May 15, 2008 07:37PM GMT
Question
•
Politics - United States
Is it right the California supreme court, with a vote of 4 to 3 should wipe out the ban on same sex marriages? This to me says why vote when they can just overturn what 61% wants.
AS POSTED IN THE APSAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.
Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"
"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."
In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.
"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody not just in the state of California, but throughout the country will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.
Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.
_PLEASE REALIZE THIS IS AN AP ARTICLE.__
Loading...-
Are you not answering the rest because you cant? There is no way you can negate what I wrote in the 2nd paragraph of my previous post.
In no place did I refer to other states. If I did please show me. I was talking about law... I didn't explicitly say California law, but I thought that was obvious since the poll is about a ban on gay marriage being overturned in California. -
lol... are you serious? Thats a verb form of states, which has nothing to do with the 50 states of our country (Its similar to "says")
http://dictionary.reference.c...
Theres a definition for you. This is hilarious in light of you calling me poorly read. -
Since your the college smart a** why don't you tell me how the Constitution or your reference to "a free country" doesn't refer to all of the states. I don't always have time to play with dopes like you now that you wish to insult. You still read poorly and only what suites you and your OPINIONS.
Your comments, apparently you don't both to read what you write.
"Rather, through this ruling it is establishing the legal benefits of marriage as ones that can be enjoyed by all people--whether straight or gay. I think such ideology is the only logical way of dealing with marriage in a free country where all people are created equal."
And by the way next time you laugh and wish to claim some fairy tale sense of perfection. You can show me the nail holes in your hands or shut up. -
Hey man, you're the one who insulted me first. And you gotta calm down--this is an internet debate over the law regarding gay marriage. I don't claim any sense of perfection; but do you think Jesus would endorse your attacks on me? I never would attacked you personally in the least if you didn't start with me... regardless, I think what I said was far less angry or mean than this post, or the one you wrote before.
Hope you can calm down and see that this is nothing personal man... Just an exchange of beliefs. -
And fyi-
The marriage laws governoring every states, have been pulled, reviewed since Mass made gay marriage legal a few years ago. Some states have now "changed" the original verbage on those state laws because the fear that swept over them after the MASS ruling. Pretty sly - to change records. -
Silverback, I believe two very simple things here.
1) It is an abuse of the rightful division of power. Check my record on such topics as "God on My Money". I fully believe that the "establishment clause" has been abused by activist judges. I see a similar abuse here.
2) Marriage has no business in the hands of the government.
How does this differ than "shacking up"? It's a piece of government issue paper. Speaking for the secular, it holds no more guarantee of faithfullness than a wedding ring, for the gay or the straight. You can't legislate a heart my friend.
So long as the government don't superimpose their agenda on me (as I am certain they will at some point in time), on an issue that has no busiiness in their hands at all.
Trust me when I say that I am as conservative as they come. I also realize I cannot legislate morality and the moral code that's on the books is rarely enforced. -
And a "God thing" is God's business with the "individual relationship" God wants with every one of his/her children.
Gays feel no different than straight people about their union being not only special to them, but also sanctioned by the God they know in their lives (just the same as others know God in theirs)
There is one Creator God - for all (if you chose that over a belief of no God) - our choice in the land of Liberty -
I'm am quite sure the legislature of California would disagree with you.
Based on your arguement any law can be struck down by the court, not just interpreted. And by the same arguement if they had said we approve of gay marriage or abortion or death taxes, the court can reverse any of those at it's pleasure and say they had interpreted the Constitution differently? What do you think? So every time the judges change we can have significant changes in the law.
Please remember I am not arguing a specifics only the power of the court vs the power of the legislature. -
Its a judges responsibility to make decisions separate from their personal beliefs. Judges are supposed to rule based on the law and solely that. For this reason, not anybody can become a judge; it takes a lot of work, a lot of studying, etc.
Could any law hypothetically be struck down? Well, yeah. If the judges just decided to disregard the entire purpose of their job, then they could rule based on personal beliefs and not based on the state or national constitution. If such a think did happen, however, the legislature has the power to overturn the courts ruling (or impeach a judge they felt wasn't doing his job correctly). This system of checks and balances is the foundation of our government.
While the court can overturn laws, the court cannot create laws. A case has to be brought in front of the court for them to make a ruling on it; for a case to reach the supreme court, it must pass through numerous other courts over a long period of time.
The whole purpose of the court is to keep the legislature in check. When the legislature creates a law that somebody doesn't think is constitutional, it is the courts responsibility to decide whether or not the law actually is constitutional.
Though you are quite sure the legislature of California would disagree with me, I am positive they wouldn't :). The supreme courts job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, which is what they did in this instance. This is just our constitution at work -
I'm sorry, but the people are the only one's in our Society who cannot overreach their power. They ARE the power, in accordance with the Preamble "We the People..."
