California Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, Schwarzenegger opposes reversal

[Alonzo]

A sharply divided California Supreme Court today legalized same-sex marriage, a historic ruling that will allow gay and lesbian couples across the state to wed as soon as next month and inflame the social, political and moral debate over gay unions.

In a 4-3 ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the Supreme Court struck down California laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, finding that it is unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of the equal right to walk down the aisle with a marriage license in hand.

See complete text of the ruling (http://www.santacruzlive.com/photos/051508gaymarriage.pdf)

The California and Massachusetts Supreme Courts are now the only top courts in the country to uphold the right of gay couples to marry.

"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," the court observed in a 121-page decision.

The reaction was immediate.

A spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sent a simple e-mail to his press staff: "We won."

When the news was signaled to the more than 100 people gathered on the steps outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco by a thumbs up, they let out whoops of joy, and some broke out in tears.

Among those celebrating were Myra Beals and Ida Matson, of Mendocino, who were among the plaintiffs in
Advertisement
the case. "It's been a great privilege to be a part of this," Beals said. "When we go home, we're going to be mobbed by our friends, our family and our neighbors. We have been promising them the biggest wedding they've ever seen."

The ruling marks a watershed moment in the conflict over gay marriage, with the most influential state Supreme Court in the nation, dominated by Republican appointees, ruling in favor of gay rights advocates in the state with the largest gay population. California was considered a crucial battleground for civil rights groups, which have lost a number of major legal challenges in recent years in other states such as New York, Washington and New Jersey.

The decision is sure to spark a furor that could spill into the ballot box in November, when there is a strong chance voters will be weighing a ballot initiative to change the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger previously announced his opposition to the ballot initiative, and reiterated his opposition today.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said within minutes of the ruling. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The three dissenters in today's ruling argued that it should be up to the voters or Legislature to sanction gay marriage, not the courts. A divided state appeals court reached that conclusion in 2006 when it upheld the ban on gay marriage, but that ruling was overturned by today's Supreme Court decision.

Justice Marvin Baxter, in one dissent, warned that the court had overstepped its judicial powers by overturning existing marriage laws.

"There is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state," Baxter wrote, adding there is no constitutional right to gay marriage "because marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and unrelated man to marry each other."

George was joined in the majority decision by two other Republican justices, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Joyce Kennard. Justice Carlos Moreno, the lone Democratic appointee on the court, also joined George's ruling. Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan dissented.

The Supreme Court's intervention has been inevitable since February 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ignited a national outcry by giving same-sex couples the short-lived right to marry at City Hall, a move that attracted lines of couples to City Hall steps each day. The Supreme Court quickly put a halt to Newsom's edict, invalidating thousands of marriage licenses - the justices found that Newsom had overstepped his authority by violating state law, but invited a broad legal challenge to California's ban on gay marriage.

San Francisco city officials, civil rights groups and gay couples then filed a series of lawsuits challenging a state family code section that restricts marriage to heterosexual couples, and also a 2000 voter-approved ballot initiative, Proposition 22, that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The lawsuits argued that the state is denying gay couples equal treatment. One of the leading cases to back their cause was a 60-year-old California Supreme Court ruling that struck down the state's ban on interracial marriage, at the time the first such decision in the United States.

California officials have defended the current law, despite the fact that both former Attorney General Bill Lockyer and current Attorney General Jerry Brown do not oppose gay marriage. State lawyers have argued that California's strong domestic partners laws essentially already provide equal benefits to same-sex couples, eliminating the need to tamper with the traditional definition of marriage laws.

Conservative groups opposed to gay marriage have taken a stronger view, arguing that the state has a crucial interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples for social cohesion and because they maintain marriage is rooted in procreation. Throughout the court case, they have vowed to turn to the voters if the current laws are overturned, a strategy that has worked in other states.

A San Francisco trial judge initially found the state's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, but that ruling was overturned by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal in 2006.

http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_9270265

This is what Schwarzenegger wanted, when the legislature voted for it he vetoed it saying he wanted the courts to decide. Though it's a bit strange that those who opposed it mentioned that the legislature should be one of those that decides, when they already have.

As a Massachusetts citizen, I welcome California as the second state to join the 21st century!

[Alonzo]

I found this commentary that I thought was great:

Sometimes you find out a marriage is over when you come home and your house is empty except for a note from your soon-to-be former wife. Sometimes it happens after a fight. Sometimes it happens when you find out about an affair.

I found out my marriage will soon be over in a different way--the Campaign for Children and Families and the Alliance for Marriage Foundation told me.

According to the Campaign for Children and Families, today's California Supreme Court pro-gay marriage ruling "has destroyed the civil institution of marriage." The Alliance for Marriage Foundation says the decision has "struck down marriage." All because the ruling would allow the 2% of the population who are gay to marry. Read the full story of the catastrophe here......

The announcement is the second terrible blow to my marriage in the past 18 months. In October 2006, the Campaign for Children and Families informed me that in signing a bill to allow California gay couples to file taxes as if they were married, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had "put the last nail in the coffin for marriage between a man and a woman in California" and "Terminated [the] Last Piece of Marriage."

The worst part of this is that these tax changes may also lure my teenage son into the gay lifestyle. If the Campaign for Children and Families is correct about the dire threat gays pose to heterosexuals and heterosexuality, perhaps the only thing that's kept my son from doing it so far was the tax disadvantage he knew he'd face one day........

Great. So while the California shared parenting movement--the real defenders of families--remains unfunded and starved, these fake "defenders of families" are going to pour millions of dollars into a campaign against gays. I guess these people never heard their elementary school teacher say, "If the other person hasn't done anything to bother you, then leave them alone."


http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2181

[Buck Laser]

It takes a while to effect a real cultural revolution, but the courts are finally having to look beyond custom to the real intention of the constitution. Whether you're an "originalist" or a "living document" guy, it's inescapably clear that the constitution never addresses marriage.

I see this ruling as a great step forward. I can hardly wait for one of the usual suspects to accuse me of "hating America!"

[Trish]

It takes a while to effect a real cultural revolution, but the courts are finally having to look beyond custom to the real intention of the constitution. Whether you're an "originalist" or a "living document" guy, it's inescapably clear that the constitution never addresses marriage.

I see this ruling as a great step forward. I can hardly wait for one of the usual suspects to accuse me of "hating America!"

But is it the "place" of the courts to make law? Even the SC doesn't "make" law. It rules on the constitutionality of laws, but it doesn't "make" them.

We have 3 branches of government for a reason. I really don't think courts should be straying into the venue of the legislature.

[Alonzo]

But is it the "place" of the courts to make law? Even the SC doesn't "make" law. It rules on the constitutionality of laws, but it doesn't "make" them.

We have 3 branches of government for a reason. I really don't think courts should be straying into the venue of the legislature.

