Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=30...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
California Supreme Court to decide on gay marriage ban - snopes.com
Http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080514...cietycourtgays
California's highest court will give its ruling on the legality of the state's ban on gay marriages on Thursday, a long-awaited milestone that could have a nationwide impact on the issue.
A statement on the California Supreme Court website in San Francisco said the opinion would be made available by 10 am (1700 GMT) after hearing arguments for and against the ban at in March.
The court is addressing the constitutionality of a controversial amendment to the civil code which states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
|
|
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.
The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.
Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.
|
|
|
While I totally support gay marriage, I want someone to explain to me how the overturning a voter suppoted law is not a giant middle finger to democracy and the will of the electorate?
|
|
"Democracy" doesn't mean "50%+1 are always right and always get their way." The electorate supported a crude and bigoted law that the court found to be in violation of the California constitution.
They'll have to go cry about it or something.
It was a giant middle finger to the "will of the electorate." Tough shit.
|
|
Quote: : "Democracy" doesn't mean "50%+1 are always right and always get their way." The electorate supported a crude and bigoted law that the court found to be in violation of the California constitution.
They'll have to go cry about it or something.
So voters don't get to decide what's right and wrong, unelected judges do?
|
|
Quote: : Redwood While I totally support gay marriage, I want someone to explain to me how the overturning a voter suppoted law is not a giant middle finger to democracy and the will of the electorate?
Because democracy is supposed to be more than just mob rule, at least it was when I went to school.
It was taught as "rule by the majority with respect for the rights of the minority".
One of the primary functions of the courts, worldwide, has been to step in when the electorate supports something that is wrong.
Otherwise, one does not need government, the mob will enforce its won will.
|
|
Quote: : Redwood So voters don't get to decide what's right and wrong, unelected judges do?
OMG JUDICIAL ACTIVISM RUN 111 111!!!!
ETA: A more substantive response:
If the voters enact laws that are in violation of the fundamental rights of others, yeah, the courts can tell them where to stick their sexism, homophobia, and general bigotry.
|
|
Quote: : "Democracy" doesn't mean "50%+1 are always right and always get their way." The electorate supported a crude and bigoted law that the court found to be in violation of the California constitution.
They'll have to go cry about it or something.
What they're going to do is try to change the state Consitution in the fall election.
|
|
|
And hopefully they'll fail and be shamed for being horrible people and sexist fundie bigots.
|
|
Quote: : Redwood What they're going to do is try to change the state Consitution in the fall election.
That would count as "or something".
|
|
|
So what's the point of voting if the court can just say "Sorry we disagree"?
|
|
|
They didn't just say "sorry, we disagree." They said "sorry, the constitution doesn't permit you to deny that to couples just because their genitalia is the same." Maybe if people were more careful about not being horrible sexist fundie bigot homophobe jackasses when they vote, they wouldn't be disappointed by the court
|
|
Quote: : Redwood So what's the point of voting if the court can just say "Sorry we disagree"?
What's the point of having a Supreme Court if they don't have any authority to decide the constitutionality of laws?
|
|
Quote: : They didn't just say "sorry, we disagree." They said "sorry, the constitution doesn't permit you to deny that to couples just because their genitalia is the same." Maybe if people were more careful about not being horrible sexist fundie bigot homophobe jackasses when they vote, they wouldn't be disappointed by the court Oh okay, I see your point.
You're right they're not the same thing.
I'm not surprised at the ruling, but I am surprised that it was 4-3.
I am curious to read the dissenting opinions on this one.
|
|
Quote: : Constitution of California A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;
Men and women did not have equal protection of the laws.
They were not given the same rights.
Men had the right to marry women, whereas women did not, and vice versa.
|
|
Quote: : Redwood So voters don't get to decide what's right and wrong, unelected judges do?
Yep. And if you don't like it, take it up with those radicals who framed the constitution.
|
|
Quote: : Redwood So what's the point of voting if the court can just say "Sorry we disagree"?
Thing is, we don't live in a democracy, and i doubt with any thought you would think that a democracy is a good idea.
(a true democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner).
We live in a representative democracy with a check and balance system that is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Picture this in a different light.
What if there had been a referendum to outlaw all mosques in October of 2001?
There would have been a good chance of that passing a popular vote, but there is now way that would have been a fair, just or right law.
Somewhere there needs to be a check against the majority power when it infringes on someones constitutional right.
the checks and balances are really a requirement to keep our country moving forward, check Jim Crow laws, Internment camps, miscegination laws, desegragation - without this judicial check we may continue to operate in a clearly un-american, immoral, unconstitutional manner.
If you really want to see what happens when the majority rules unchecked, watch a season of American Idol, then come back and say that is a good governmental model.
|
|
Great news. The California website is getting hammered, so I hosted the full decision here.
A couple of points:
1.
Prop 22, which the decision overturns, only amended California law, not the California constitution.
Therefore it's no different than any statute passed by the legislature, and subject to the same constitutional scrutiny.
2.
There's a ballot measure pending signature approval that would amend the California constitution.
That would wipe out this decision.
But it won't be voted on until November.
Lots of people will get married before then.
It's going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
3.
Note that the decision is based entirely on the California constitution.
Gay marriage brings out the fair-weather-federalism of some social conservatives -- they are all for letting the states be the laboratories of democracy so long as that produces socially conservative laws.
But when state judges, appointed by state-elected governors and re-elected by state voters, interpret the state constitution (enacted by state legislators elected by state voters), suddenly there's a need for federal intervention in the form of a U.S.
Constitutional amendment.
|
|
|
Good news. Though I've always been surprised, considering how prominent the gay community is out there, that it hadn't been legal before.
Two down, fourty-eight more to go.
|
|
Quote: : Mike Night If you really want to see what happens when the majority rules unchecked, watch a season of American Idol, then come back and say that is a good governmental model.
Interesting idea
Randy: Yo, that new law is tight dog!
It's on tonight here in the capital!
Paula: The spirit of this law is just so genuine, so real.
I felt a real connection with this piece of legislation.
Simon: I have to be honest, I think this law is complete crap!
It is an absolute mess, just not good enough at this point in the competition.
Ryan: Well the American people have voted and the results ....are coming right up after this commerical break, stay tuned.
Democracy rules dog!
|
|
|
|