1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

California setting a trend again

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by joseephuss, May 15, 2008.

  1. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    19,720 Messages
    514 Likes Received
    You guys are having too much fun talking about microwaves and popcorn. Start talking about serious subjects.

    I like kettle corn and microwave popcorn really only stinks if you burn it. Don't burn it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

    California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage


    By ADAM LIPTAK
    Published: May 16, 2008

    Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

    The court’s 4-to-3 decision, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, will make California only the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages. The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days, is certain to be an issue in the presidential campaign.

    “In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “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.”

    California already has a strong domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. The majority said that is not enough.

    Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of the concept of marriage, Chief Justice George wrote, the state cannot limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court left open the possibility that the Legislature could use another term to denote state-sanctioned unions so long as that term was used across the board for all couples.

    The state’s ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted by the Legislature in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman. The question before the court was whether those laws violate provisions of the state Constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.

    Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot and approved by the voters, Thursday’s decision would be overridden.

    In 2004, San Francisco issued marriage licenses to thousands of same-sex couples until the courts put a halt to the practice. The state Supreme Court ultimately voided the licenses, saying that city officials had exceeded their authority. Thursday’s decision did not appear to affect the voided licenses.

    Justice Marvin R. Baxter, dissenting, said the majority had should have deferred to the state Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.

    “But a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves.”

    Justice Carol A. Corrigan, also dissenting, wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But she said the courts should allow the political process to address the issue.

    “We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” Justice Corrigan wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

    The California Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision called Perez v. Sharp. The United States Supreme Court did not follow suit until 1967.

    Thursday’s decision was rooted in two rationales, and both drew on the Perez decision.

    The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. “The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

    Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” the chief justice continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.

    The court also struck down state laws banning same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds, adopting a new standard of review in the process.

    With few exceptions, courts considering suits from gay men and lesbians claiming legal discrimination of all sorts have applied a relaxed standard of scrutiny under which the government must show only that the challenged law had a rational basis.

    In Thursday’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the correct standard of review for plaintiffs claiming discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is “strict scrutiny,” the standard used in race-discrimination cases. Under that standard, the government must demonstrate that it has a compelling interest for the law it is defending and that the distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to protect the interest.

    Lawyers for state identified two interests that they said justified reserving the term marriage for heterosexual unions: tradition and the will of the majority. Chief Justice George said neither was sufficient.

    Chief Justice George too pains to emphasize the limits of the majority’s ruling. It does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-sex marriages, he said.

    “No religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples,” Chief Justice George wrote, “and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

    He added that the decision “does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.”

    Other state supreme courts to consider the question of same-sex marriage in recent years, including those in New York, New Jersey and Washington, have been closely divided but stopped short of striking down state laws forbidding it. A decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court is expected shortly.
  2. Dallas

    Dallas Old bulletproof tiger

    11,515 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    What I hate about this is that these judges are making and breaking laws from the bench.

    If a state bans gay marriage then the freakin COURTS and JUDGES need to abide by the people and what they wish.
  3. Bach

    Bach Benched

    7,645 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    And all is well in the land of nuts and fruits.
  4. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Ok so basically The federal and state courts basically can't do anything by the job description you gave them? Why do they even exist? I'll answer it for you, as to prevent any embarrassment on your part. Their job is to uphold the constitution of the U.S. and their respective states! And that means striking down unconstitutional pieces of legislation. Its called CHECKS AND BALANCES! Ever heard of the 14th Amendment? California violated the 14th amendment and the courts corrected it.

    And I thought someone who likes watching homo-erotic movies (300) would be over-joyed by the decision.
  5. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    And all is not well in the lands of the hicks, racists, and inbreds.
  6. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,815 Messages
    80 Likes Received
    Eh. I'm not going to legislate what people can do in the bedroom and if a state wants to choose to allow them to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage, that's fine with me.

    Live and let live. If it's not personally having an effect on my life, knock yourself out.
  7. Bach

    Bach Benched

    7,645 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    This isn't about you though, now is it?
  8. PosterChild

    PosterChild New Member

    2,027 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Hey. That's not entirely fair. I'm not racist.
  9. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I hate bigotry in all its forms, whether its antisemitism (something my ancestors have suffered through), racism, or homophobia.
  10. theogt

    theogt Surrealist Zone Supporter

    43,640 Messages
    281 Likes Received
    Hey genius, the 14th Amendment didn't have anything to do with it.

    The ruling was based on the California state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.
  11. Dallas

    Dallas Old bulletproof tiger

    11,515 Messages
    1 Likes Received

    Am I the only one who is finding the large sink holes in every argument quinthyyyy tries to make?

    Please tell me I am not alone?


    There are a bunch of missing posts in some threads here. I wonder why they are being deleted. :rolleyes:
  12. Bach

    Bach Benched

    7,645 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    People don't choose their race or nationality.
  13. Bizwah

    Bizwah Well-Known Member

    5,827 Messages
    43 Likes Received
    Funny reading that from a guy that continually takes shots at religious people.
  14. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,050 Messages
    885 Likes Received
    I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if it hurts talking out of both sides of your face?
  15. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I only take shots at religious people who try to mix religion and science and/or violate the separation of church and state. Other than that I am perfectly fine with religious people.
  16. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,050 Messages
    885 Likes Received
    So if someone else said they only have problems with gay people you'd be cool with that right?
  17. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Touche. Whats your point? Doesn't take away from the thrust of my argument if you replace '14th amendment' with 'California state constitution'. But if it makes you feel better to beat up on strawmen, go ahead.
  18. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    No I have problems with people who push their religion on others, people who try to alter other people's lifestyle with their religion. Gays by getting married does not affect anyone's life whatsoever. Hence, therein lies the difference.
  19. Hostile

    Hostile Peace Zone Supporter

    118,050 Messages
    885 Likes Received
    You didn't answer the question. You just clarified your own stance, and I wasn't at all interested in that.
  20. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Good.

    I have no problem with this decision.

Share This Page