The legislature passed the law, the governor vetoed it saying he wanted either the people or the courts to decide.

Second, I don't get your point since they're determining whether the current law, banning same-sex marriage, is constitutional.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm with Zo, Trish. I fail to see how the legislature created law. They ruled a law unconstitutional because it treated people unequally under the law.

-NC

[Trish]

The legislature passed the law, the governor vetoed it saying he wanted either the people or the courts to decide.

Second, I don't get your point since they're determining whether the current law, banning same-sex marriage, is constitutional.

As Buck correctly stated, the Constitution does not address marriage one way or another. The Constitution does however state that the rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government rest with the States (Amendment 10). Since the Constitution does not address the issue of marriage, the definition of what qualifies as a legal marriage rests with each state. Californians voted for a law in 2000 to designate that "marriage" was between a man and a woman. San Francisco disagreed with the voters and began issuing marriage licenses in 2004 asserting the law violated equal rights of gay and lesbians. Since then there has been a back and forth war about "civil rights." One court ruling that the SF marriage licenses were invalid and halting the practice, another reinstating them, another upholding the original law, etc. etc. etc. The CA legislature did vote to allow same-sex marriage but it never passed into law since the governor vetoed the bill.

By stating that restricting marriage to men and women is discriminatory and violates basic civil rights, the CSC is making law - because no such civil right existed. I expect this to go all the way to the USSC. THere, the court may well decide to view Constitutionally guaranteed rights broadly to include same-sex marriage, much as they did in Roe v. Wade where they interpreted the Constitution to contain a right to privacy which covered reproduction rights. However, they may also interpret the law very narrowly where they give states rights to determine these matters precedence and in that case the law the voters mandated may well be interpreted to rule.

At least that's how I see it. Of course *LOL* with just a few law classes under my belt my analysis is by no means expert by any stretch of the imagination!

[NortheastCynic]

Trish:
The argument is the 14th Amendment.

If a right to sign a contract specifying an agreement such as marriage is extended to a traditional couple [man and woman], denying same-sex couples that very right by definition is unequal treatment and therefore unconstitutional.

On the side: are you in law school?

-NC

[Trish]

I'm with Zo, Trish. I fail to see how the legislature created law. They ruled a law unconstitutional because it treated people unequally under the law.

-NC

The legislature is supposed to create law - not the judiciary. All discrimination is not illegal or unconstitutional. If you look at the various Civil Rights Laws, Amendments and other protective acts, you'll see that there are very specific instances where classes of people are protected by law, and even in those instances there can be exceptions. For instance it's against the law to discriminate in hiring on the basis of gender. However, if I as an employer can prove that there is a bona fide occupational reason for discriminating, then it is perfectly legal to use gender as a basis for my hiring decisions. If there is no basic civil right to marriage to begin with, if it is a States' rights issue and California voted to restrict marriage to men and women, then the CSC statement that the law is a violation of civil rights is making law.

[NortheastCynic]

I understand that some discrimination is legal, and I understand that marriage is not a constitutional/civil right. But what it is is a positive right created by the government. The government created the legal entity that is marriage, its benefits, etc. So, by denying that legal standing and its benefits to any other two people who would like to enter it constitutes unequal protection under the law.

-NC

[Elrathin]

But is it the "place" of the courts to make law?

You're right they should have NEVER been involved with overturning the interracial marriage BAN Laws right Trish?

[Trish]

I understand that some discrimination is legal, and I understand that marriage is not a constitutional/civil right. But what it is is a positive right created by the government. The government created the legal entity that is marriage, its benefits, etc. So, by denying that legal standing and its benefits to any other two people who would like to enter it constitutes unequal protection under the law.

-NC

Well this is where (again this is my opinion here) the problem with same-sex marriage arises. Marriage has never been only a legal contract. It is also a religious rite. It is that duality that in my mind makes this issue such a contentious one and it is the reason I have always supported civil unions for same-sex couples rather than "marriage." Civil union contracts would give the same legal protections to same-sex couples (or couples who did not want the religious rites) as "married" couples without the religious entanglements that muddy the waters.

I think the "fight" on this will continue along the lines of the CSC stating a right existed which did not in fact yet exist. But, like I said...I could be wrong.

(I'm still in the process of applying to law school. Haven't finished the process due to financial concerns which I hopefully will resolve this year.)

[Trish]

You're right they should have NEVER been involved with overturning the interracial marriage BAN Laws right Trish?

But that's a whole different kettle of fish isn't it? The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments had already started the process of granting equal protection on the basis of race. The laws banning interracial marriages were clear violations of those amendments. That "civil right" already existed constitutionally prior to the CSC making their ruling. They didn't "make" law in that instance by asserting a right that didn't exist beforehand.

[AlanC]

I understand that some discrimination is legal, and I understand that marriage is not a constitutional/civil right. But what it is is a positive right created by the government. The government created the legal entity that is marriage, its benefits, etc. So, by denying that legal standing and its benefits to any other two people who would like to enter it constitutes unequal protection under the law.

-NC

The government created right is for one man to marry one woman. It applies equally to all men and women who are not related.

If you extend the right beyond the legal definition, you are writing new law. There are many other exclusions as to who someone may or may not marry. This ruling opens the door to all of them. Next it will be the polygimists who will be claiming that their rights to marry as many spouses as they want is being unfairly and unconstitutionally barred.

There is a reason it was a split decision.

[Elrathin]

But that's a whole different kettle of fish isn't it? The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments had already started the process of granting equal protection on the basis of race. The laws banning interracial marriages were clear violations of those amendments. That "civil right" already existed constitutionally prior to the CSC making their ruling. They didn't "make" law in that instance by asserting a right that didn't exist beforehand.

But the after effect were because of SC rulings Trish. And that, according to you is bad.

Let me guess, you are against gay marriage, so you ok some forms of SC rulings, but not others when they disagree with your FEELINGS.

It's amazing hearing those so FOR the rights of individuals yet hearing also thos FOR the rights to Cancel the rights of others and discriminate.

Look Trish, here are some facts that you may hate:

Being Gay is not illegal
Being in a gay relationship is not illegal
Raising kids as a gay couple is not illegal
Having a kid via enfertalization method is not illegal if you are gay.

So can you tell me why gay marriage should be illegal or considered any different than interracial marriage?

[Trish]

But the after effect were because of SC rulings Trish. And that, according to you is bad.

Let me guess, you are against gay marriage, so you ok some forms of SC rulings, but not others when they disagree with your FEELINGS.

It's amazing hearing those so FOR the rights of individuals yet hearing also thos FOR the rights to Cancel the rights of others and discriminate.

Look Trish, here are some facts that you may hate:

Being Gay is not illegal
Being in a gay relationship is not illegal
Raising kids as a gay couple is not illegal
Having a kid via enfertalization method is not illegal if you are gay.

