Gay marriage ruling in CA

[Lobowolf]

Round 1 victory for gay marriage proponents.

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/

[PassedOut]

Interesting. I wonder if David Boies and Theodore Olson will work together to argue the appeals.

[luke warm]

it will be interesting to see how this plays out as it walks up the court system... tying this in with the doobie thread, are laws against marijuana morality based? i'd say they are, at least in part...

[Lobowolf]

I think almost all laws (particularly the ones people bother discussing or arguing about) are at least somewhat (and usually "largely") morality-based.

[nigel_k]

I think almost all laws (particularly the ones people bother discussing or arguing about) are at least somewhat (and usually "largely") morality-based.

That depends whether you use 'morality' to mean 'right and wrong' or to mean 'interfering with people's private, personal choices'. Sadly when a politican uses the word it normally carries the latter meaning.

[Winstonm]

are laws against marijuana morality based?

 

No, free based.

[TimG]

Round 1 victory for gay marriage proponents.

Round 1?

[hrothgar]

Very glad to see this happen, but quite disgusted about the Obama administration's lukewarm support.

[helene_t]

I never understood this system that allowed a court to overturn a democratic decision. If we were talking about outright violations of the constitution then OK. But this issue seems to me to be political rather than judicial.

 

Obviously I am pro gay marriage but I'd rather see it introduced via a political process.

[gwnn]

Why is it always California where drug rights and LGBT issues are in the news? Sorry for my hijack and sorry for its ignorance and stupidity. Do they have similar court rulings and propositions in Nebraska or Maine?

[hrothgar]

I never understood this system that allowed a court to overturn a democratic decision. If we were talking about outright violations of the constitution then OK. But this issue seems to me to be political rather than judicial.

 

Obviously I am pro gay marriage but I'd rather see it introduced via a political process.

The judge's rulling stated that Proposition 8 was "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses."

 

Regardless, for better or worse many landmark civil rights changes here in America have required the judiciary or the executive cramming change down the throats of the populace...

 

By and large I think that the courts and the executive have gotten things right

 

Integrating the armed services was the right thing to do

Integrating the schools was the right thing to do

Allowing blacks and whites to marry was the right thing to do

Allowing muslims to erect a cultural center in lower Manhattan is the right thing to do

And, fwiw, I think that legalizing abortion was the right thing to so

 

In almost all of these cases, those "evil" activist judges / the big bad Feds were able to recognize a significant change in the national Zeitgeist. Their actions significantly accelerated an inevitable cultural change.

 

Some might argue that it would be better to let things change in a slower, more organic fashion. They specifically argue that a more incremental approach would have helped diffuse the culture wars that have wracked the US as of late.

 

Personally, I don't buy into this... I think that all the old coots, religious whack jobs, goldbugs, and the like would have been every bit as aggreived if their positions were overturned by popular elections as by "activist judges".

 

The words would have been slightly different, but the song remains the same...

[hrothgar]

Why is it always California where drug rights and LGBT issues are in the news? Sorry for my hijack and sorry for its ignorance and stupidity. Do they have similar court rulings and propositions in Nebraska or Maine?

California is big and very diverse.

 

Decisions of these sorts are carry a lot more weight than, say, what happens in Massachusetts or Maine. This leads to very heated fights.

 

In addition, the California state government provides many more opportunities for direct involvement of citizens in the electoral process. As a result, you often have weird propositions floating up onto the ballot.

[luke warm]

Integrating the armed services was the right thing to do

agree... constitutional (thus federal) issue

Integrating the schools was the right thing to do

agree... constitutional (thus federal) issue

Allowing blacks and whites to marry was the right thing to do

agree... constitutional (thus federal) issue

Allowing muslims to erect a cultural center in lower Manhattan is the right thing to do

disagree... a group (board) made up of elected or appointed officials have that right, imo, based on the will of the people... now if a court's decision is constitution-based, it would say so... but i haven't been keeping up with this issue and don't know that a court was involved

And, fwiw, I think that legalizing abortion was the right thing to so

i don't personally see why the states can't determine things like this and then the courts can rule whether or not constitutional rights have been violated

 

is preventing mormons (or anyone else) from having multiple wives a constitutional issue? maybe it is, i don't know... but my personal opinion is, this (as with most things) is a states rights issue until or unless it is challenged on constitutional grounds... iow, the people of any particular state can make their will known... are a lot of laws based on a populace's moral compass? sure they are, but that in itself is not unconstitutonal... they might be backward or ignorant or any number of things, but they aren't necessarily unconstitutional

[hrothgar]

Allowing muslims to erect a cultural center in lower Manhattan is the right thing to do

disagree... a group (board) made up of elected or appointed officials have that right, imo, based on the will of the people... now if a court's decision is constitution-based, it would say so... but i haven't been keeping up with this issue and don't know that a court was involved

Lets be clear about what happened here

 

1. A group of Muslims owns property in lower Manhattan

2. Said group wanted to erect a cultural center

3. A large, disperate group of leading "conservatives" decided that it was right and proper to deny this group the right to erect said cultural center based completely on their religion (excuse me, based complete on the fact that the muslims all belong to a "cult")

 

This is what you are defending....

