NationStates Jolt Archive

Posted without comment.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday, reversing a lower court's judgment against a voter-approved law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
ADVERTISEMENT

Yes No
Yes No
Yes No


"The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that 'marriage' in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning," the California Court of Appeal held.

"We may not strike down a law simply because we think it unwise or because we believe there is a fairer way of dealing with the problem," it said in a majority opinion written by Justice William McGuiness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061006/pl_nm/rights_gays_dc_2

Finally, some non-activist judges. They should be lauded for making the objectively correct choice even though they may have disagreed with it. This action fully conforms to the spirit of our government.

"We may not strike down a law simply because we think it unwise or because we believe there is a fairer way of dealing with the problem," it said in a majority opinion written by Justice William McGuiness.

Yes, you can. That's one of the main points of having the Supreme Court, to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature.

Finally, some non-activist judges. They should be lauded for making the objectively correct choice even though they may have disagreed with it. This action fully conforms to the spirit of our government.
Translation: If I don't like the results, it's activist judges. If I do like the results, it's sound judical action. :rolleyes:

SF is already appealing to the California Supreme Court and the state legislature has already passed one bill allowing gay marriage.

SF is already appealing to the California Supreme Court and the state legislature has already passed one bill allowing gay marriage.

Which the Governor put his VETO on. It should also be noted that "gay couples in California have rights comparable to married heterosexuals thanks to domestic partnership laws." So, there should not be any beef about same sex marriage should there.

Which the Governor put his VETO on. It should also be noted that "gay couples in California have rights comparable to married heterosexuals thanks to domestic partnership laws." So, there should not be any beef about same sex marriage should there.
You never have understood that separate is unequal, have you?

This thing was always going to the Supreme Court anyway, so this is no big deal.

Which the Governor put his VETO on. It should also be noted that "gay couples in California have rights comparable to married heterosexuals thanks to domestic partnership laws." So, there should not be any beef about same sex marriage should there.

Four posts in and "seperate but equal" is busted out. May be a new record.

Finally, some non-activist judges. They should be lauded for making the objectively correct choice even though they may have disagreed with it. This action fully conforms to the spirit of our government.

Actually, no it necessarily doesn't. We are not a country of "Majority Rules". We were set up to prevent such behavior, and to prevent a Tyrrany of the Majority. Now, I'm not going to say if the court was right or wrong, it's just that these kinds of comments disgust me.

Finally, some non-activist judges. They should be lauded for making the objectively correct choice even though they may have disagreed with it. This action fully conforms to the spirit of our government.

You have now made my ignore list for you're stupidty.

Four posts in and "seperate but equal" is busted out. May be a new record.

No seperate but equal was ever "busted out." If anyone took the time to read the whole article the "equal" was mentioned in it. What the hell, I thought everyone was interested in "equal rights." There is no "seperate" to this as hetrosexual unions (called marrage) have the same rights as same sex unions (called domestic partnership). hetrosexual partners = same sex partners. :rolleyes:

No seperate but equal was ever "busted out." If anyone took the time to read the whole article the "equal" was mentioned in it. What the hell, I thought everyone was interested in "equal rights." There is no "seperate" to this as hetrosexual unions (called marrage) have the same rights as same sex unions (called domestic partnership). hetrosexual partners = same sex partners. :rolleyes:

You said "It should also be noted that "gay couples in California have rights comparable to married heterosexuals thanks to domestic partnership laws." So, there should not be any beef about same sex marriage should there."

That's an awful lot like separate but equal.

No seperate but equal was ever "busted out." If anyone took the time to read the whole article the "equal" was mentioned in it. What the hell, I thought everyone was interested in "equal rights." There is no "seperate" to this as hetrosexual unions (called marrage) have the same rights as same sex unions (called domestic partnership). hetrosexual partners = same sex partners. :rolleyes:
You just keep telling yourself that.

No seperate but equal was ever "busted out." If anyone took the time to read the whole article the "equal" was mentioned in it. What the hell, I thought everyone was interested in "equal rights." There is no "seperate" to this as hetrosexual unions (called marrage) have the same rights as same sex unions (called domestic partnership). hetrosexual partners = same sex partners. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes some more, maybe you can roll them far enough back that you won't have to see what we're saying here. Seperate is unequal. Domestic partnership does not equal marriage. The article mentioned the "equal" in a blazingly vague and uninterpretable statement,

"the court noted gay couples in California have rights comparable to married heterosexuals thanks to domestic partnership laws."

Allow me to requote that and bold the pertinent language, since you might be rolling your eyes too hard to see it.

"the court noted gay couples in California have rights comparable to married heterosexuals thanks to domestic partnership laws."