The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch all have rolls in the Constitution. These rolls are restricted. The people, who ARE the government, are not even catagorized aside from stating the local populations make their own laws as long as they do not overstep the Bill of Rights.
The People are the only ones who can act any way they see fit without a check. They are the check. -
I disagree.
I believe the courts have had to rule on the meaning of our Constitution - something that too many interest groups want to "interpret" their own way. Especially our governments vested interests to use the Constitution as they decide every day how it suits them. Every civil right fought for in the country had to end in court. It's "the" traditional way of solving arguments over the constitution and like papers/agreements.
Justice for all
One nation under God
Give me Liberty or give me death
FREEDOM to pursue happiness -
So where is the line in the sand so to speak regarding legislative power vs. judicial power. Remember the concept is that each of three should wield equal power that none shall become to powerful.
You do have to read the whole thing and use it in total. Now you were going to explain balance of power to me. In your own words please. -
The executive branch believes it should have most the power and have been moving toward that goal for a number of years, particularly since 9/11 in this admin. Their answer is to "fill the courts" at every level with judges that will inforce "their" interpretations.
Unconstitutional! -
every court in the world has the right to over ride the vote.
plus, this is a basic cardinal right, as laid out in the bill of rights act
the bill of rights act is an internationally recognised document which protects the rights of all people.
section 19 "freedom from discrimination" states:
everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, ethical or religious beleifs.
and section 20 protects the rights of minority groups.
this means, that by saying homosexuals arent allowed to marry is a breach of their fundamental freedoms and human rights.
to openly discriminate against a minority group is not only immoral, but illegal too.
the court can over turn and over ride any public vote in order to protect and sanctify the rights of a minority group, and it is pleasing to see this court has done the right thing.
the court can not force homosexuals to love members of the opposite sex, and love is love. Love is not between a man and a woman, do not be so naive. Marriage is for 2 people who genuinely love each other. -
Answered Yes
because the populous isnt always right. Why vote? To voice your opinion and to let people in power know how the general population thinks.
The general population once supported slavery... if it wasn't for Lincoln going against the status quo, we'd still have slavery. Likewise, the supreme court went against the status quo and overturned the ban on gay marriage because it was stupid, illogical, unconstitutional, and cruel
![[Brii Monster]](http://images.sodahead.com/images/profiles/0/0/0/0/8/3/0/3/7/profiles_n72775196110224654104_4646_787340_media_small.jpeg)
Answered Yes
Those who argue that the people have a right to vote on the matter of same-sex marriage misunderstand what this is about. This is not about "what the majority of people want." It is about rights as defined by our existing and long-accepted laws.
The recognition of civil rights is not traditionally put to the people. Rights are given, not removed, by the Legislature. They are interpreted and protected by the courts.
Would those with disabilities have free access? Would women vote? Would we have mixed-race marriages? Would African-Americans have the right to vote? Indeed, would they even be free if the decision had been put to the people? The advancement of civil rights - the rights of women, of people of color, of the physically challenged - has come about through the testing of our laws in our courts.
Every one of these topics in their day met with great opposition. How many of these rights would have been granted if put to the voter of the day?
If the people were asked to vote on these matters in the days in which the issue was initially addressed, when the topics were so emotionally charged, these rights and protections probably would not have been granted. Decades later, we see how obvious these rights are. Extending these rights to those previously denied them did not threaten or u...
Those who argue that the people have a right to vote on the matter of same-sex marriage misunderstand what this is about. This is not about "what the majority of people want." It is about rights as defined by our existing and long-accepted laws.
The recognition of civil rights is not traditionally put to the people. Rights are given, not removed, by the Legislature. They are interpreted and protected by the courts.
Would those with disabilities have free access? Would women vote? Would we have mixed-race marriages? Would African-Americans have the right to vote? Indeed, would they even be free if the decision had been put to the people? The advancement of civil rights - the rights of women, of people of color, of the physically challenged - has come about through the testing of our laws in our courts.
Every one of these topics in their day met with great opposition. How many of these rights would have been granted if put to the voter of the day?
If the people were asked to vote on these matters in the days in which the issue was initially addressed, when the topics were so emotionally charged, these rights and protections probably would not have been granted. Decades later, we see how obvious these rights are. Extending these rights to those previously denied them did not threaten or undermine our society; to the contrary, we are stronger for it. The same is true for the matter before us today. The right of two people of the same sex to marry is not a matter for the populous to decide.
The Supreme Court of California has tested the state's laws and has come to a clear and reasoned judgment. Indeed the purpose of our judicial system is to protect the rights of those whose voice is not yet loud enough, to guarantee that they too have the same rights that are enjoyed by the majority. To this end, the Court acted exactly as they should have. Marriage is a right - a right available to all our citizens regardless of the gender of the parties.
Contrary to the inevitable claims that this judgment was made by "activist judges," they have not been activist or revolutionary. In fact, their ruling stems from a conservative letter-of-the-law interpretation of our constitution.