, so it would seem that in keeping with that trend, the natural extention of those protections will continue.

I agree in principle. The reality, though, is that the 'natural extensions' we've been enjoying are not guarantees, as you pointed out - and thus strict review can prove dangerous to these rights.

Especially in a subject as divisive as this, and as constitutionally complex, there's always the chance of strict interpretation being utilized . . .

Originally posted by lifesaver
I dont advocate the elimination of the representative democracy or anything. (far from it, see my other posts on how I dont think stupid people should even be alowed to vote). My point about voting as a nation to ban gay marrage was a rhetorical statement to RUgreek's statement of "well thats what we voted for." Only in the most liberal of interpertations coudl it be said that we voted for it. All bans on gay marrage have been at the state or local level. The 1996 DOMA law didnt ban gay marrage on the federal level, one part of it (and the part relevant to this debate) said the governmet would not be recognizing it if a state were to legalize it.

Agreed, and I wasn't piggybacking on RUgreek's point at all - just pointing out that we effectively lose the right to claims such as "I never voted for that!" as soon as the ballot hits the box. This wasn't so much geared toward you, as at others in the thread to prevent widespread whineyism.