Or does "comparable" equal "equal" in your version of the English language? There are a whole host of rights that a marraige confers that a domestic partnership does not confer. I won't post the list because it's long and tedious and sometimes cliche. I'll give you an example that I deal with every single day. In regards to medical insurance, a company is legally allowed to charge an employee imputed income for covering their domestic partner on the company-sponsored health plan. A company cannot do the same if the person being covered is a spouse. Don't know what imputed income is? Here's the gist of it. The company can make the employee pay the taxes on their DP's health insurance. Can't do the same if it's the spouse. See. Comparable. Not equal. Seperate. Not equal.

Fuck. My. State. Really, fuck them.

Actually, no it necessarily doesn't. We are not a country of "Majority Rules".

Not only the people, but the legislature also decided. The people have spoken -- the judges have no right to do what they think is best based on their own political views -- they must respect the will of the people. The only thing worse than tyranny by majority is tyranny by minority.

You have now made my ignore list for you're stupidty.

Lol! :)

Not only the people, but the legislature also decided. The people have spoken -- the judges have no right to do what they think is best based on their own political views -- they must respect the will of the people. The only thing worse than tyranny by majority is tyranny by minority.
Hold on now. The legislature voted to legalize it, and the governor vetoed it. If ever you wanted an example of the tyranny of the minority, there it is. So what's it going to be?

Finally, some non-activist judges. They should be lauded for making the objectively correct choice even though they may have disagreed with it. This action fully conforms to the spirit of our government.

You, sir, are far too high on the chart for my comfort.


Marriage is a right. When the government realizes that, I'll rest that much easier.

Not only the people, but the legislature also decided. The people have spoken -- the judges have no right to do what they think is best based on their own political views -- they must respect the will of the people. The only thing worse than tyranny by majority is tyranny by minority.



Do you have idea the purpose of Supreme Courts(State and Federal)? They are to ensure that the rights of the people are not impeded, be they the majority, minority, or general populace, from any force whatsoever.

Let me explain something:

This is a case of "Tyrrany of the Majority" in the sense that the Majority decides how the minority lives their lives. They stamp out rights of the Minority. However, had the Courts overturned what the populace wanted, it would NOT be Tyrrany of the Minority? Know why? Not one right of the Majority would be impeded. Not one. Now, if the courts stated that only Gay Couples could be married, that WOULD be Tyranny of the Minority, however since no rights of hte Majority would be stamped, it is not.

There is a HUGE difference between granting the Minority rights the Majority does not want them to have, and having a Tyranny of the Minority.

No seperate but equal was ever "busted out." If anyone took the time to read the whole article the "equal" was mentioned in it. What the hell, I thought everyone was interested in "equal rights." There is no "seperate" to this as hetrosexual unions (called marrage) have the same rights as same sex unions (called domestic partnership). hetrosexual partners = same sex partners. :rolleyes:
actually, you said that it is comparable, not equal. There are still differences between the same sex version and the heterosexual version. Factor in the fact that they don't recieve federal benefits, and we have seperate and unequal.

Not only the people, but the legislature also decided. The people have spoken -- the judges have no right to do what they think is best based on their own political views -- they must respect the will of the people. The only thing worse than tyranny by majority is tyranny by minority.

actually, the judicial branch only has to answer to the constitution. The judicial branch is specifically designed to not be impacted by the will of the people or the other branches of government.

Not only the people, but the legislature also decided. The people have spoken -- the judges have no right to do what they think is best based on their own political views -- they must respect the will of the people. The only thing worse than tyranny by majority is tyranny by minority.
No, judges must respect the rule of law.

They are not supposed to take opinion polls.

Actually, no it necessarily doesn't. We are not a country of "Majority Rules". We were set up to prevent such behavior, and to prevent a Tyrrany of the Majority. Now, I'm not going to say if the court was right or wrong, it's just that these kinds of comments disgust me.


Last I looked California wasnt a country.Or a majority of a country.

Legally, I don't see how the Court could have struck down the law if it wasn't in violation of the California Constitution. Separation of powers makes gay rights a legislative issue, not a judicial one.

It does, however, make me think twice about California being the gay haven I thought it was. I would have liked to see the ban struck down, but I don't know how it could be done without "activist judging."

What I would like to see done is to have marriage as such handed back to the churches, so if a church thinks homosexuality is a sin, you can just go to another church (synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.) and get married.

Then we can get the law out of marriage altogether. If one wants an IRS-approved relationship, legislation for domestic partners equal to the current legislation governing marriage would suffice. The fundies would lose their ability to object to gay marriage if they were one of many groups performing marriages, especially if a church marriage carried no legal weight.