 

------------------

 

The only point at which any elected appointed officials with any direct stake in the matter got involved was when

 

1. The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commision approved the project

2. New York's (Republican Mayor) gave a very stirring defense regarding the importance of protecting religious freedoms

 

The Judiciary was never involved; however, the general view is that this would have been a slam dunk...

 

-----------------------

 

Jumping back to the original subject, I would have loved to see Obama give a similar speech in support of the CA Judge's decision.

 

I'm shocked at this behavior... Before the election everyone told us that Obama was the most liberal person in all of Christiandom (or at least the US Senate). And here he is, continually governing as a pragmatic centrist.

[Lobowolf]

I never understood this system that allowed a court to overturn a democratic decision. If we were talking about outright violations of the constitution then OK. But this issue seems to me to be political rather than judicial.

 

Obviously I am pro gay marriage but I'd rather see it introduced via a political process.

The judge's rulling stated that Proposition 8 was "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses."

 

Regardless, for better or worse many landmark civil rights changes here in America have required the judiciary or the executive cramming change down the throats of the populace...

 

By and large I think that the courts and the executive have gotten things right

 

Integrating the armed services was the right thing to do

Integrating the schools was the right thing to do

Allowing blacks and whites to marry was the right thing to do

Allowing muslims to erect a cultural center in lower Manhattan is the right thing to do

And, fwiw, I think that legalizing abortion was the right thing to so

 

In almost all of these cases, those "evil" activist judges / the big bad Feds were able to recognize a significant change in the national Zeitgeist. Their actions significantly accelerated an inevitable cultural change.

 

Some might argue that it would be better to let things change in a slower, more organic fashion. They specifically argue that a more incremental approach would have helped diffuse the culture wars that have wracked the US as of late.

 

Personally, I don't buy into this... I think that all the old coots, religious whack jobs, goldbugs, and the like would have been every bit as aggreived if their positions were overturned by popular elections as by "activist judges".

 

The words would have been slightly different, but the song remains the same...

Largely agree, but I would put "activist" in quotes rather than "evil." They weren't getting around the Constitution; they were finally applying its principles (in particular the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment) to largely unpopular specific situations where those principles hadn't been applied.

 

Returning to Helene's post, then, I would say that we are talking about outright violations of the Constitution, in many cases (and in the case of gay marriage). When doing what's constitutional does not necessarily mean doing what's popular, it's good that the final arbiters of constitutionality, unlike their counterparts in the legislature, don't have to worry about getting elected.

[Lobowolf]

I'm shocked at this behavior

I expect we'll hear Obama speak in support of gay marriage at some point, but not until after he's permanently done being a candidate for public office.

[mycroft]

I never understood this system that allowed a court to overturn a democratic decision. If we were talking about outright violations of the constitution then OK. But this issue seems to me to be political rather than judicial.

 

Obviously I am pro gay marriage but I'd rather see it introduced via a political process.

 

Then you'll be happy to know that, at least in California, the "political process" canard is just that.

 

On September 2, 2005, the California Senate approved the bill 21-15 and on September 6, the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41-35, making California's legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure. The next day, September 7, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger indicated he would veto the bill, citing Proposition 22,...Schwarzenegger stated he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts or another vote by the people via a statewide initiative or referendum. He argued that the legislature's bill simply complicated the issue, as the constitutionality of Proposition 22 had not yet been determined, and its ultimate disposition would render AB 849 either unconstitutional (being in conflict with a valid voter initiative) or redundant (being guaranteed by the California Constitution itself, as construed by the courts).

...

AB 43 was passed by the legislature in early September 2007, giving the governor until October 14, 2007, to either sign or veto the bill. Schwarzenegger had stated months before that he would veto AB 43 on the grounds that the issue at hand had already been voted on by California by way of Proposition 22. The governor followed through on his statement and on October 12, 2007, he vetoed AB 43. Schwarzenegger wrote in his veto statement that to solve the issue of gender-neutral marriage, the California Supreme Court needed to finish its rule on the challenge which had been made to Proposition 22.

 

(emphasis mine, original from Same-sex marriage in California)

 

The "political process" was followed, and the conclusion of it was "let the courts decide" (and, in shock, I happen to agree with a Republican Governor about something). Then, after the courts decided, the referendum for constitutional amendment passed (arguments on the sanity of California's constitutional amendment policy omitted); now the courts are deciding if the constitutional amendment is itself constitutional.

 

Oh, and "ya gotta love" a trial where the defendant has publicly said that he wanted to lose, and that he's happy to have lost; and where the defendant's lawyer (well, sort of) chose not to defend the case.

[OleBerg]

I think almost all laws (particularly the ones people bother discussing or arguing about) are at least somewhat (and usually "largely") morality-based.

