CA Supreme Court Overturns the Will of the People of California!

Here's a good take on the actual decision and what it means, from a professor at New York Law School.  He goes into some thick legal arguments, but I think I was able to follow most of his blog post.  Most importantly, he gives the background for this specific argument before the state Supreme Court, the immediate legal history of same-sex marriages within the state, the legal precedents that the court rested their opinion on, and so on. 

Also, I found an interesting interview of the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, in which "he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws."  (My own personal take on banning same-sex marriages continues to be, that it is equivalent to "Coloreds Eat in Rear" signs.)

I did a quick search on Google for the California state constitution.  Robert, take a look at Article I, Section 7(a); it might help reading that section to find a cornerstone of the state Supreme Court's ruling.  As well, I found the actual opinion, posted online at the California Courts website.  The ruling is in .pdf format; look for "In Re Marriage Cases".

Next time, Robert, please include some links to news articles, opinion pieces, court rulings, anything to actually make an argument or put forth your opinion.  Just randomly saying "we need judges that know the difference between interpreting and making law", without any sort of background, evidence, or information on the actual topic on hand is a very poor way of putting forth your opinions.  In case you don't want to wade through the various links above, here's my take:  the basis of the court's ruling was that not granting same-sex couples the right to legally marry and call their relationship a marriage violates the state consitution's provision for prohibiting equal protection of the laws.  From the majority opinion:

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.  [Bolded sections are my emphasis.]

The people of the state of California can still ban same-sex marriages, if they're willing and able to amend their state constitution to reflect that.  But in the present circumstances, banning same-sex marriages is, according to the California State Supreme Court, unconstitutional.

HG

Adam, are you saying that a non-white person is worth two white people? Because if so, it's flattering, but I cannot agree.

This is the same dynamic that allowed the "discovery" that we can't own each other as slaves or that the police can't bust into a family's home and arrest them because mommy is too dark.

Question do you really dislike reinterpretation of law or just when it's not in line with your politics? If it's not the courts' job to interpret law, what are they supposed to be doing and who DOES interpret law?

The original makers of the constitution were neither infallible nor omniscient.

It seems to me that, at least on the federal level, it is the 14th amendment's equal protection clause that makes same-sex marriage's legality all but inevitable.  Under this clause, the federal government is forbidden from treating its citizens differently:

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.

So there only seem to be certain options here.  First, all citizens could be denied the right to have their marriages acknowledged by the government.  No more legal marriage.  That would level the playing field and would play by the 14th's rules.

Second, the Court could rule that gay and lesbian citizens deserve equal protection under the law, and that all of the state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage recognition by the government are unconstitutional.  This seems the most likely course of action, although both Roberts and Alito have showed recently that their understanding of even the most fundamental concepts of civil rights are painfully inadequate.  These are the people who will be legislating from the bench if and when they rule against same-sex marriage.  They will literally be ignoring one of the most important amendments in our constitution.  But, as we saw with the school choice cases, this doesn't seem to be something that will keep Roberts up at night.

Finally, if the Court upholds the 14th amendment and declares state laws against same-sex marriage illegal, the US Congress could begin an amendment process to strip a minorty of its citizens of equal rights.  This, of course, requires 2/3 approval in both houses of congress, and ratification by 3/4ths of the states.  It seems highly unlikely that an amendment curtailing the rights of citizens would make it through this process.  At the end of the day, gay marriage doesn't really hurt anyone.  Why do I care if Bob and Bob get married?

I care about polygamy because it has been shown to be destructive to society.  That is why it is illegal though, frankly, it wasn't illegal for most of this country's history.  And it took an activist court to make it illegal, something many conservatives believed was "wrong" at the time.  Incest has also been shown to be biologically problematic and causes problems for society at large.

But really, go ahead and keep equating a monogamous gay relationships with things like polygamy and incest.  It really makes your argument much more ironic and humorous. 

An unborn baby is not protected by the laws of the U.S. Constitution because he or she is not born and therefore cannot be a citizen. 

So if monogamous gay relationships happened to be destructive to society, then gay people would not be entitled to their "equal rights"?