So can you tell me why gay marriage should be illegal or considered any different than interracial marriage?

You're so way off base it's not even funny, El. Please refrain from subscribing motives or feeling to me which have no basis in reality.

I've already answered NEC when he raised similar questions.

[tecoyah]

My criteria for minimum acceptance of legislation:

1) No Human will be physically damaged if enacted.
2) No basic freedoms will be removed, unless item #1 is compromised.
3) It must serve the public good as defined by items #1 & #2
4) It must not create unneeded Cost or enlarge Gov't without cause.



I see no reason Gays should not marry...they should be allowed to experience pain and suffering like anyone else.

[NortheastCynic]

The government created right is for one man to marry one woman. It applies equally to all men and women who are not related.

If you extend the right beyond the legal definition, you are writing new law. There are many other exclusions as to who someone may or may not marry. This ruling opens the door to all of them. Next it will be the polygimists who will be claiming that their rights to marry as many spouses as they want is being unfairly and unconstitutionally barred.

There is a reason it was a split decision.Exactly, it created it for one man and one woman. Meaning that if it is not extended to one man and one man or one woman and one woman, the two latter groups are being treated unequally before the law, in comparison to the man and woman.

There would be a hierarchy:
Traditional Marriage
Everyone Else

Inequality before law defined.

-NC

[davo]

Oh god, its sad this needs to be explained, but it does:

The US constitution has NO PROVISION WHATSOEVER to prevent a state government from legislating against recognizing same-sex marriages. Can someone point to the specific part of the constitution or bill of rights that forces state governments to recognize same sex marriages?

Thomas Jefferson himself, one of the original authors of the constitution, wrote a law establishing jail sentences for Sodomy. What part of the constitution magically appeared that gives unelected judges such power to overturn laws created by elected legislatures that are within the bounds of the constitution?

[NortheastCynic]

No one needs 'this' explained, davo, others simply disagree with your view. Creating the legal entity that is marriage was perfectly Constitutional. Preventing any two people from taking part in it, is not Constitutional. It does create a hierarchy and it is not equal before the law.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-NC

[Alonzo]

By stating that restricting marriage to men and women is discriminatory and violates basic civil rights, the CSC is making law - because no such civil right existed.

Trish, I hear this a lot, so you're essentially saying that when a current law exists, if ruling against it gives more rights to a certain population, the courts are prohibited from doing so and must rule in constitutional. There's no other way for them to avoid "creating new law" if you has such a definition of doing so.

[Trish]

No one needs 'this' explained, davo, others simply disagree with your view. Creating the legal entity that is marriage was perfectly Constitutional. Preventing any two people from taking part in it, is not Constitutional. It does create a hierarchy and it is not equal before the law.


-NC

Our laws put in place all kinds of restrictions and limitations. We have restrictions on who can drive and who cannot, we have restrictions on who can drink and who cannot, we have legal restrictions on just about every "right" and "privilege" one can name.

[Trish]

Trish, I hear this a lot, so you're essentially saying that when a current law exists, if ruling against it gives more rights to a certain population, the courts are prohibited from doing so and must rule in constitutional. There's no other way for them to avoid "creating new law" if you has such a definition of doing so.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, heck I'm not any kind of lawyer, so I'm sure I'm not explaining this correctly. It is my understanding, however, that there is no constitutional "right" to marry outside what each state determines for itself is the legal definition of "marriage." By overturning the law banning same-sex marriage on the basis of civil rights discrimination the CSC was making new law because there is no constitutionally protected right for anyone to marry in the first place. In essence, this ruling created a legally protected class that did not constitutionally exist prior to the ruling.

Regardless from what I'm reading this isn't the end of the battle. Opponents of same-sex marriage are already planning to try to get a new law on the ballot in November. Even if they are successful I doubt the legal challenges will end there. I fully expect this to end up in the USSC for final determination.

[NortheastCynic]

Our laws put in place all kinds of restrictions and limitations. We have restrictions on who can drive and who cannot, we have restrictions on who can drink and who cannot, we have legal restrictions on just about every "right" and "privilege" one can name.Yes, you have to pass a test to drive a car. And EVERYONE has to pass that test, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and creed. Yes, you can't [legally :thumbsup:] drink under the age of 21, but NO ONE can drink under the age of 21 [legally :thumbsup:]. This is also true regardless of gender, creed, etc. etc.

The same is not true for the legal partnership, marriage. It is not uniform, it does not treat EVERYONE equally before the law, that's the point.

-NC

[Alonzo]

By overturning the law banning same-sex marriage on the basis of civil rights discrimination the CSC was making new law because there is no constitutionally protected right for anyone to marry in the first place. In essence, this ruling created a legally protected class that did not constitutionally exist prior to the ruling.


So, regardless of the basis of a lawsuit, all courts must rule in favor of the status quo? That doesn't make sense. Loving vs Virginia would never have ruled in favor of mixed marriages, brown vs board of education would never have ruled in favor of brown and so on.

The court ruled that according to the state constitution, where marriage has no explicit definition, that it is not consistent with the other aspects of the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. If ruling that current practices are not consistent with the constitution is creating new law, they the entire court system would need to be restructured to essentially become a rubber stamp for any current practice.

[Trish]

But in the case of interracial marriages there were already constitutional amendments in place which the laws banning interracial marriages countermanded. The court decisions upheld constitutional amendments by striking down those laws. There is no constitutional provision giving anyone the "right" to marriage or at least there wasn't before this decision.

[AlanC]

Exactly, it created it for one man and one woman. Meaning that if it is not extended to one man and one man or one woman and one woman, the two latter groups are being treated unequally before the law, in comparison to the man and woman.

There would be a hierarchy:
Traditional Marriage
Everyone Else

Inequality before law defined.

-NC

I'm sorry but that doesn't work. The law defines who can and cannot get married. It also defines who can and cannot get a drivers license. According to your logic, all those denied a drivers licenses are being treated unequally before the law.

If the law defines who and who cannot recieve a hunting license, it is treating some unfairly according to that logic.

In all these cases there would be a hierarchy.

Those who can hunt
Those who can't.

I assume you will have no problem that this in effect says first cousins cannot be treated any differently and thus should be allowed to marry as well.

The idea that society cannot place definitions and qualifications on those things that it grants license to is absurd. We accept such qualification in hundreds of ways every day and look at them as being both rational and logical. This ruling is neither of those two things.

[Alonzo]

But in the case of interracial marriages there were already constitutional amendments in place which the laws banning interracial marriages countermanded. The court decisions upheld constitutional amendments by striking down those laws. There is no constitutional provision giving anyone the "right" to marriage or at least there wasn't before this decision.

