California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[MdKnightR]

Looks like our Super Moderator Jae has an axe to grind

[Arcesious]

I'm not concerned abou the use of Judicial power in this area. In this instance, I think it's a good thing they did this, even if it is to much power for them to have. (However, I don't see how they overstepped their bounds of power)

[Totenkopf]

Article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution:

 

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

 

Can't wait for the backers of incestuous marriages to jump on the bandwagon and say they have rights too. Since the CA constitution does not define people by age, maybe the pedophillicaly inclined (NAMBLA for one) can also push for constitutional protection of their unions as well.

[Achilles]

If sexual orientation is a protected class and specifically homosexuality is considered a minority, then denying homosexuals the right to marry becomes an individual issue of discrimination.

I don't think anyone is arguing that that isn't the case. If anyone discriminates against any protected class, then it's a discrimination issue. Not sure how that applies here though (as this is not a discrimination case).

 

The question is did the courts have the right to put homosexuality on the same level as race in terms of _legal_ minority status if it wasn't in CA constitution, and if so, did something that rightly belonged to the legislative branch instead.

Again, the court made it's decision from an individual rights perspective. It does not matter whether that individual is heterosexual, homosexual, brown, white, black, yellow, purple or green. The legal argument would apply regardless.

 

So the "if" and "may" that you're bringing up here do not apply.

 

This isn't about a gay/straight rights issue for me--it's a concern about judicial power.

Yet you keep bringing up the gay/straight argument and appear to be ignoring what the court said: that this is an individual rights issue.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Can't wait for the backers of incestuous marriages to jump on the bandwagon and say they have rights too. Since the CA constitution does not define people by age, maybe the pedophillicaly inclined (NAMBLA for one) can also push for constitutional protection of their unions as well.

the ":xp:" makes me wonder if you're actually serious, so could you say if you are or not so i can decide whether or not to make an ******* remark?

[mimartin]

Can't wait for the backers of incestuous marriages to jump on the bandwagon and say they have rights too. Since the CA constitution does not define people by age, maybe the pedophillicaly inclined (NAMBLA for one) can also push for constitutional protection of their unions as well.

Yes, the evil liberals want to make every vulgar and obscene act legal in order to destroy the American family. Gay marriage is a threat to everything decent in this country and is the most important issue we face today. If you cannot tell, I am being completely and utterly sarcastic.

 

Gay marriage has nothing to do with making incestuous marriages legal or making pedophile legal or acceptable. It only has to do with allowing two consenting adults the ability to have the same legal rights as every other adult American couple. Personally I find it distasteful, but to each his or her own. I just believe what someone does in the bedroom is none of the governments business. I also believe that if two consenting adults truly love each other then they should be allowed to share their life with each other be it by marriage or a civil union.

[Rogue Nine]

If sexual orientation is a protected class and specifically homosexuality is considered a minority, then denying homosexuals the right to marry becomes an individual issue of discrimination. The question is did the courts have the right to put homosexuality on the same level as race in terms of _legal_ minority status if it wasn't in CA constitution, and if so, did something that rightly belonged to the legislative branch instead.

In a way, the California statutes banning gay marriage created the minority, by denying a specific set of individuals the right to enter the state of marriage. What the court did was find that legislation inconsistent with the California constitution, something they are well within their right to do under the powers of judicial review.

 

I don't see what 'law' or 'protected class' they created. Could you please define for me what a protected class is under the law? And could you also define in plain terms what the 'de facto legislation' was that they allegedly created?

[Jae Onasi]

The judge who wrote the majority opinion stated orientation was equivalent with race and gender in terms of determinng discrimination. That's not in CA law currently. He's just made it part of law in judging future cases. You couldn't use sexual orientation in the past as a -legal- reason for determining discrimination. The court has now made it that way with this ruling, and that's the part that is a legislative right.

 

If you all like the idea of 4 people on the CA supreme court having the power to overturn other laws that millions of people have voted for, so be it. I prefer democracy to be by majority rule and not run by a court.

[mimartin]

If that is the case, then didn’t the legislators make sexual orientation a separate class when they passed a law limiting an individuals right based on their sexual orientation?

[Rogue Nine]

The judge who wrote the majority opinion stated orientation was equivalent with race and gender in terms of determinng discrimination. That's not in CA law currently.

There is no explicit language in the California Constitution that says they aren't equal. Under the law, everyone is equal and subject to the same freedoms and rights as everyone else.

 

He's just made it part of law in judging future cases.

Yes, stuff like this happens all the time. It's called setting legal precedents.