That depends whether you use 'morality' to mean 'right and wrong' or to mean 'interfering with people's private, personal choices'. Sadly when a politican uses the word it normally carries the latter meaning.

According to Nietzche, right and wrong doesn't exist. But he might be wrong.

[awm]

I never understood this system that allowed a court to overturn a democratic decision. If we were talking about outright violations of the constitution then OK. But this issue seems to me to be political rather than judicial.

 

Obviously I am pro gay marriage but I'd rather see it introduced via a political process.

The US tradition holds that some rights are "fundamental" and cannot be overruled by a simple majority through the political process. This idea is enshrined in the Bill of Rights as well as in the US Declaration of Independence.

 

It's the role of the courts to slap government back when it tries to abridge these fundamental rights. This protects the rights of minorities in many cases; for example a majority vote that muslims could not legally practice their religion or that blacks were not legally allowed to vote would be slapped down as a violation of the constitution. In many cases it is the courts which recognize the rights of minority groups long before a voting majority is willing to support the same rights.

 

The basic difference between the sides in the marriage debate is that those opposing same-sex marriage view attempts to legalize it as granting a right to same-sex couples which previously did not exist, and thus part of the political realm. The advocates for same-sex marriage view the right to marry as a fundamental right, which the government should not be able to take away from any particular group, and thus a matter for the courts.

[luke warm]

The basic difference between the sides in the marriage debate is that those opposing same-sex marriage view attempts to legalize it as granting a right to same-sex couples which previously did not exist, and thus part of the political realm. The advocates for same-sex marriage view the right to marry as a fundamental right, which the government should not be able to take away from any particular group, and thus a matter for the courts.

right, and that's what the court decided, and what the appeals courts will rule on... but i'm still not sure why mormons, or anyone else, can't have multiple wives

Allowing muslims to erect a cultural center in lower Manhattan is the right thing to do

disagree... a group (board) made up of elected or appointed officials have that right, imo, based on the will of the people... now if a court's decision is constitution-based, it would say so... but i haven't been keeping up with this issue and don't know that a court was involved

Lets be clear about what happened here

 

1. A group of Muslims owns property in lower Manhattan

2. Said group wanted to erect a cultural center

3. A large, disperate group of leading "conservatives" decided that it was right and proper to deny this group the right to erect said cultural center based completely on their religion (excuse me, based complete on the fact that the muslims all belong to a "cult")

 

This is what you are defending....

let me clarify what my "disagree" meant... i wasn't defending those who tried to prohibit the building of the mosque, i was disagreeing that this was a matter for the courts... it might have *become* a matter for the courts, but only if the denial had stuck...

[blackshoe]

The basic difference between the sides in the marriage debate is that those opposing same-sex marriage view attempts to legalize it as granting a right to same-sex couples which previously did not exist, and thus part of the political realm. The advocates for same-sex marriage view the right to marry as a fundamental right, which the government should not be able to take away from any particular group, and thus a matter for the courts.

While I don't consider myself an advocate for same-sex marriage, I reason thusly:

 

1. A marriage is a civil contract between adults.

2. Adults have an untrammeled right to engage in any contracts they like, so long as those contracts do not infringe the rights of others.

3. A marriage contract infringes no one's rights who is not a party to the contract.

4. It is therefore the business only of the parties to the contract whether they contract, and of what that contract shall consist (subject to the caveat in #2 above).

 

Note that I didn't say anything about "two adults" in there. If three or more adults wish to engage in a marriage contract, that's fine with me.

[nigel_k]

The marriage contract does affect the rights of third parties in a number of ways: wills and estates, medical decisions, insurance and superannuation, housing etc.

 

You could argue for a form of marriage that doesn't impact these rights but I doubt that would satisfy same-sex marriage advocates.

[blackshoe]

It is my understanding that marriages may affect the things you mention because the law makes assumptions about the wishes of the parties to the contract. This is, IMO, wrong - the law should make no such assumptions. The desires of the parties must be explicit in the contract. If that doesn't satisfy somebody, I don't care.

[Winstonm]

I'm shocked at this behavior... Before the election everyone told us that Obama was the most liberal person in all of Christiandom (or at least the US Senate). And here he is, continually governing as a pragmatic centrist.

 

How far right do you have to go to be a centrist? He is governing to the right of Bush Sr.

[JoAnneM]

Last night at a social function (here in California) a lady at our table asked my husband if he agreed that Obama is single handedly destroying democracy in America, and isn't that especially awful since he wasn't even born in America. (BTW she is Mormon). Ron told her she has been listening to too much talk radio or her church leader. Then I was happy to tell her about the gay marriage ruling.

 

It was well publicized in our town of 65,000, which has four Mormon churches, that the members were required to do extra tithing to help fund that measure. In fact I have changed Optometrists because it was listed in the newspaper that he donated $5,000.

 

Also, I think that social functions are not the place for political or religious discussions - but she came on to us like it was a prepared attack, maybe something the church is pushing. Maybe I am getting paranoid.