So when the laws banning it were struck down, what forced states to allow them to marry? Couldn't any town hall or whatever say "Nope, not gonna marry them". After all, if all you do is strike down a law banning it then you have no law requiring anyone to allow or not allow it.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm sorry but that doesn't work. The law defines who can and cannot get married. It also defines who can and cannot get a drivers license. According to your logic, all those denied a drivers licenses are being treated unequally before the law.

If the law defines who and who cannot recieve a hunting license, it is treating some unfairly according to that logic.

In all these cases there would be a hierarchy.

Those who can hunt
Those who can't.No, Alan, because the hunting laws that restrict hunting do not hold any group of people unequally. For example, convicted felons may not be able to own a firearm for a period of time after their release from jail. This restriction applies to ALL convicted felons regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, creed, race, etc.

I assume you will have no problem that this in effect says first cousins cannot be treated any differently and thus should be allowed to marry as well.Nope, no problem at all. I find it to be disgusting and probably immoral...but that doesn't alter the fact that I believe such action should be legal.

The idea that society cannot place definitions and qualifications on those things that it grants license to is absurd.The idea that 'society' does not allow any two people who would like to sign a contract, to sign a contract is absurd. That's all marriage is as far as the gov't should be concerned, a legal contract binding two people in various ways. If a woman and a man would like to legally bind themselves and are able to, so to should a man and a man or a woman and a woman. By preventing such a contractual agreement, the government is treating those two men or two women unequally.

-NC

[cronic]

I assume you will have no problem that this in effect says first cousins cannot be treated any differently and thus should be allowed to marry as well.

I agree with what you say Alan...
but I had to comment on this..

forgetting the OP at hand

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe first cousins could legally marry already..

If not.. well.. I guess my old friend got away with one then..lol

[ptif219]

So the court once again illegally makes law instead of throwing it back to the state congress.

By the way that means 7 men disenfranchized all these voters.


http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm

On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:

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

Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.

[Elrathin]

So the court once again illegally makes law instead of throwing it back to the state congress.

By the way that means 7 men disenfranchized all these voters.

Yeah I know it must dissapoint you that people were made so they can't discriminate. What a shame. People should be allowed to make laws like bans against interracial marriages and the like.

[ptif219]

Yeah I know it must dissapoint you that people were made so they can't discriminate. What a shame. People should be allowed to make laws like bans against interracial marriages and the like.

I see the 7% should overrule the rest of the country.

Clearly as I showed these judges disenfranchised the voters of California.

[Trish]

So when the laws banning it were struck down, what forced states to allow them to marry? Couldn't any town hall or whatever say "Nope, not gonna marry them". After all, if all you do is strike down a law banning it then you have no law requiring anyone to allow or not allow it.

Well they can keep passing such laws - look at all the anti-abortion laws that have been passed in the various States since Roe v. Wade. And every time one of those laws are passed they are struck down by the SC as being unconstitutional because the SC determined that the Constitution contained an inherent right to privacy and reproductive rights were included under that umbrella. Same thing with the interracial marriage laws - they were in violation of constitutional amendments already in place. Ruling those laws unconstitutional was upholding law already in place.

[Elrathin]

I see the 7% should overrule the rest of the country.

Clearly as I showed these judges disenfranchised the voters of California.

In terms of discrimination yes. I take it you agree people should be allowed to discriminate as long as they are the mob doing it right?

[NortheastCynic]

I see the 7% should overrule the rest of the country.

Clearly as I showed these judges disenfranchised the voters of California.Why, they're free to vote on a Constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the court's decision. If they're really that hell-bent on preventing gay people from marrying.

Je-sus I don't see what the fuss about gay marriage is all about.

-NC

[apdst]

I couldn't care less about homos getting married. But I have a huge problem with a court deciding legislation. This is judicial tyrrany at it's best.

[Elrathin]

I couldn't care less about homos getting married. But I have a huge problem with a court deciding legislation. This is judicial tyrrany at it's best.

So you had a problem with the courts deciding that the interracial marriage ban was wrong correct?

[Sublimating]

Can anyone tell me the likely course of this?...will it be appealed, will it go to the USSC?

How can four men have so much power?

Am I correct that no licenses can be given out for at least 30 days?

Please advise.

[Trish]

Can anyone tell me the likely course of this?...will it be appealed, will it go to the USSC?

How can four men have so much power?

Am I correct that no licenses can be given out for at least 30 days?

Please advise.

There's already a move to put the matter to a vote again in November. I couldn't find any real detail on the language of the proposed new law and how it will differ from what was just overturned, but apparently it is to be structured in a way that will prevent the CSC from banning it on the same grounds - or at least that is the hope.

I think it will eventually end up in the USSC - but it won't be for a long time. This has already being going back and forth in California for eight years and neither side is going to back down now - so it's going to continue to be fought over there until there is no other legal remedy but to take it to the USSC.

Yep - it'll be at least 30 days before anyone gets a license.

As to how 4 men can have so much power - they're state supreme court justices.

[ptif219]

In terms of discrimination yes. I take it you agree people should be allowed to discriminate as long as they are the mob doing it right?

How is not condoning immoral or unnatural or unethical acts or lifestyles discrimination.

Then I guess God discriminates I trust Him more then you :thumbsup:

[ptif219]

Why, they're free to vote on a Constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the court's decision. If they're really that hell-bent on preventing gay people from marrying.

Je-sus I don't see what the fuss about gay marriage is all about.

-NC

I can see it now if Gay marriage is legal the next discrimination will be if churches refuse to marry gays because of religous or ethical reasons.

[NortheastCynic]

That's where my line is drawn. Churches are private organizations and should not have to recognize any marriage on religious grounds if they choose not to.

-NC

[ptif219]

That's where my line is drawn. Churches are private organizations and should not have to recognize any marriage on religious grounds if they choose not to.

-NC

But will it work that way? I have my doubts.

[Alonzo]

But will it work that way? I have my doubts.

It's worked that way in Canada and Massachusetts, and I'm pretty sure it's worked that way in Denmark or whatever country legalized them over 10 years ago.

Church's don't have to marry interracial couples either.

[ViolaLee]

But will it work that way? I have my doubts.Why not? Marriage is a legal contract, not only a religious ceremony. People can get married without a church, but not without a government license. If a gay couple want to get married in a church, they can just find one who will agree to marry them. The court is not trying to force churches to marry gay couples. It's just trying to make it legally possible.

[ptif219]

It's worked that way in Canada and Massachusetts, and I'm pretty sure it's worked that way in Denmark or whatever country legalized them over 10 years ago.

Church's don't have to marry interracial couples either.

Yeah and no one thought gay groups would dictate what is taught to first graders but they do.

Gays in this country are becoming a powerful lobby and they hate christians so beware.