 

You couldn't use sexual orientation in the past as a -legal- reason for determining discrimination.

Just like you couldn't use race in the past as a legal reason for determining discrimination. See Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

The court has now made it that way with this ruling, and that's the part that is a legislative right.

All they did was strike down the wording in Proposition 22, which I will quote here:

 

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

They are removing words (which I find to be narrow-minded, hateful and disgusting verbiage) from the Constitution, not adding to it. I fail to see how reverting it back to the way it was before the amendment is 'creating a new law'.

 

If you all like the idea of 4 people on the CA supreme court having the power to overturn other laws that millions of people have voted for, so be it. I prefer democracy to be by majority rule and not run by a court.

I like the idea that the Supreme Court is doing their job by striking down a law that despite the majority vote, singles out a subset of people and denies them rights that are afforded to everyone else. I prefer democracy to be fair to everyone and not to be used as a device to discriminate against people with different beliefs.

 

And don't you worry, it's up on the ballot again in November despite this ruling, meaning gay and lesbians have the potential to have their civil liberties and freedoms assaulted yet again.

[Achilles]

The judge who wrote the majority opinion stated orientation was equivalent with race and gender in terms of determinng discrimination.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, 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, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

Emphasis added.

Again, the court is arguing this from an individual rights perspective.

 

That's not in CA law currently.

Actually, the first several pages of the brief establish that an individual's right to marry is part of CA law:

As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated

or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.

 

He's just made it part of law in judging future cases. You couldn't use sexual orientation in the past as a -legal- reason for determining discrimination.

This isn't a discrimination suit.

 

Also, it's not a "he", it's a "they". There were four judges that voted to overturn the ban. The Justice writing for the majority isn't acting alone here.

 

If you all like the idea of 4 people on the CA supreme court having the power to overturn other laws that millions of people have voted for, so be it. I prefer democracy to be by majority rule and not run by a court.

I think you'll find that this viewpoint is vastly out of alignment with the checks-and-balances of power that the Framers established in the Constitution. They granted the judicial branch the power of judicial review precisely so that unconstitutional laws could not be passed just because they were popular. So yes, I very much like the idea that some government agencies are still upholding their oaths to the Constitution.

 

Judicial review is an established power. Since you earlier claimed that this was not a gay/straight issue for you, perhaps it would be best to focus our attentions there?

[Jae Onasi]

Judicial review is an established power. Since you earlier claimed that this was not a gay/straight issue for you, perhaps it would be best to focus our attentions there?

That wasn't the aspect of the ruling I took issue with so I have nothing to say about it.

[Achilles]

That wasn't the aspect of the ruling I took issue with so I have nothing to say about it.

That isn't what you said here:

If you all like the idea of 4 people on the CA supreme court having the power to overturn other laws that millions of people have voted for, so be it. I prefer democracy to be by majority rule and not run by a court.

That's precisely what judicial review is, so I'm confused as to what your issue is

[Jae Onasi]

That isn't what you said here

I thought you were asking about the gay/straight issue when you made that comment rather than judicial issues since it sounded like a 'let's move on' statement to me.

[Rogue Nine]

So let's move on. Judicial review is a legal device that has been used many, many times in the past. Why is it such a big issue with this case?

[Tommycat]

I thought gender was a protected class in CA. Technically gender is not defined by the physical sex of the person.

 

It could be argued from that point as the male and female gender may be represented even if the male and female genetalia are not. It does discriminate based on the gender of the individuals.

 

As for the legislating from the bench: I don't think that is what they did here, I'd have to see the full case to see if they did, but going from what I have heard, it seems they struck down a law that they deemed unconstitutional.

[Arcesious]

Agreed. African Americans used to have no rights, and women used to have mimimal rights. And, at the moment, gays don't have marriage rights everywhere. It's all the same. If this goes far enough, and beats the anti-gay side, we'll have a new chapter in our history, the time when gays finally got the full rights they are are were supposed to have under the law.

 

I found it funny how my father brought this up. However, for once, I've gotten him to listen to me, and the debate turned in my favor... (thank you for all those great debates you people have debated)

[Totenkopf]

the ":xp:" makes me wonder if you're actually serious, so could you say if you are or not so i can decide whether or not to make an ******* remark?

 

 

What difference does it make one way or the other? If one defines anything loosely, though, there are a veritable number of unforseen problems or opportunities that can arise, if on nothing else, based on a precedent. Btw, wasn't aware you needed an excuse.

 

@mimartin- sarcasm?!? Say it ain't so. I picked up on it w/ no problem.