Maybe you don't understand my argument. It's not that polygamy should be legal, or that loving gay couples are just like sick and perverted husband-wife-wife trios. It's that these matters are not settled one way or another by any constitution and should be settled through public debate and legislation, not through judges who find new meaning in old words.

The fact that your own criteria for legal marriage includes things as nebulous and contestable as "destructive to society" and "biologically problematic" should be enough to convince you that the marriage issue is not settled by the constitution and falls in the domain of democratic law-making.

The issue here is really centered on the social contract.  In a democracy we give up certain freedoms (and our money) to the government in exchange for protections.  I would love to hear a sound explanation for why homosexual citizens, who have paid their taxes and given their consent to be governed are not due the same protections as the rest of us.  What, exactly, makes them lesser citizens than you or me?

Since nobody is arguing for bigamy or polygamy I don't see how that discussion is relevant.  We don't give citizens the freedom to bear arms expecting them to be allowed to own nuclear weapons.  We don't ensure the freedom of petition expecting that violent riots will be legal.  Why isn't government recognition of heterosexual marriages a step toward bigamy or polygamy?  Why is it homosexual marriages that bring up this thinly-veiled homophobic reference?

So please, someone justify why this government is allowed to deny the right of marriage to two human citizens.  It is fine to say no one's marriage will be recognized by the government, and leave it at that.  But to allow two humans of the "correct" persuasion to marry but to deny that right to two other humans because their genetics are not "correct" flies in the face of what this country has claimed to be about.

1) There certainly ARE people arguing for bigamy and polygamy.  I seem to recall a lawsuit was even filed on the issue recently, but I could be mistaken.

2) I would argue that the way we recognize marriage now (no-fault divorce at will, any time with no consequences) most certainly DOES bring us a step towards bigamy, polygamy and gay marriage.  When it took out responsibility and children, all that was left was sexual gratification.

3) First, marriage is a pre-political pre-historical institution.  Government didn't create it.  It depends on what you are trying to foster, I support.  If it's simply two people having "committed" sex (committed being defined as that they agree to hang around until one decides to hell with it), then it shouldn't be recognized at all.

4) If you are talking about fostering stable families, I suppose you could simply illustrate it thus, heterosexual children can have children on their own.  Homosexual couples still need someone of the opposite gender to help out.  (Adoption aside).  But you'd also have to chuck no-fault divorce too, and quite frankly, I'm sure most of the anti-gay marriage crowd would be unwilling to do that, so they are just reaping what they have sown, IMO.

You can make it about bigotry all you want and ignore arguments, but there are reasons out there that do not rely on religion or "homophobia" (which is by far one of the stupidest words to enter into the English lexicon.  No one is homophobic unless they're in Cook County.  Simply disagreeing is not patholigical hatred or fear, and calling it such is, to use your own parlance, unamerican).

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

Boon - maybe you're the one with the problem... thinking that polygamy and incest isn't as loving and dignified as any other marriage.

"If you are telling me that my parents shouldn't have been able to get married because they are not the right color, and it was activist judges that usurped the will of the people, I'm going to think you are an idiot, and that's because I'm a pretty even keeled person."

Well, lets focus our anger on the right people. If I told you that according to the law your parents couldn't get married, you shouldn't think anything of me, but of the people who wrote the law. And the solution to this injustice would not be to argue with me, but to get the law changed.

Narc - who gets to decide if something is an "equal rights" issue?

This was clearly an equal rights issue, as the Court noted in its decision.

... the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which
both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

In other words, California had set up a system where straight people and gay people got what was effectively the same thing, but the straight version was called one thing and the gay version was called another. That's all the Court was deciding.

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. I daresay if you put racial segregation up to the "will of the people", you wouldn't have gotten the same result as you did in Brown v. Board of Education and so I consider it a good thing that we had those "activist judges" that "found new rights" in the Constitution.

Actually, xian, that's exactly what he's arguing. From his post above:

Well, then, while he's right that there may exist arguments somewhere that are credible and compelling on the issues, he's just coming with straight bigotry.