[ptif219]

Why not? Marriage is a legal contract, not only a religious ceremony. People can get married without a church, but not without a government license. If a gay couple want to get married in a church, they can just find one who will agree to marry them. The court is not trying to force churches to marry gay couples. It's just trying to make it legally possible.

So then explain why gays will not accept civil unions.

If civil unions had all the legal benefits of marriage gays reject it and demand marriage.

It is a direct attack on the church.

[ptif219]

It's worked that way in Canada and Massachusetts, and I'm pretty sure it's worked that way in Denmark or whatever country legalized them over 10 years ago.

Church's don't have to marry interracial couples either.

First comes hate speech then it will be discrimination if you refuse to marry gays.It has not happened yet but is very possible.


http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=12395


After more than two years of litigation, on Nov. 29 the Swedish Supreme Court acquitted Pentecostal pastor Åke Green, who in June 2004 had been sentenced to a month in jail for describing homosexuality as a “cancerous growth on society” during a 2003 sermon.
Though Christians in Sweden are relieved by the acquittal, they are not at ease. After the verdict was announced, the Socialist government of Sweden said it hoped similar cases would be brought to court in the near future. “I look forward to having the law [on hate speech against homosexuals] tried again soon,” Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, told Dagen, a Christian daily newspaper in Stockholm.

The Supreme Court ruled that Green was in fact guilty of hate speech, but determined that the European Convention, a treaty signed by Sweden that carries a higher legal status than the hate crimes law, applies a broader definition of the freedom of speech and religion and “does not allow for a guilty verdict.”

[Elrathin]

How is not condoning immoral or unnatural or unethical acts or lifestyles discrimination.

Then I guess God discriminates I trust Him more then you :thumbsup:

I don't believe in your god and your god has no place in society forcing others not to do something.

Laws based SOLELY on morality have no business in today's world. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran.

I'm all for this ruling it is time those that think they are high and mighty on morality get knocked down a peg or two back to reality.

[AlanC]

I don't believe in your god and your god has no place in society forcing others not to do something.

Laws based SOLELY on morality have no business in today's world. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran.

I'm all for this ruling it is time those that think they are high and mighty on morality get knocked down a peg or two back to reality.

El, what law in your opinion is NOT based on morality?

Even in this discussion, those arguing for fair treatment of homosexuals are making a moral argument. Equal protection under the law is itself a moral stance.

[ptif219]

I don't believe in your god and your god has no place in society forcing others not to do something.

Laws based SOLELY on morality have no business in today's world. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran.

I'm all for this ruling it is time those that think they are high and mighty on morality get knocked down a peg or two back to reality.

So then the 4 judges should be able to disenfranchise millions of voters.

[Elrathin]

El, what law in your opinion is NOT based on morality?

Even in this discussion, those arguing for fair treatment of homosexuals are making a moral argument. Equal protection under the law is itself a moral stance.

Murder being illegal isn't just about morality, it is about a victim as well. That is what I am talking about. We don't say murder is wrong because of the bible, we say it is wrong because of a victim.

Saying you can't buy alcohol on Sunday's is a law based SOLELY on morality.

[Elrathin]

So then the 4 judges should be able to disenfranchise millions of voters.

Millions of voters shouldn't be allowed to discriminate especially since being gay, gays raising children, and gays having children are not illegal.

Like I said before, you must not have been for the interracial marriage ban being lifted by judges either then right?

[ptif219]

Millions of voters shouldn't be allowed to discriminate especially since being gay, gays raising children, and gays having children are not illegal.

Like I said before, you must not have been for the interracial marriage ban being lifted by judges either then right?

I notice you avoid my points about civil unions and how this could lead to other things.

You don't care about 60+ percent of the voters you give 7% of the population power over the country.

[Elrathin]

You don't care about 60+ percent of the voters you give 7% of the population power over the country.

Not when those people vote for discrimination. I'm glad you don't think the lifting of the interracial marriage ban should have been decided by judges though. That speaks volumes about how you are ok with discrimination just as long as a majority of people do it.

[ptif219]

Not when those people vote for discrimination. I'm glad you don't think the lifting of the interracial marriage ban should have been decided by judges though. That speaks volumes about how you are ok with discrimination just as long as a majority of people do it.

I never said that.

Legislation is for congress not judges.

All legislation from the bench is wrong.I am not sure about interracial marriage but abortion was illegally made law by judges.It should have been sent to congress.

Again you avoid my other points.

[Elrathin]

I never said that.

Actually yes, you did. You said you didn't like judges legislating from the bench. That is exactly what they did when they lifted the interracial marriage ban. So you are FOR discrimination as long as there is a majority that do it.


Again you avoid my other points.

What other points?

[AlanC]

Murder being illegal isn't just about morality, it is about a victim as well. That is what I am talking about. We don't say murder is wrong because of the bible, we say it is wrong because of a victim.

Saying you can't buy alcohol on Sunday's is a law based SOLELY on morality.


The prohibition against murder is a morally based law. Whether that morality comes from the bible as in "Thou shalt not kill" or if its based on some other more secular moral code, it is still a morally based law.

Every law is moral. Where have you ever seen someone try to inact a law they acknowledged as being an immoral law?

The fact is that when we do things or write laws for the "common good" or for the good of the nation, or for the good of society, we are making a moral judgement. We are attempting to bring greater morality to the social fabric of the country.

Its not a question of is it moral or not. It is a question of whose morality does it relfect. There are moral grounds that are more commonly shared by the majority of the country and then there are those that are more closely held to one group or another.

A community can have a sense of what is morally right without it being ascribed to a religion or a religous sect. Though it is fair to say that it is religion that in the end defines the moral from the immoral, even if its not accepted by everyone.

Many killers even think themselves moral in a way. "I didn't kill anyone that didn't deserve it." That statement is an attempt to morally justify the immoral act of murder. What you argue on this thread is, at the heart of it, a moral argument.

Some think it moral to maintain marriage as something that binds only a man and a woman. Others think its the morally right thing to allow same sex couples the same privilege. We don't always agree on what is moral, but we, as a people, do, for the most part, try to do what is moral.

[ptif219]

Actually yes, you did. You said you didn't like judges legislating from the bench. That is exactly what they did when they lifted the interracial marriage ban. So you are FOR discrimination as long as there is a majority that do it.

Where did i say that?

What other points?

So you only read and address what you want.

Page 5 posts 42/44/47-49

[Elrathin]

Every law is moral. Where have you ever seen someone try to inact a law they acknowledged as being an immoral law?

I said laws based SOLELY on morality should not be allowed. Yes, I am quite aware that laws are moral, but they are not BASED SOLELY on morality. That is the point.

[Elrathin]

I can see it now if Gay marriage is legal the next discrimination will be if churches refuse to marry gays because of religous or ethical reasons.

Are churches forced to marry straight people that don't follow their religion? No, so why would gays? That is a silly argument.