Speaking of voters, I'll take the chance to rant about how my state (South Carolina, for now) is proposing a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban gay marriage, and since their policies for voter registration are messed up, I can't vote in my district against it. (I'm a college student. My registered district is pretty far away, not within driving distance in a reasonable time frame.)

Last I looked California wasnt a country.Or a majority of a country.

Ah, I was using an analogy(Plus it was easier just to type in those terms, more natural for me). California still needs to obey the law of the land, and have a similar system of State Government to that of the Federal Government. It has checks and balances in place to ensure that rights are preserved, it has a three branch government, with purposes similar to that of the United States.

Legally, I don't see how the Court could have struck down the law if it wasn't in violation of the California Constitution. Separation of powers makes gay rights a legislative issue, not a judicial one.

That's what the whole argument is about. The voters of California approved a referendum some years ago which stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, but it was only a part of the family code, not an amendment of the state constitution. The state constitution, however, has some of the most expansive human rights and equality language of any constitution in the world. So the argument is, no matter what the voters said, the family code doesn't trump the state constitution. This has been going on since at least early 2004, and was always destined for the state supreme court and both sides knew it. Both sides have won one, I believe, and now the big guns will get to make their call on it.

As much as I hate to say this, the judges were right.

As for now, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared this a state issue, not a constitutional one. As such the california court is bound to follow the edict of a superior court. Since it has come up from high that it is not a constitutional issue, the state court can NOT treat it as such, and must treat it as a state issue.

And as a state issue, the people of california have decided a specific way. Now while I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on this matter, I can not fault the california state court for following it, they have no choice.

The only thing that can overwrite this decision by the people is dependant on what the STATE of california says about the issue in the STATE constitution. Definining marriage as between man and woman only is not a violation of the us constitution, so says SCOTUS. Now the battle is on for the california state supreme court to decide what the state constitution says.

That's what the whole argument is about. The voters of California approved a referendum some years ago which stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, but it was only a part of the family code, not an amendment of the state constitution. The state constitution, however, has some of the most expansive human rights and equality language of any constitution in the world. So the argument is, no matter what the voters said, the family code doesn't trump the state constitution. This has been going on since at least early 2004, and was always destined for the state supreme court and both sides knew it. Both sides have won one, I believe, and now the big guns will get to make their call on it.

I find it increasingly odd that, considering the language of their constitution, that there is any room for debate. My only explination is that many people don't understand that the constitution trumps all other laws.

As much as I hate to say this, the judges were right.

As for now, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared this a state issue, not a constitutional one. As such the california court is bound to follow the edict of a superior court. Since it has come up from high that it is not a constitutional issue, the state court can NOT treat it as such, and must treat it as a state issue.

And as a state issue, the people of california have decided a specific way. Now while I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on this matter, I can not fault the california state court for following it, they have no choice.

The only thing that can overwrite this decision by the people is dependant on what the STATE of california says about the issue in the STATE constitution. Definining marriage as between man and woman only is not a violation of the us constitution, so says SCOTUS. Now the battle is on for the california state supreme court to decide what the state constitution says.

the issue is that the california constitution grants sweeping civil rights, and the referendum was not a constitutional amendment...therefore, the law is unconstitutional based on the state, not the federal, constitution

As much as I hate to say this, the judges were right.

As for now, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared this a state issue, not a constitutional one. As such the california court is bound to follow the edict of a superior court. Since it has come up from high that it is not a constitutional issue, the state court can NOT treat it as such, and must treat it as a state issue.

And as a state issue, the people of california have decided a specific way. Now while I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on this matter, I can not fault the california state court for following it, they have no choice.

The only thing that can overwrite this decision by the people is dependant on what the STATE of california says about the issue in the STATE constitution. Definining marriage as between man and woman only is not a violation of the us constitution, so says SCOTUS. Now the battle is on for the california state supreme court to decide what the state constitution says.
I think you misunderstood what happened. This was a decision by the California Court of Appeals. It goes to the California Supreme Court from here. The feds have never been involved.

I find it increasingly odd that, considering the language of their constitution, that there is any room for debate. My only explination is that many people don't understand that the constitution trumps all other laws.
If only constitutional decisions were made in a vacuum--this world would be a far different place. But sadly, the reality is that constitutional decisions are also political decisions, made by political people, and that colors their judgments and causes them to justify decisions that should not objectively be made.

Do you have idea the purpose of Supreme Courts(State and Federal)? They are to ensure that the rights of the people are not impeded, be they the majority, minority, or general populace, from any force whatsoever.




Where exactly does it say that? As far as I have ever seen the purposes and functions of the Supreme Courts are to determine whether cases that have been heard in lower courts and have been appealed have followed the rule of law and moreso whether they have followed the heirarchy of laws, constitutional laws being the highest in the heirarchy. Sometimes they uphold lower court's decisions, sometimes they do not.

The Supreme Courts ONLY uphold the rights of citizens that are spelled out or implied in the highest set of laws in the heirarchy which apply to the case before them. The Supreme Courts will strike down any rights which are given to citizens by lower laws but denied in higher ones. That is what happened in this case. As a theoretical parallel example if my county passed a law stating that all of it's citizens had the right to not pay California State taxes then the Supreme Court would not uphold my newfound right to avoid taxation. The judges may indeed sympathise with me with losing my right to avoid being taxed but they would be compelled to rule for law rather than sympathy. It is right and proper that the upreme court should act in this way.

If only constitutional decisions were made in a vacuum--this world would be a far different place. But sadly, the reality is that constitutional decisions are also political decisions, made by political people, and that colors their judgments and causes them to justify decisions that should not objectively be made.
how sadly true

actually, the judicial branch only has to answer to the constitution. The judicial branch is specifically designed to not be impacted by the will of the people or the other branches of government.

I don't recall the Constitution saying that gay men can marry -- do you? There is no basis on which to make the call. Thus, the resposibility falls on the legislative branch, not on the judicial branch. Doing so would be going against the will of the people and the judicial spirit upon which this country was founded.

I don't recall the Constitution saying that gay men can marry -- do you? There is no basis on which to make the call. Thus, the resposibility falls on the legislative branch, not on the judicial branch. Doing so would be going against the will of the people and the judicial spirit upon which this country was founded.
So are you arguing that any right not specifically worded in the Constitution doesn't exist?

I don't recall the Constitution saying that gay men can marry -- do you? There is no basis on which to make the call. Thus, the resposibility falls on the legislative branch, not on the judicial branch. Doing so would be going against the will of the people and the judicial spirit upon which this country was founded.
Equal rights to all citizens. If heterosexuals get a right, so do homosexuals.
So are you arguing that any right not specifically worded in the Constitution doesn't exist?
Do you want to look up Cat Tribes post about that, or should I?

Equal rights to all citizens. If heterosexuals get a right, so do homosexuals.

If police officers have the right to disregard the speed limit, so do all gays, right? If you can have sex with her, he can have sex with his mother, right? Wrong.

Do you want to look up Cat Tribes post about that, or should I?
I want to see Not Bad's reply to it first. I don't suspect he's stupid enough to fall into that trap.

So are you arguing that any right not specifically worded in the Constitution doesn't exist?

It does exist, but it is up to the legislature and the law books to decide whether or not it does.

actually, I might be crazy, but I believe that there was stuff about equality and equal treatment under the law in there... and that overrules SCOTUS

----------------------------------------------------------
Truth: Stranger Than Fiction?

If police officers have the right to disregard the speed limit, so do all gays, right? If you can have sex with her, he can have sex with his mother, right? Wrong.
as for the police officers, that is not a right. That is a privilege granted because of their status. There is a difference between "right" and "privilege"

as for sex, if it is consentual, go for it. It really isn't my problem or issue to dictate who you can and cannot sleep with.

Posted without comment.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday, reversing a lower court's judgment against a voter-approved law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that 'marriage' in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning," the California Court of Appeal held.

"We may not strike down a law simply because we think it unwise or because we believe there is a fairer way of dealing with the problem," it said in a majority opinion written by Justice William McGuiness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061006/pl_nm/rights_gays_dc_2

It's a dodge on this judge's part. I'm not sure if he's an elected official or is worried about his position, but passing the ball like this is usually a judge's way of avoiding giving a hot topic a personal opinion. Marriage has been the subject of many cases in the past and there is plenty of legal precedent for courts to hear cases on the "insitution of marriage". It hasn't been the exclusive property of the legislature for quite a few decades now.

I think you misunderstood what happened. This was a decision by the California Court of Appeals. It goes to the California Supreme Court from here. The feds have never been involved.

I understand that. My point was merely to disuade the argument from becomming "well it should be a federal right".

Maybe so, but for now it's not. Which makes it a state issue. And since the california supreme court has not ruled on the issue as to what rights are granted by the california constitution, there is no precident on the issue.

So the court ruled that it wasn't. Now it's an issue for the california supreme court.

I don't recall the Constitution saying that gay men can marry

This is a question regarding the california state constitution, not the federal one.

actually, I might be crazy, but I believe that there was stuff about equality and equal treatment under the law in there... and that overrules SCOTUS


nothing overrules SCOTUS but SCOTUS.