If gay people want to have sex, that's fine.  No one is saying it should be a crime, but why do I need to subsidize it?  If you want my subsidy, you get my accountability.  What are they doing to benefit **society**?

Fair enough. Here's my response: If elderly people want to have sex, that's fine.  No one is saying it should be a crime, but why do I need to subsidize it?  If you want my subsidy, you get my accountability.  What are they doing to benefit **society**?

Fair enough. Here's my response: If elderly people want to have sex, that's fine.  No one is saying it should be a crime, but why do I need to subsidize it?  If you want my subsidy, you get my accountability.  What are they doing to benefit **society**?

Huh?  Where am I arguing about subsidizing elderly people having sex?

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

Where am I arguing about subsidizing elderly people having sex?

So you don't think they should be allowed to get married either? After all, they're incapable of having children, so the only reason to get married is to have the government subsidize their sexual relationship, according to your argument.

What are they doing to benefit **society**?

Alright, here's one benefit: married people live longer. The exact reason isn't clear, but research shows that being married extends your life expectency. I doubt there has been enough research on domestic partnerships to say if they have the same effect.

Married individuals are healthier than their never-married, divorced, and widowed counterparts, according to the CDC report "Marital Status and Health: United States, 1999-2002." Marriage increases life-expectancy by as much as five years. James Goodwin and his associates (Journal of the American Medical Association 258:3125-3130) found in their analyses of 25,000 cases listed in the New Mexico Tumor Registry, which tracks all malignancies in the state, a higher percentage of married people survive cancer at nearly every age.

That means married gays will be able to contribute to society longer and live better lives. Not to mention there is a moral component here. Don't expect me to be content with a shortened lifespan so your sexual relationship can have some sort of special status in society.

First, I don't give a damn what you think of my "sexual relationship".

That makes two of us. However, if you claim yours should be privileged over mine, you're going to have to come up with a compelling governmental interest as to why.

Conservatives may not like it, but gay people are full citizens now. We can associate with each other without being put in prison or a mental institution. We pair-bond, form lifelong emotional relationships, have children of our own, and even adopt them. The scientific research is conclusive that gay parents are just as effective in raising healty children as straight parents, so there's no issue there.

If you want to use this argument, you must also accept the argument that shows recognition of gay marriage leads to plummitting marriage rates, birth rates and a host of other problems that the children that are born face.

Gay marriage leads to "plummeting" marriage and birth rates? Sorry I don't buy that for a second. I might buy a very small drop once gay people no longer enter into the loveless sham marriages they were pressured into by society that taught there was something wrong with them, but that's hardly "plummeting."

Second, those studies involve heterosexual marriage, you COULD argue that it would apply to gay marriage, but you'd be speculating.

Which becomes a catch 22. We can't allow gay marriage because we have no evidence that gay marriage creates the same benefits as straight marriage. Of course, we can't do the research to prove that it does because there is no gay marriage.

And it took an activist court to make it illegal, something many conservatives believed was "wrong" at the time.

Please look up "1862 July 8, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law, signed by Abraham Lincoln" Thank you.

Well, either homosexuality is wrong and detrimental to society, which implies that homosexuals should not be afforded the same rights as other citizens, or homosexuality is not wrong and not detrimental to society and therefore homosexuals must be afforded the same rights as everyone else.

We can dance around this subject all day, but unless someone can show that government endorsement of homosexual marriage is endorsement of immoral and detrimental activity there is literally no way under the U.S. Constitution that the banning of that activity can be justified.  It really is as simple as that.

As far as gay marriage leading to plummeting marriage and birth rates, buy it or not, studies of Sweden and Norway show that *coorrelation*.

I don't know who you're listening to, but gay marriage isn't legal in Sweden. Nor have birth rates "plummeted". Birth rates are a bit lower now than they were in the early 1990s, but they're about the same as they were in the late 70s through mid 80s.

As for parenting, according to the American Psychological Association (citations at the APA site):

... there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children ... research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish

I'm sure you can find some fringe groups that distort the research and people like Cameron that do shoddy work, but the general consensus is that gay parents are as effective as straight parents.