[Elrathin]

Yeah and no one thought gay groups would dictate what is taught to first graders but they do.

Gays in this country are becoming a powerful lobby and they hate christians so beware.

Scare tactics the simple fact is that no, gays do not have that much power to force churches to accept them or marry them.

And saying gays hate Chrisitans is one of the most idiotic comments I have ever heard in regards to this argument. I know many gay people that have no problem with Christians themselves, just in terms of gay marriage.

[Elrathin]

So you only read and address what you want.

Page 5 posts 42/44/47-49

They are now addressed and they are based in fear and are not probable at all. Churches are not forced to marry anyone NOW with straights, so it would be the EXACT same with gays.

No offense but I don't know too many gays that would even want to married in a church either way. There are plenty of non-denominational churches that gays could go to that would accept them and justice of the peace weddings are always open as well.

The fact is you just don't want gays to get married so you invent this ridiculous points.

[Alonzo]

First comes hate speech then it will be discrimination if you refuse to marry gays.It has not happened yet but is very possible.


http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=12395


After more than two years of litigation, on Nov. 29 the Swedish Supreme Court acquitted Pentecostal pastor Åke Green, who in June 2004 had been sentenced to a month in jail for describing homosexuality as a “cancerous growth on society” during a 2003 sermon.
Though Christians in Sweden are relieved by the acquittal, they are not at ease. After the verdict was announced, the Socialist government of Sweden said it hoped similar cases would be brought to court in the near future. “I look forward to having the law [on hate speech against homosexuals] tried again soon,” Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, told Dagen, a Christian daily newspaper in Stockholm.

The Supreme Court ruled that Green was in fact guilty of hate speech, but determined that the European Convention, a treaty signed by Sweden that carries a higher legal status than the hate crimes law, applies a broader definition of the freedom of speech and religion and “does not allow for a guilty verdict.”

Hate speech laws are irrelevant. In a lot of countries you could get jailed for praising the holocaust or denying as well.

Try denying the holocaust publicly in the u.k. or Canada and see what happens.

Yeah and no one thought gay groups would dictate what is taught to first graders but they do.

Gays in this country are becoming a powerful lobby and they hate christians so beware.

Ummmm....... you're referring to the rants of "Don't let kids know some people have two mommies!" Even if 2 kids in class have 2 mommies?

[ptif219]

Are churches forced to marry straight people that don't follow their religion? No, so why would gays? That is a silly argument.

15 years ago you would have said it is silly to believe gays would influence what is taught in our schools.

15 years ago gay marriage was thought foolish.

It is not silly it is looking at what is happening.

When churchs are charged with hate speech for teaching the Bible how far away is it that not marrying gays will be discrimination.?

[Trish]

Actually yes, you did. You said you didn't like judges legislating from the bench. That is exactly what they did when they lifted the interracial marriage ban. So you are FOR discrimination as long as there is a majority that do it.



What other points?

El, there's a difference in upholding or striking down a law based upon Constitutional mandates and striking down the law as unConstitutional when there is no Constitutional provision covering the matter in the first place.

In the case of interracial marriages there were already Constitutional Amendments in place giving non-whites equal protection as whites. The laws enacted banning interracial marriages were therefore in violation of those Constitutional Amendments. When the justices overturned the interracial laws they were making that decision based upon the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right for ANYONE to marry. Marriage is not covered by the Constitution at all. When the CSC struck down the law banning same-sex marriage they MADE law - they assigned a constitutional right to marry when there is no such constitutional privilege to begin with.

We have a separation of powers in our government for a reason. The consitutional powers of the judiciary do not include making laws.

[Elrathin]

15 years ago you would have said it is silly to believe gays would influence what is taught in our schools.

15 years ago gay marriage was thought foolish.

It is not silly it is looking at what is happening.

When churchs are charged with hate speech for teaching the Bible how far away is it that not marrying gays will be discrimination.?

Again is churches not marrying straight people that don't follow their faith illegal? No it isn't

[Elrathin]

El, there's a difference in upholding or striking down a law based upon Constitutional mandates and striking down the law as unConstitutional when there is no Constitutional provision covering the matter in the first place.

Is being gay illegal?
Is gays raising children illegal?
Is gays having kids illegal?

NO. There is a precedence to allow gay marriage within the courts since NONE of those things I listed are illegal.

[Alonzo]

El, there's a difference in upholding or striking down a law based upon Constitutional mandates and striking down the law as unConstitutional when there is no Constitutional provision covering the matter in the first place.

In the case of interracial marriages there were already Constitutional Amendments in place giving non-whites equal protection as whites. The laws enacted banning interracial marriages were therefore in violation of those Constitutional Amendments. When the justices overturned the interracial laws they were making that decision based upon the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right for ANYONE to marry. Marriage is not covered by the Constitution at all. When the CSC struck down the law banning same-sex marriage they MADE law - they assigned a constitutional right to marry when there is no such constitutional privilege to begin with.

We have a separation of powers in our government for a reason. The consitutional powers of the judiciary do not include making laws.

Trish, I think you're confusing state and federal. I know in Massachusetts the constitution included nondiscrimination against homosexuals. California may have the same, I don't know.

Also that same nondiscrimination would also be viewed as included in the "all men are created equal" lines in many state constitutions, as well as the federal one.

[ptif219]

Again is churches not marrying straight people that don't follow their faith illegal? No it isn't

So we should wait till it is to late.

You can justify all you want but when marriage happens it will not stop there.

[Elrathin]

So we should wait till it is to late.

You can justify all you want but when marriage happens it will not stop there.

LOL so your fear of something that has no precedence of happening should make something remain illegal? Sorry don't buy it and that is a lame excuse.

[ptif219]

LOL so your fear of something that has no precedence of happening should make something remain illegal? Sorry don't buy it and that is a lame excuse.

Just like 15 years ago gay marriage and gays saying what gets taught to first graders wasn't a threat.

It pays to know your adversary.

You don't want to admit this because you want it to happen.

[Elrathin]

Just like 15 years ago gay marriage and gays saying what gets taught to first graders wasn't a threat.

It pays to know your adversary.

You don't want to admit this because you want it to happen.

Yeah teaching tolerance to kids so they don't beat up the kid that has the gay mom is a bad thing. I will admit it's nice when some conservatives show their true colors

When gay marriage becomes LEGAL I will toast to all the bigots out there that failed.

[ptif219]

Yeah teaching tolerance to kids so they don't beat up the kid that has the gay mom is a bad thing. I will admit it's nice when some conservatives show their true colors

When gay marriage becomes LEGAL I will toast to all the bigots out there that failed.

I am sure first graders know or care what other kids parents do.

It is the indoctrination of lies that being gay is normal or you are born gay.

But back to topic at hand if the supreme court sees the law as unconstitutional they should tell the congress to fix it not throw it out that is illegally making law from the bench.

