Gay Marriage Could Soon Be Legalized In California

[..]

SD...Judges are not activists? Surely you jest, unless you are talking about judges outside of the U.S. The term "judicial activism" was not just pulled out of the air. Google the term and you'll probably get at least 100 citations.

Don't call me Shirley. And I am not jesting. The concept is just a GOP talking point. And we all know that GOP talking points and reality have zero in common .

 

Cheers,

SD

[itsmedave]

This is not about "activist" judges. This is about the Constitution.

 

The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. When the first state law was passed giving white and blacks the ability to marry, the latest poll had 90% of the people against it.

 

That change in the law did not hurt the institution of marriage and neither will this one.

 

In a free country. 2 consenting adults should be free to marry each other. Gays are not penalized anywhere in the Constitution and their rights stripped from them. Thus, judges are merely righting a long term wrong against the will of the majority as is their duty. In time, this will become as much a non-issue as is interracial marriage today.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Dave...activism by some courts/judges is not always about "whims" of the majority. It is about cancelling the "will" of the majority. And, most often, giving preference to the "whims" of the minority. Judges/courts have too often IMO reconstructed the Constitution in ways the founding fathers would never have imagined. The term "living Constitution" is merely a label mostly spawned by liberals to mask the liberal raping of the document. And before you or others blast off on my reference to liberals, consider that some quite conservative judges/justices have also taken part in the shredding of the Constitution.

 

HH

[..]

 

Here's the conclusion of the majority decision (PDF) affirming the right of gay couples to marry:

 

[color:purple][T]he exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term "marriage" and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples â?? while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples â?? likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

 

Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.

 

Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.

 

In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.[/color]

 

I was actually happily surprised that a Republican-dominated court would rule this way. I guess I equated all Republican judges with the ideologues of the SCOTUS majority.

 

Cheers,

SD

[..]

Well Hugh, if you want to be strictly literal, then everyone should turn in their guns or sign up for the Nat'l Guard. Cuz the 2nd Amendment says "as part of a well regulated militia." If you strictly interpret, then the wiggle room the gun lovers use of "what they meant was..." is out the window.

 

There are many more examples. That was just the easiest, and the best one to 5555555

 

Cheers,

SD

[rogueyam]

Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter writing in dissent of the 4-3 majority ruling:

 

â??Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majorityâ??s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage â?? an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law â?? is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.â?Â

 

Leftists want what they want and will use whatever means to get it. They do not fear a totalitarian future, they willfully seek one confident that they will be the tyrants.

 

[Old Hippie]

Again with the leftist crap? Well sweetie, the Marines I spoke of earlier (the ones you fantasized about) Are my cousin and his partner, both very conservative Americans, who until the 2nd GWB election, always voted republican.

 

Yep, a couple of macho rough and tumble fagots who served their country in war (which is more than you and guys like you ever did)came home and were denied equal rights. So much for left wing America, with their lefty ideals of liberty and justice for all...

[Bangkoktraveler]

rogueyam said [coor:red]"Leftists want what they want and will use whatever means to get it. They do not fear a totalitarian future, they willfully seek one confident that they will be the tyrants.

[/color]

 

rogue yam, let me tell you something. During my life time, it has been only the last 7 years that I actually felt that some of my civil rights have been taken away from me or have diminished. During the same period, I have been forced to pay a lot more taxes (hidden and unhidden) and now end up with less coins in my pocket.

 

You have called me a leftist and a communist along with many other members on this board. So tell me, with your way of thinking, [color:red]"Is a leftist, a person who has served his country?" [/color]

[rogueyam]

This is not about "activist" judges. This is about the Constitution.

 

The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. When the first state law was passed giving white and blacks the ability to marry, the latest poll had 90% of the people against it.

 

That change in the law did not hurt the institution of marriage and neither will this one.

 

In a free country. 2 consenting adults should be free to marry each other. Gays are not penalized anywhere in the Constitution and their rights stripped from them. Thus, judges are merely righting a long term wrong against the will of the majority as is their duty. In time, this will become as much a non-issue as is interracial marriage today.

 

Here are responses to your points from Mark Levin, a.k.a. "the Great One":

 

This is all well and good, except it completely ignores the manner in which we make these decisions in our society...Sixty-one percent of those who voted on the subject in California in 2000 favored traditional marriage as the law in California, and it was their vote that was overturned by the 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court...The voters in California did not seek to outlaw homosexual behavior or same-sex unions, for that matter. They prohibited their state from giving its official imprimatur, by way of marriage, to the behavior.

 

...The assault on ordered liberty here is coming from the state bench, not the public. And what of our constitutional system (federal and state)? Should we abandon that too? Should 4-3 decisions in California and Massachusetts, which do not adhere to the law in these states, be celebrated? Should these state courts be able to export their decisions to other states, which is, in fact the tactic of the litigants? What exactly is the standard by which we should be governed if we abandon Constitutional constructs? The manner in which these decisions are made is vital to the republic.

 

Moreover, if...gay marriage is inevitable...then its inevitability will play out over time because of society's changing standards. And if it is inevitable, why the necessity of imposing it on a society, in this case California, by judicial fiat?

 

[Hugh_Hoy]

OH and BKKTRVLR...the following are the tenets of "socialism" as subscribed to by "leftists"; these tenets are basically lifted from a well-written piece of progaganda which paints a very flowery and "feel-good" agenda. However, be warned, their (socialist,progressive, liberal, leftist) message is like the wooing of sirens who tempted Ulysses and his crew.

 

To the point, the above-listed folks using various labels to disguise their communist leanings subscribe to/believe:

 

1. resources and the wealth they generate should be owned, or at least controlled, by the "public," i.e., the government.

 

2. the marketplace should be controlled by government, to ensure the equal distribution of the earth's riches.

 

3. a centralized (federal) government should regulate nearly every aspect of the social fabric of a country.

 

By allowing the above to occur, forget about being able to live where you want to live, go to school where you want to go to school, owning your own home or business, creating an environment conducive to innovation and advancement, freedom of speech (unless it coincides with the leftist doctrine). To me, these are human rights that are more and more attacked by so-called "liberals"...and rights which have cost countless U.S. lives over the last two centuries to acquire/protect. It is a shame that some U.S. citizens fail to understand that they are being hood-winked by the extreme liberal elements in our country. And Comrad Obama is currently their poster boy. Should he win in November, God have mercy on the country, cuz he will pack the courts with activists that will ensure a rapidly lowering of standard of living here and a manifestly more-rapid eroding of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the Constitution might as well be torn up and completely re-written...or replaced by the Communist Manifesto.

 

HH