And xian, I answered your "benefits" argument.  Would you support ending no-fault divorce?  Because they aren't stable two-parent homes when someone can wake up one day and say, "f*** it, I'm out!".  And yes, that applies just as much to heterosexual marriage now as it is legally recognized and I criticize that too.

Completely irrelevant. It might also be true that current marriages are not as effective as marriages in which members can wave their hands and make ponies appear. However, we don't live in that society. If you show me that data and want to lead a team to research pony materialization, I would be interested. In the meantime, the fact that gay people, like straight people cannot conjure up ponies is not an argument against their right to marry, nor is the fact that no-fault divorce exists.

The question is not whether a society with no-fault gay divorce is inferior to the some hypothetical system. The question is whether it is superior to the status quo.

I also brought up somewhere the fact that gay couples tend to adopt (or use IVF or whatever) to get children in far far fewer numbers, even in supportive jurisdictions.

Yes, and it's not a useful point. Once again, you don't seem to be making a cohesive argument. The question is not whether gay couples tend to adopt more or less than straight couples. The question if you are interested in this (personally, I think it's a civil rights issue) is whether more gay couples would provide stable homes for kids if they were afforded the same rights to marry as everyone else.

My political philosophy is liberty-centric, so all this talk about the government upholding moral views and perspective stands out like a stampeding elephant through a nursing home.  "Oh, that can't be good."

There is a long tradition of marriage being intertwined with government recognition and enforcement of marital norms and what boils down to the "civil union" between two people in a contractual relationship for all intents and purposes.

I see a role for the government in enforcing the rules of the contractual relationship, per Article I of the federal Constitution that applies that duty to the States.  I do not see any reason to continue the government involvement in enforcing social norms, protecting tradition, defending sanctity, defining morality, etc... and view Amendment XIV as specifically prohibiting/nullifying laws that would curtail liberty in this manner (with a substantive due process reading).  Such things are what the People must do themselves through their communities, churches, families, or just individually.

The current marriage laws give certain relationships a special status with special protections based on a social norm.  That needs to end.  Some want to expand the legal definition to ensure that people get equal treatment, others want to protect the special status.  Both seem to be going in the wrong direction but I find the equal treatment route more palatable.  I'd prefer that the government's role was limited to civil unions for any two adults, regulating a contractual relationship per its mandate, and leave the actual marriage itself, with all the moral issues, sanctity, etc, to the People to decide.  If a church wants to recognize gay marriage as valid in the eyes of god, great... if not, fine.  If a community wants to celebrate a gay marriage, great... if they want to frown upon it, fine.  They should be free to do so.  The government doesn't have any valid authority to force it one way or the other.

If people want to have a traditional church wedding that demands they stick to it for a lifetime, through thick and thin, feast or famine, with exceptions only for abuse, infidelity, or legitimate fault... or face supernatural wrath or community ostracizing... so be it.  If they'd rather keep the ceremony and celebration on this plane of reality and celebrate the tradition of human pair-bonding, sexuality, fertility, etc... that's fine too.  If people disagree with either, they can rail on about it all day long... and try to save the heathens, or enlighten the dogmatic.

If a society that embraces liberty didn't have a bunch of folks doing things we disagree with, doing amoral things, or generally being obnoxious it'd be difficult to determine if we actually had that level of freedom.  I'm all for the government securing the blessings of liberty so we can keep ticking each other off and keep proving that it's working. :-)

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

D. Boon-

I disagree with your premise.  If you want public support, you need to show public good.  I'm not simply going to pony up tax dollars for every single life decision someone makes that isn't detrimental to society.  At that point, you might as well ban private property to pay for all the benefits.  If you want public support, you need to show there is a public good being fostered and that the recipients have duties attached.  That is the proper criteria.

And there is also another point I'd like to make.  Marriage isn't a right, it isn't all about an individual getting their cookies.  Viewing marriage in purely selfish terminolgy only ensures its eventual failure.