[Elrathin]

But back to topic at hand if the supreme court sees the law as unconstitutional they should tell the congress to fix it not throw it out that is illegally making law from the bench.

If the law is illegal, then they have every right to throw it out. And good for them, glad they fixed a terrible wrong.

[ptif219]

If the law is illegal, then they have every right to throw it out. And good for them, glad they fixed a terrible wrong.

Allowing gays to marry is making new law.This is not the law and has never been the law of the state.

So they made new law which is not legal.

As I said it should have been sent back to congress to be legislated that is what congress does.

[Elrathin]

Allowing gays to marry is making new law.This is not the law and has never been the law of the state.

So they made new law which is not legal.

As I said it should have been sent back to congress to be legislated that is what congress does.

No, they are turning down a law that was illegal to begin with. God I love to see good judges in action like these.

[ptif219]

No, they are turning down a law that was illegal to begin with. God I love to see good judges in action like these.

No they made new law you only like it because it supports your view of an immoral lifestyle.

If it was never legal for gays to marry and now the judges say it is that is making new law from the bench.

[Elrathin]

No they made new law you only like it because it supports your view of an immoral lifestyle.

Nope it should be legal because of the reasons I listed previously. There are lots of things in the country that are legal that you might consider immoral. Morality alone should not be a reason to make something illegal.


If it was never legal for gays to marry and now the judges say it is that is making new law from the bench.

No they are striking down a law that was illegal to begin with.

Good job judges ! ! !:thumbsup:

[ptif219]

Nope it should be legal because of the reasons I listed previously. There are lots of things in the country that are legal that you might consider immoral. Morality alone should not be a reason to make something illegal.



No they are striking down a law that was illegal to begin with.

Good job judges ! ! !:thumbsup:

You refuse to admit they made new law.This is illegal.

[Elrathin]

You refuse to admit they made new law.This is illegal.

That's because they didn't make a new law, they erased an illegal one. Again, good job to the judges.

[ptif219]

That's because they didn't make a new law, they erased an illegal one. Again, good job to the judges.

I explain and you don't care as long as you get your way.If it was Bush you would be yelling about trampling on the constitution.

If something has never been legal and judges make it legal that is knew law and legislating from the bench that is illegal.

That is why conservatives hate activist judges no matter who appointed them.

[Elrathin]

If something has never been legal and judges make it legal that is knew law and legislating from the bench that is illegal.

Sorry but if there is a law making something ILLEGAL and it is struck down as being an illegal law, that isn't making a new law. DUH.

[ptif219]

Sorry but if there is a law making something ILLEGAL and it is struck down as being an illegal law, that isn't making a new law. DUH.

It is because gay marriage has never been legal that makes it new law.

The law has always been marriage is between a man and a woman.

You will never see it because it doesn't matter to you as long as you get your way.

[Trish]

Is being gay illegal?
Is gays raising children illegal?
Is gays having kids illegal?

NO. There is a precedence to allow gay marriage within the courts since NONE of those things I listed are illegal.

El, those things have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Trish]

Trish, I think you're confusing state and federal. I know in Massachusetts the constitution included nondiscrimination against homosexuals. California may have the same, I don't know.

Also that same nondiscrimination would also be viewed as included in the "all men are created equal" lines in many state constitutions, as well as the federal one.

Even if sexual orientation is a constitutionally protected class in some instances, it's not protected in all instances. Just as other protected classes aren't always protected. Discrimination is not always illegal or unconstitutional.

And hey, I could be completely wrong in how I'm looking at this. Like I said, I only have a few law classes under my belt to date and you know what they say about a little knowledge being dangerous! In one of my classes we had a debate on discrimination in a somewhat similar set of circumstances (much too long and involved to get into here), and I was relying on a lot of what we covered there in forming my opinion in this case.

One thing I am sure of however - this CSC ruling isn't the end of the issue in California.

[Elrathin]

El, those things have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Actually they do whether you like it or not. They set a precedence why gay marriage should NOT be illegal.

[Trish]

Actually they do whether you like it or not. They set a precedence why gay marriage should NOT be illegal.

No, they don't. They don't set any kind of precedent. A legal precedent is a ruling or proceeding that sets a standard or model for future cases. However, the CSC DID establish a precedent with their ruling in this case. Whether that precedent stands remains to be seen.

[Alonzo]

Even if sexual orientation is a constitutionally protected class in some instances, it's not protected in all instances. Just as other protected classes aren't always protected. Discrimination is not always illegal or unconstitutional.

In massachusetts, if an act, or denial of one, is illegal when used against a black person, due to their race, then it is illegal to do so against a person due to their sexual orientation. The distinction between discrimination based on race and sexual orientation is not one that is in the Massachusetts constitution.

One thing I am sure of however - this CSC ruling isn't the end of the issue in California.

It probably is, as who is going to take it further? The state has no interest in doing so, the governor opposes even reversing it through a vote.

[ptif219]

In massachusetts, if an act, or denial of one, is illegal when used against a black person, due to their race, then it is illegal to do so against a person due to their sexual orientation. The distinction between discrimination based on race and sexual orientation is not one that is in the Massachusetts constitution.



It probably is, as who is going to take it further? The state has no interest in doing so, the governor opposes even reversing it through a vote.

There are groups already to put a constitutional ammendment on the november ballot for voters to vote on.


http://news.aol.com/story/_a/opponents-to-fight-gay-marriage-ruling/20080515133109990002


Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, speaks out against Thursday's California Supreme Court ruling that reversed a gay marriage ban approved by state voters. A conservative coalition aims to put a measure on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to preserve laws banning gay marriage.

[Alonzo]

There are groups already to put a constitutional ammendment on the november ballot for voters to vote on.


http://news.aol.com/story/_a/opponents-to-fight-gay-marriage-ruling/20080515133109990002


Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, speaks out against Thursday's California Supreme Court ruling that reversed a gay marriage ban approved by state voters. A conservative coalition aims to put a measure on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to preserve laws banning gay marriage.

In Massachusetts only about 20% of legislators backed such an amendment, defeating it. It had needed 1/4 of their support. Polls taken also gave a slight edge to those who wanted to keep same-sex marriage legal, though within the margin of error.

From what I've heard of California, it likely won't get any further. Though, if it does, it may be due to the same dirty tricks they tried in Massachusetts. Fox News even uncovered one particularly deceptive method of getting signatures. What they would do is stand outside grocery stores and malls and ask people to sign a petition to allow grocery stores to serve alcohol. After signing that petition, they then would have them sign things on another page, without ever telling them that they were signing an anti-same-sex marriage petition.

It's also worth pointing out that, while the pro-same sex marriage group was largely funded and supported in state, the anti groups took a good amount of their funding from out of state and imported organizations and people from out of state to help them. The group, and the people, that conducted the fraudulent attempts at getting petitions was something they paid them to come here for. And it was widespread, as I was asked and I knew 3 other people who had been asked, all in different locations.

Though, in California itself, not only do you have those opposed to it, but the governor is also opposed and has told people he'd even campaign against it. In Massachusetts the Governor, Deval Patrick, put considerable time and effort into ensuring that the measure was defeated. And, consider Arnold has much more bipartisan appeal, he may be even more effective.

[ptif219]

In Massachusetts only about 20% of legislators backed such an amendment, defeating it. It had needed 1/4 of their support. Polls taken also gave a slight edge to those who wanted to keep same-sex marriage legal, though within the margin of error.

From what I've heard of California, it likely won't get any further. Though, if it does, it may be due to the same dirty tricks they tried in Massachusetts. Fox News even uncovered one particularly deceptive method of getting signatures. What they would do is stand outside grocery stores and malls and ask people to sign a petition to allow grocery stores to serve alcohol. After signing that petition, they then would have them sign things on another page, without ever telling them that they were signing an anti-same-sex marriage petition.

It's also worth pointing out that, while the pro-same sex marriage group was largely funded and supported in state, the anti groups took a good amount of their funding from out of state and imported organizations and people from out of state to help them. The group, and the people, that conducted the fraudulent attempts at getting petitions was something they paid them to come here for. And it was widespread, as I was asked and I knew 3 other people who had been asked, all in different locations.

Though, in California itself, not only do you have those opposed to it, but the governor is also opposed and has told people he'd even campaign against it. In Massachusetts the Governor, Deval Patrick, put considerable time and effort into ensuring that the measure was defeated. And, consider Arnold has much more bipartisan appeal, he may be even more effective.

You seem to miss the point a constitution ammenment on the ballot if passed becomes law.

This has happened in 26 states so far.

The people have continually voted that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

[Alonzo]

ptif, but it lacks the support of the states most powerful republican and the powerful democratic party in the state. The two largest forces in California politics are against it. Considering changing attitudes in the country, and assuming the pro-same-sex marriage use a similar strategy in that state (they personalized it by highlighting individual families and the harm it would cause them by reversing it), the chances of success aren't what you'd think. California is liberal and a lot has changed in the past few years with regards to the issue.

[ptif219]

ptif, but it lacks the support of the states most powerful republican and the powerful democratic party in the state. The two largest forces in California politics are against it. Considering changing attitudes in the country, and assuming the pro-same-sex marriage use a similar strategy in that state (they personalized it by highlighting individual families and the harm it would cause them by reversing it), the chances of success aren't what you'd think. California is liberal and a lot has changed in the past few years with regards to the issue.

Funny you say that maybe you don't remember this.

http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm

On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:

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

Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.

[tecoyah]

For those who feel Liberal Democrats are alone in the Civil Rights Movement:

Majority of California Supreme Court ‘Activist Judges’ Who Legalized Gay Marriage Were Republicans
Jon Ponder | May. 19, 2008

When judges make decisions that favor gay civil rights, rightwingers label them “activist judges,” and howl, “Let the people decide.”
Yet more evidence — as if any were needed — that the rightwing position on gay marriage is based on bigotry, politics and fundraising, not principals or “moral” values.
But last year, when the California legislature — a.k.a. “the people” — passed bills that would have legalized gay marriage — twice — the right wing cheered when GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the laws both times.

Now, in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this month legalizing gay marriage, the right will have trouble making their name-calling stick, because three of the four “activist judges” who voted in favor of extending civil rights to gays were Republicans.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/05/19/majority-of-ca-activist-gay-marriage-judges-were-gop/

[Deadshot]

I know my State, Missouri, has a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage, but I always wondered how that would work in regards to other States.

Say I get married, legally, to another man in California. He works for the U.S. Dept. of Conservation. He get's transferred to MO., I go with him. Now the Feds, for tax purposes and for benefits, treat us as married, but what does MO. do?

I think there will be litigation in the future that will crush these State Constitution Ammendments. It will be because of State tax laws, and not about homosexuality itself. It's going to be fun to watch as States cave into the Federal Govt. :madlaugh:

[Alonzo]

Funny you say that maybe you don't remember this.

http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm

On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:

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

Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.

That was 2000, a lot has changed in public opinion. There's also a difference between opposing a right, and taking away a right. Many people, in MA, said that they while they opposed it they didn't want to take it away from people. That's likely worth a few points in and of itself.

I saw up close the campaign the pro-same-sex marriage group waged, if it's like the one here it's effective and well funded.

This was one of the ads they ran:

7nBfIqVnh0s

Though, if they do go to a vote, you're likely looking at a very nasty campaign pitting neighbor against neighbor. Some legislators in MA voted against a vote because they knew what would happen, and others, on both side, said long time friendships were irreparably damaged, or lost, due to positions they took.

[Alonzo]

Funny you say that maybe you don't remember this.

http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm

On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:

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

Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.

That was 2000, a lot has changed in public opinion. There's also a difference between opposing a right, and taking away a right. Many people, in MA, said that they while they opposed it they didn't want to take it away from people. That's likely worth a few points in and of itself.

I saw up close the campaign the pro-same-sex marriage group waged, if it's like the one here it's effective and well funded.

This was one of the ads they ran:

7nBfIqVnh0s

Though, if they do go to a vote, you're likely looking at a very nasty campaign pitting neighbor against neighbor. Some legislators in MA voted against a vote because they knew what would happen, and others, on both side, said long time friendships were irreparably damaged, or lost, due to positions they took.

[4Reaganomics]

If my district voted for marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman and my representative dismissed the will of my district and moved forward with his own personal agenda I would be voting for someone else, hands down.

That is all I really have to say about the matter,

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Here's a thought for you guys.

Since there were (I think) more REP appointed judges that passed this issue, Do you think that it is a Republican tactic to get more votes??????

I mean even after America knew how stupid and deceitful Bush was they still turned out
in large numbers to support him(the second time)!
Durring that election there were also a lot of gay issues being pushed. This election the
DEMS have not been pushing any Lib/gay social issues, but they have been doing interviews
from their churches! Even Hillary tried to look like a person of faith, Which was one of her
least convincing performances.

I just wonder if this is a way to get all the old school REPS and Religious poeple to get
back in line with what ever the REPS have to offer??

Just because in 2000 I thought it would be "Impossible" for some one like Bush to win a
second term!

[Alonzo]

If my district voted for marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman and my representative dismissed the will of my district and moved forward with his own personal agenda I would be voting for someone else, hands down.

That is all I really have to say about the matter,

Oh, you'd hate this guy then:

AqstqFq95rg

Jerry Sanders, San Diego's Republican mayor, reverses his opinion on gay marriage in a tearjerker press conference.