And Boon, you didn't present any evidence, someone cherry-picked a quote that was an unsubstantiated conclusion from the APA.  I'm not going to take conclusions with blind faith.  I'd like to see HOW they came to that conclusion, because that is what *evidence* is.  I don't live my life following the dictums of self-selected experts who support my own worldview.  I'm the religious one here, why are you the one running around with unquestioning faith?

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

 In fact, legal marriage allows for no more stability than simply cohabitating...

Really, John. Your marriage is that unstable? As I understand it, you're legally married and have the option of legal divorce. That you chose not to exercise it is entirely up to you. Yet it hasn't turned your marriage into a travesty of desertion and abandonment. Just the presence of divorce has not affected your marriage. You make it sound that in our decadent-as-Ancient-Rome culture, divorce is as easy and trivial as saying "I divorce you" three times.

Has anarcy decended upon Massacheusetts since they legalized gay marriage? Nope. Spain? Nope. Belgium? Nope. Canada? Nope.

If you are going to argue that supporting children is the sole reason for allowing gay marriage, you need to address the fact that a very small minority of gay couples actually do have children.

It's not a "very small minority". It's one-quarter to one-third of households (it varies a bit depending on if you're talking about lesbians or gay men). It's about 200,000 children in the United States.

Quite frankly, the stability and child rearing questions are somewhat beside the point. It is not the job of the state to legislate conformance with your religious doctrines.

Nor is it my burden to prove to you that I deserve to be treated equally. Again, if you believe that one governmental policy should apply to only one group and not another, it's the state's responsibility to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest justifying doing so.

If you want public support, you need to show there is a public good being fostered and that the recipients have duties attached.  That is the proper criteria.

Well, I feel an explanation on the 9th Amendment coming on.  That whole part about it not being illegal so it is legal.  The government has to actually pass legislation to take away our rights.  Otherwise we have those rights.  If it aint illegal, it is legal.

So marriage is legal.  It always has been.  The whole part about tax benefits for married couples is Republican legislation.  Something about "family values", I think.  But regardless, you have to show a legitimate reason to take away (or keep away) someone's rights.  This is why we have courts, due process, all that stuff.  Our government is based on the premise that citizens retain most of their rights, and only give up their rights when it can be clearly proven that those rights are detrimental to society.

So no, the burden is on you to prove that gay citizens deserve to have less rights than everyone else.  That is Constitution 101.

Boon-

Gay marriage isn't criminal.  You aren't arguing against making it criminal, you are arguing why you need my tax dollars and support.  That's a different criteria, please try again.  No one here is saying gay marriage should be criminal.  You can have sex, cohabitate, and file all the wills you want.  And marriage isn't a right.  Period.  By insisting such, you simply prove that you are unworthy of it.  You can form any relationship you want, quit pretending like you are being seperated from your gay lover by some tyrannical monarch.  It just isn't true.

Narc-

I was talking about legality, and yes, as far as the law is concerned, yes my marriage is unstable.  Both my wife and I could decide right this moment to leave.  Now, we won't, but then again, we don't look at marriage as a legal institution.  And speaking at least for myself, I couldn't give a damn what the legal institution says we should or should not be doing.  Let's keep this in the "legal" realm because we're talking about legal recognition.  In a no-fault divorce regime, marriage is simply no more stable than dating or cohabitating.  You can call it "my religious doctrines" all you want... I've not brought religion in to this.  You have.  First, by inisisting on blind faith to your dogmatics, and then by saying I disagree because of my religion.  There are plenty of behaviors not condoned by my religion, I don't argue that they all be made illegal.  If you want publicly recognized marriage, you need to show my a public good.  So far, all you've done is fire a barage of ad hominems.  Fine, but if you want might makes right, then you're going to lose and lose badly.  You want to change things, you most surely DO need to justify it.  And for the record, again, I'm not supporter of the status quo.

xian-

You can play all the rhetorical cames you want, my point wasn't the likelihood of staying together, it was the fact that **legally** married couples are no more bound to stay together than dating couples.  The only difference is the paperwork involved.  There are no LEGAL duties to stay together for a married couple.  As for promoting family units, you brought this into the conversation here.  As far as ponying up for my marriage, I'm not entirely convinced you do.  When your Messiah, Saint Obama the Great takes office and repeals the evil tax cuts, I'll be paying more in taxes for being married than I would if I was just shaking up.  And quite frankly, I didn't get married for the tax benefits, I never thought of those implications.  I imagine most people don't.  But you do illustrate what this is about, you want to force acceptance of your lifestyle down my throat.  Hey, if you don't want me forcing Christian doctrine down your throat, how about you return the favor?   Go have your sodomy in peace, quit insisting that all of us need to get behind you as a cheering squad while you're doing it.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

Ok, just to interject some supported facts into this debate - when the federal DOMA was passed in 1996, Rep. Hyde asked the GAO "to identify federal laws in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status."

They found 1,049 laws in the US Code that are contingent upon, or otherwise affected by, marital status.

Now, if you'd like to go repeal all those laws, John, your marriage would be on equal legal footing to "sha[c]king up".

And these are the protections that homosexual couples are looking for - just equal treatment to heterosexual couples.  Personally, I'm with Glock on this one - the federal government should have no role in marriage - it should be restricted to recognizing a social contract between two parties under contract law.  Marriage is the dominion of the church, not the state.  So let's repeal all those laws.

I'm unconvinced that those 1,049 laws really "support" marriage.  I've seen the figure before.  For instance, all the welfare laws do mention marriage, so they can specifically penalize married couples IRT welfare benefits.

As for xian fist-pumping screaming hate speech, hey, fine, we'll just amend the California constitution, you lose.  If that's all you got is whining and crying, then you have nothing.  And this conversation is pointless because all you're doing is making a philosophical discussion personal.

--
j
Part-Time Pundit

Both my wife and I could decide right this moment to leave.

Um, even if we rolled civilization back prior to Henry VIII, when dissolving a marriage required special dispensation from the Pope, you and your wife could still decide right this moment to leave. You could just up and walk out the door. Even if we lived in your no-divorce Paridise, there's forcing you to stay.

You can call it "my religious doctrines" all you want... I've not brought religion in to this.  You have.

Oh please, let's not pretend that anti-gay discrimination doesn't ultimately descend from the Bible and centuries of religious persecution of gays and lesbians. The Right fought tooth and nail against Lawrence v. Texas. Prominent Christians like John Hagee and Pat Robertson constantly blame the natural disaster of the week on the presence of teh gay. Oh yeah, and teh feminists.

The only difference is the paperwork involved.

Yeah, and Microsoft buying Yahoo is the same as when I go out and buy a CD. The only difference is the amount of paperwork involved. It sounds like John thinks people just wake up in the morning and think, "Huh, I think I'll get a divorce today."

When your Messiah, Saint Obama the Great takes office...

I find this snide comment especially ironic considering the Republican party officials are now actually likening John McCain to Jesus.

...you want to force acceptance of your lifestyle down my throat.  Hey, if you don't want me forcing Christian doctrine down your throat, how about you return the favor? Go have your sodomy in peace, quit insisting that all of us need to get behind you as a cheering squad while you're doing it.

Yeah because, as we all know, no married straight guy has ever gotten a hummer. You'll have to explain exactly how two people getting married in a ceremony you're not even invited to is forcing a "lifestyle" upon you. When they redo their window treatments or draw up a durable power or attorney, does that also force their lifestyle upon you? Unless it's just that they're allowed to fully participate in our common society. Why is it that in this sort of discussion it always comes up to the fact that the queers are forcing their lifestyle down someone's throat? Does it never occur to anyone that's probably not the best metaphor to use?

For the remainder of the thread, we should just pick the most sociopathically insincere person in the thread and just have them play with themself.

One person spewed this:

Go have your sodomy in peace, quit insisting that all of us need to get behind you as a cheering squad while you're doing it.

And another, who happens to be the same person said this:

If that's all you got is whining and crying, then you have nothing.  And this conversation is pointless because all you're doing is making a philosophical discussion personal.

What's worse? Spewing hate against a whole class of people or gleefully proclaiming that he will eagerly deny their rights to them?

JB is a one-man argument for the folly in heterosexual childrearing. His words actually make my monitor cry. Any gay couple certainly couldn't do any worse.

What I've learned from this thread is that some people seem to be unable to have a discussion about process without considering the outcome. It started with a criticism of activist judges - finding supposed rights in the constitution (in this case, the California constitution) that the writers and ratifiers of that constitution in no way intended to include.

Then, some people claimed that this type of judicial activism is good, as judges should "interpret" the law. It was claimed that judicial activism got us great things like the end of slavery and polygamy. When it was pointed out that this was not the case, and the process behind those laws was actually democratic and legislative, well, nothing happened, facts are the enemy of "truth".

Then we shifted to an argument of how the thousands of years old idea of marriage is inherently homophobic and that somehow a group of queer theorists (Not theorists who are queer, but queer theorists - they are the ones doing queer research these days) and some lawyers are the ones who have the power to define what a legal marriage can be.

And then the last stage of the discussion, where Xian condemns somebody for hate spewing, making his moral superiority known to all. This is how we know the discussion is over.

The "will of the people" is generally irrelevant if it conflicts with the limits on government in the Constitution.  If the will of the people is strong enough to change the Constitution, then it becomes relevant again in such cases.

Of course some people obviously disagree and feel that the Amendment process should be subverted by "interpreting" the Constitution in ways that set precedent that, in practice, has a similar effect as Amending the Constitution until that precedent is tossed, if ever.  See the idiocy of the Kelo decision interpreting public to mean private, or the Filburn decision that interpreted interstate commerce to include almost any activity, regardless of whether it includes commerce or any actual interstate activity (the basis for a vast number of otherwise unconstitutional legislation).  Tossing out a law that goes beyond the Constitutional limitations on government is a whole different ball game, and perfectly acceptable since Marbury v. Madison.  Such "activist" judicial actions are absolutely necessary.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

I have nothing to say back to you Alfin wo i just going to write "Boogle"

 now can i look in your pants to see if you can get married

It's not like you have to take Advanced Placement Queerdom your senior year.

Not yet! But in Robert's head, the gays are already meeting in small groups to write the curriculum.

Narc... that's just a front for the Log Cabin Illuminati.  ;-)  

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

And this just in:

ALBANY — New York Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

It looks like conservatives are going to end up on the wrong side of yet another civil rights movement.  Of course supporting McCain in the fall could mean enough conservative judges to overturn these state laws (we all know how eager conservative judges are to use the power of the federal government to deny citizens their constitutional rights).  Yet another reason to reject Mr. McCain's candidacy. 

McCain himself is supportive of States deciding these matters, so I don't see much risk there.

Sure, as long as McCain appoints himself to the SCOTUS.  But if he appoints someone "in the mold" of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito then I think you can rest assured that any of the state supreme court decisions upholding the rights of gay citizens to marry will be overturned.  It is a huge issue and anyone who supports equal protection under the law has to think twice before voting for McCain, imo.

Since none of the current presidential nominees are supportive of legislation to do it in the mean time, it remains a stalemate issue on the federal level.

Well, again, I would say that it is all about the person being nominated for the courts.  An Obama presidency will see many more federal judges who attempt to interpret the constitution as a living document, able to change to accomodate the progressive morals and values of our society.  A McCain presidency will see more judges who use the bench to restrict the rights of the citizens, especially in civil rights cases.

I think that the choice is pretty clear on this particular issue, and it is one of the big reasons I support Obama over McCain.  I just don't want any more Scalias or Alitos on the court.

Boon... I could certainly see other issue areas where conservative justices would conflict with your view of the Constitution and may stand in the way of legislation you think is appropriate for civil rights, but on this particular issue of a State allowing gay marriage, I think you're way off in assuming how they'd rule.  It just does not fit their jurisprudence to throw out State law that doesn't violate the federal Constitution or valid federal legislation.  I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that they would or how they'd even formulate such an opinion.  You may view them as the big evil anti-rights crew... but their legal arguments on cases where you disagree with them isn't based on emotion or how they wish the Constitution should be for the times, but just how it is and how it applies to a case in their opinion.  Interpreting... not amending through interpretation.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed