CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[S-Des]

Part of the reason the court system was set up the way it is was to protect the minority from the abuses of those who feel that just because they are a majority allows them to dictate their beliefs to others.

This is also why it is important for judges in these positions to be free from the pressures of elections.

I don't disagree. However, with judges being more free from pressure, doesn't come any guarantee that they'll be free from prejudice or corruption. You are placing more confidence that 4 out of 7 will rule with wisdom, than belief that the people will make the right decision. Considering the vast number of times I've read posts by people here decrying the legal system, I find that unwavering confidence baffling. If this decision is OK (not the outcome, but the process), then it's equally OK with you if some whack-job court does the opposite somewhere that has different social factors. I'm sorry, I don't trust the court enough to make my laws (even if this decision is all right by me).

 

[S-Des]

Oh, by the way "giving a handful of judges the ability to bypass the legal system" is a very weird distortion of the superior court's entire reason for existing.

No, it's called separation of powers. The Executive branch makes the laws, the Judicial enforces them. This was a case of the Judicial making up a new law that didn't exist before. Whether you approve of it or not doesn't make it any less of a corruption of the system. If this is allowed, then it will also allow new laws to be made up that you might not find as appealing in the future. By then it'll be too late because precedent has been set.

 

[S-Des]

you don't agree with the CA or US constitution? you want judges to look at public opinion polls. why *have* judges?

You are totally missing the point. Judges making up new laws is not in our Constitution (or California's). It's made that way to protect all of our rights. The CA constitution is pretty easy to change and I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't been done before now, but that has nothing to do with judges. I can see why people who've been discriminated against for so long would look at this decision as all roses and puppies, but I see the flip side down the road when some judge (or small group of them) goes the opposite way. If they can overrule the will of the people (not in deciding the law, but in creating it), then they can change things for the better or the worse.

Judges don't look at opinion polls when making legal interpretations, which is good. Politicians do look at opinion polls when making laws, which is good (usually). That's our system. It's not perfect, but it's the one we have (unless someone wants to make a Constitutional Amendment).

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't disagree. However, with judges being more free from pressure, doesn't come any guarantee that they'll be free from prejudice or corruption. You are placing more confidence that 4 out of 7 will rule with wisdom, than belief that the people will make the right decision. Considering the vast number of times I've read posts by people here decrying the legal system, I find that unwavering confidence baffling. If this decision is OK (not the outcome, but the process), then it's equally OK with you if some whack-job court does the opposite somewhere that has different social factors. I'm sorry, I don't trust the court enough to make my laws (even if this decision is all right by me).

Unwavering confidence? Try overwhelming jubilation. It's all about the emotions. You know-- those things that make a person want to marry another person. I have no "unwavering confidence" in our legal system, I've watched our system be fucked over by ugly inhuman little bigots for most of my life. This is a good fuck.

Let me put it this way-- This outcome is so very okay with me that I don't give a fuck how illegal it might possibly be-- in this case.

 

[S-Des]

Let me put it this way-- This outcome is so very okay with me that I don't give a fuck how illegal it might possibly be-- in this case.

And I do understand that.

As I said, I'm looking down the road and wondering where this type of process leads. To me, it's very possibly a place that none of us wants. I will be curious to see how this plays out in the Fall. Perhaps voters will shrug their shoulders and finally decide that denying those rights to a group of people isn't worth the effort (or maybe even realize that to try to do so is wrong ).

 

[Stella_Omega]

And I do understand that.

As I said, I'm looking down the road and wondering where this type of process leads. To me, it's very possibly a place that none of us wants. I will be curious to see how this plays out in the Fall. Perhaps voters will shrug their shoulders and finally decide that denying those rights to a group of people isn't worth the effort (or maybe even realize that to try to do so is wrong ).

Honey, the "path that none of us wants" is a given, so what? Many of us have lived in a place that none of us wants for all of our lives. Lucky you, you haven't had that experience.

You know of course, that how this plays out in the fall will be dependent on the voters. Are you going to do anything to help educate the ignorant before they vote, or are you planning to spectate and merely indulge your curiosity?

 

[Weird Harold]

You are totally missing the point. Judges making up new laws is not in our Constitution (or California's). It's made that way to protect all of our rights.

How is the CaSC striking down an unconstitutional law -- according to both the California Constituion and the US Constitution -- "making up new laws"?

The jusdges didn't pass any new laws, they simply said you can't pass THIS law.

As for the possible amendment tot he California Constitution, I suspect that this court would also rule that to be unconsitutional under the over-riding US Constitution. States cannot simply ammend their constitutions to reflect local disagreement with national laws.

Most of the anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments will be struck down if they're ever challenged under the "full-fatih and credit" clause of the US Constitution.

But this decison and all of those other probable Judicial ruling is just STOPPING new laws, NOT MAKING new laws

 

[Boxlicker101]

There is no ex post facto. Anything that takes place legally remains legal, even after the law has changed to make new occurances illegal. (That's one reason Lori Drew is being charged the way she is-- because, although you can bet that cyber-bullying laws are being drafted right now, none of them till apply to her.)


You can do your part to defend equal marriage rights by voting against these lying sacks of shit who call themselves 'defenders of family values' and contributing to pro rights campaigns. Make it an "IF" not a "When." in fact-- make it a "When not." You don't even have to be a resident of California to contribute to California campaigns.

You are referring to Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution. Lori Drew is protected by this. However, I believe it only applies to criminal laws.

To find a precedent, look up polygamous marriages before they were outlawed. Were marriages that were prevfiously valid suddenly become invalid because the law changed?

I'm not comparing polygamy with gay marriage. I am wondering if situations which were valid at one time suddenly become invalid because of a change in the law.

I do intend to fight against the initiative. I don't know exactly how, but I will do something, besides voting against it.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You are referring to Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution. Lori Drew is protected by this. However, I believe it only applies to criminal laws.

To find a precedent, look up polygamous marriages before they were outlawed. Were marriages that were prevfiously valid suddenly become invalid because the law changed?

I'm not comparing polygamy with gay marriage. I am wondering if situations which were valid at one time suddenly become invalid because of a change in the law.

I do intend to fight against the initiative. I don't know exactly how, but I will do something, besides voting against it.

Well, however tempting it might be, batting any social conservative you can find over the head is probably a bad idea. Unwelcome publicity and all that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, however tempting it might be, batting any social conservative you can find over the head is probably a bad idea. Unwelcome publicity and all that.

I want to be very careful about holding long and heavy pieces of wood in my hands, at the moment, let me tell you!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Right, we need to win this with ballots not billets!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

rox Surely you can do better than this, Pure? This just ignores what I really said and then imputes a bunch of contemptuous or mischaracterized views to me based on spurious associations. I won't dignify the latter with a response, but will repeat the recent example of what I'm saying that's right in front of everyone's faces here: Mass. judges imposed their personal preferences on this issue, and thereafter between 18 and 26 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (range due to different levels of scope). Thank you, MA judges.

Pure: roxanne has no response here. she repeats the claim, not merely that states passed const'l amendments against gay marriage, but suggests that this hurt the cause. she has no evidence, simply her speculation as to that harming the cause. she ignores my arguments to the contrary, a) the states already outlawed gay marriage, and b) their attempts at state const'l barriers will likely fall as the gay rights cause progresses. for instance the Loving case, in the 70s, before the US Supreme Ct. invalidated all state anti miscegenation laws.

the Loving case--black woman marries white man, goes to jail--is discussed and reproduced here: http://www.slate.com/id/2190811

the parallels to high court 'gay rights' decisions are obvious, and clearly the US SC acted properly and even with prudence in deciding as they did, despites widespread opposition to interracial marriage.

it might be mentioned that California Supreme Ct. had thrown out such laws 20 years earlier, in the 1950s, despite citizens' discomfort. no doubt roxanne would have criticized that position at the time.

in any case, rox's appeals to "democracy" and "will of the people" and "legislatures" to trump courts do not ring true; they are made opportunistically; they would not have been uttered had the CA court affirmed property rights. legislatures trumping courts is British and Canadian law, not American.

Oh get out of here, Pure - what do you mean "opportunistically"? I'm on the same side as everyone else here, for goodness sake.

Talk about "speculative," you are dismissing my point by putting all your eggs in the basket of some mythical future US Supreme Court ruling along the lines of Roe v Wade in that it would preempt state regulation in the area of marriage. Personally I think that is not only highly problematic (for reasons I've outlined) but is a pipedream in the forseeable future (a probability that reasonable people can disagree about, however). What is beyond contention is that the state gay marriage ban constitutional amendments adopted in the wake of the MA court ruling will not be repealed in those states for several generations. Absent those amendments, incremental progress would have occurred in even the most benighted places, and this would have been accelerated as states like CA adopted the reform via popular initiative in the coming years.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh get out of here, Pure - what do you mean "opportunistically"? I'm on the same side as everyone else here, for goodness sake.

Talk about "speculative," you are dismissing my point by putting all your eggs in the basket of some mythical future US Supreme Court ruling along the lines of Roe v Wade in that it would preempt state regulation in the area of marriage. Personally I think that is not only highly problematic (for reasons I've outlined) but is a pipedream in the forseeable future (a probability that reasonable people can disagree about, however). What is beyond contention is that the state gay marriage ban constitutional amendments adopted in the wake of the MA court ruling will not be repealed in those states for several generations. Absent those amendments, incremental progress would have occurred in even the most benighted places, and this would have been accelerated as states like CA adopted the reform via popular initiative in the coming years.

Incremental progress?

"Okay, you all can get one-quarter married. Sometime in the dim future, you can get one-third married. In another generation, if you all act like nice, polite little gays and lesbians, you can be one half married, won't that be wonderful?"

You are indulging in your very own speculation, obviously.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I do intend to fight against the initiative. I don't know exactly how, but I will do something, besides voting against it.

I don't know the answers to your other comments, but-- thank you for this, Box.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The people who are saying "We have to go slow because there might be a backlash. And we don't like that 'activist judges' made a decision against the will of the majority."

What they're really saying is "We're denying these people their rights because those people aren't really people."

My take on it at least.

BS.

Read the posts. What I've been describing is what happened. You can ignore that history or not - your choice. Reasonable people can disagree about what it means for the future, but over the past decade it produced very, very bad outcomes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

BS.

Read the posts. What I've been describing is what happened. You can ignore that history or not - your choice. Reasonable people can disagree about what it means for the future, but over the past decade it produced very, very bad outcomes.

And doing nothing would have made gay marriage all right with the bigots.

Yep, that always works. Like a charm.

 

[Pure]

oh

rox I'm on the same side as everyone else here, for goodness sake.

pure: in principle, my friend. in practice, almost everyon in the thread hails the decisions, and thinks they were a good thing. the reac[t]ions to Mass are not given much significance by most of us.

you apparently regret that the matters got to those courts, and that they decided as they did, when they did.

notwithstanding this, you are a friend to women, a supporter of their issues, and nothing of a homophobe. not sure where you stand on 'gay marriage', but clearly you believe gays and lesbians should not have any disabilities or disadvantages in society; they should have rights to the same enjoyments and benefits as all others.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box,
In California it takes more than a simple majority to change the constitution. To pass a law, yes. To amend the constitution, no. Whether it can be overturned in November is highly questionable. This will be an election with a high turnout, IMO, and in that atmosphere, especially if Cali goes Dem, a social-conservative agend is unlikely to carry much weight.

I'm not at all sure of that. I have been trying to find something on it, and all I found was this:
http://www.youthlaw.org/publication..._85s_defeat_in_california_means_aap_v_lungren

And it doesn't seem to be working.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm on the same side as everyone else here, for goodness sake.

in principle, my friend. in practice, almost everyon in the thread hails the decisions, and thinks they were a good thing. the reacions to Mass are not given much significance by most of us.

you apparently regret that the matters got to those courts, and that they decided as they did, when they did.

notwithstanding this, you are a friend to women, a supporter of their issuees, and nothing of a homophobe. not sure where you stand on 'gay marriage', but clearly you believe gays and lesbians should not have any disabilities or disadvantages in society; they should have rights to the same enjoyments and benefits as all others.

My mailboxes are filled with congratulations from all over the world. My phone has been ringing off the hook-- Two weddings planned for midsummer's day already!

I know only one putatively non-het who is so worried about the tomorrow's backlash she cannot share in today's joy. Roxy claims to be a woman and a lesbian-- I've had my doubts for a very long time on both of those claims. Just thought I'd mention that.

You know what--if you ain't with us right now, you're agin us.
If you want to work against that backlash, say so, loud and clear. If you don't care to, I'd like to know that as well.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm on the same side as everyone else here, for goodness sake.

in principle, my friend. in practice, almost everyon in the thread hails the decisions, and thinks they were a good thing. the reacions to Mass are not given much significance by most of us.

That's too bad that "the reactions to Mass are not given much significance by most of us," and frankly isn't very complimentary to "the rest of us," because those reactions mean that - absent your mythical, speculative and highly implausible future grand US Supreme court fiat - some 100 million citizens will be barred from this reform for several generations or more. If I were a political actor with principles and a concern for actual outcomes rather than "making a statement," and "the rest of us" were my campaign advisors, I'd fire your ass.

BTW, I don't think that the CA ruling will be nearly as problematic as Mass, if problematic at all, for two reasons. First, people expect "whacky" things from CA and especially CA judges, so many will just roll their eyes rather than going postal. Second, society has moved a long way on this issue in the 10 years since the MA ruling - its salience and the opportunity to demogogue on it have declined signifigantly.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's too bad that "the reacions to Mass are not given much significance by most of us," and frankly isn't very complimentary to "the rest of us," because those reactions mean that - absent your mythical, speculative and highly implausible future grand US Supreme court fiat - some 100 million citizens will be barred from this reform for several generations or more. If I were a political actor with principles and a concern for actual outcomes rather than "making a statement," and "the rest of us" were my campaign advisors, I'd fire your ass.

And after you fired our asses what positive steps would you take?

Hmm... It's possible that Roxy has me on ignore. My statement stands; Those millions of citizens have been barred, and will be barred, and would have been barred, no matter how nice the faggots in California behave. Bigotry does not need any excuses, and never has. When the first suffragette chained herself to the Palace gate, some biddy was wringing her hands and worrying about how ladies were going to get into so much trouble. When Rosa Parks refused to stand up, blacks all over the country were worried about the backlash-- quite rightly, too. It has to start somewhere, all the same.


Gay people got NOWHERE in their fight to be free of police persecution untill The Stonewall Riots made people realise that there were more than just a few of us. It did NOT fucking MATTER how polite, or patient, or pleasant they were. There had been efforts to improve LBGT situations since the fifties. The politics of placation DO NOT WORK.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And after you fired our asses what positive steps would you take?

Hmm... It's possible that Roxy has me on ignore. My statement stands; Those millions of citizens have been barred, and will be barred, and would have been barred, no matter how nice the faggots in California behave. Bigotry does not need any excuses, and never has. When the first suffragette chained herself to the Palace gate, some biddy was wringing her hands and worrying about how ladies were going to get into so much trouble. When Rosa Parks refused to stand up, blacks all over the country were worried about the backlash-- quite rightly, too. It has to start somewhere, all the same.


Gay people got NOWHERE in their fight to be free of police persecution untill The Stonewall Riots made people realise that there were more than just a few of us. It did NOT fucking MATTER how polite, or patient, or pleasant they were. There had been efforts to improve LBGT situations since the fifties. The politics of placation DO NOT WORK.

Oh, I'd never put you on ignore, Stella darling - among everything else your new av is too dashing.

Here's what the argument is about: Whether progress in this area (or any other social issue that arouses deep passions) is advanced or retarded by unelected judges imposing their personal preferences when populations are not ready to go there. I contend that this is counterproductive, and cited the actual outcome of the MA ruling as my evidence - states representing a third to a half the population adopting constitutional marriage bans that will be all but impossible to get rid of for several generations.

So what do I recommend? Keep moving forward by doing the things that change the hearts and minds of the people. It's happening right now, and has been since probably the 1960s. The generations coming of age in this millennium are already there for the most part; as old farts die off and more of these young whippersnappers come along progress will accelerate, in addition to the some of those still-living old farts changing their minds.

The unavoidable reality is that you cannot force populations on an issue like this, and if you try it will bite you in the ass every time. Ignore this at your peril, and however loudly some people screech that "it's unfair," "it's unjust," "it's not right," etc., their doing so won't do a damned thing to change that reality.

 

[Pure]

note to rox

Here's what the argument is about: Whether progress in this area (or any other social issue that arouses deep passions) is advanced or retarded by unelected judges imposing their personal preferences when populations are not ready to go there. I contend that this is counterproductive, and cited the actual outcome of the MA ruling as my evidence - states representing a third to a half the population adopting constitutional marriage bans that will be all but impossible to get rid of for several generations.

Rox, your second sentence is a bit of a cliche. First of all it hardly fits gay marriage. As has been pointed out, if gays and lesbians marry, the freedom of others, hets, to marry is not affected. NOBODY in CA is now going to be imposed on. RATHER x many million gays and lesbians who WERE imposed on--
you can't marry-- are not free of that imposition. It's hardly worth of your mind, and more what i expect of Rush.

If you think the CA thing might be progressive, it rather undermines your point that the MA decision was overall counterproductive. And your point is entiely speculative, whether you admit it or not. The fact that MISS rednecks--I will suppose-- were fired to amend their state const. to deal with the lavender menace, *where those marriages were already illegal* is hardly going to cause a gay rights enthusiast to lose sleep.

You speak of my foreseeing a SC decision like Roe v Wade in the area of gay marriage as mythic. I don't think that at all. Give the Dems ten years and a chance for thier "activist judges" and it will happen. We need some of your activist judges to die off.

This is exactly the area, like interracial marriage, resolved in Loving, where the bigots hang on for a hundred years. they DON'T incrementally give it up. the South before the civil war was an example: *tightening* laws around slavery.

In any case, you ignore many factors in speculating on overall retardation of the project. for instance, activists are *energized* by wins, and go on to others in the NON entrenched areas. in fact the CA win was partly energized by MASS decision. AND it's abundantly clear that CA will energize gays in other places with liberal populations, to go to court and win.

the interracial decision in CA predates Loving by 20 years, and arguably spurred it, not delayed it. regardless of whether Mississippian reacted the other way, hypothetically.

Brown v Board of Ed in the fifties arguably spurred efforts for civil rights, and that resulted in the civil rights federal laws of the 1960s. same applies to women's suffrage efforts. despite your alarums, you have presented perhaps one "possible" case [reconstruction]which shows [evidence for] the path you claim is universal. Could you bless us with two other examples?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, I'd never put you on ignore, Stella darling - among everything else your new av is too dashing.

Here's what the argument is about: Whether progress in this area (or any other social issue that arouses deep passions) is advanced or retarded by unelected judges imposing their personal preferences when populations are not ready to go there. I contend that this is counterproductive, and cited the actual outcome of the MA ruling as my evidence - states representing a third to a half the population adopting constitutional marriage bans that will be all but impossible to get rid of for several generations.

I disagree with you, for the same reasons that Pure gives. These oppressive attitudes are far too deeply entrenched. The constitutional amendments were merely ratifications of the default. These are states where hate crimes against gays are common enough, don't forget-- far from feeling a humane compassion, there are people who would rather batter a young man to death. Marriage is for humans-- not the subhuman pervert.

In these states, the constitutional amendments, if they are changed from within the state, will be indicative of a change that would make me want to believe in god! The only other way they will change is by way of federal intervention, just as every other equal rights measure has had to be enforced.

Also, you know-- the states that put it into their constitution are likely the only ones that would. MrsDeathlynx posted this linkshows what states where feel how-- and surprisingly, there are several that honor 'foreign' marriages.

So what do I recommend? Keep moving forward by doing the things that change the hearts and minds of the people. It's happening right now, and has been since probably the 1960s. The generations coming of age in this millennium are already there for the most part; as old farts die off and more of these young whippersnappers come along progress will accelerate, in addition to the some of those still-living old farts changing their minds.

The unavoidable reality is that you cannot force populations on an issue like this, and if you try it will bite you in the ass every time. Ignore this at your peril, and however loudly some people screech that "it's unfair," "it's unjust," "it's not right," etc., their doing so won't do a damned thing to change that reality.

What things do you think will change their hearts and minds? The men who battered Matthew Sheppard to death where young whippersnappers. Right now they would be the agee to be teaching their five and six-year-old children the same hatred.

Nothing, on the other hand, changes a mind like a fait accompli, as we've seen in the matters of women's rights, abortions, and interracial marriage. The unavoidable reality is that you must force populations on these issues, and-- once you have-- no matter how loudly they screech (Screech? An singularly disprespectful word choice in this context) that that "it's unfair," "it's unjust," "it's not right," etc., their doing so won't do a damned thing to change the new reality.

I'd like to ask you once more, Roxy; are you planning to be activist about this during this year? Or are you going to harangue us about how stupid and wasteful we're being? Or will you shut up and wish us well? Two of those choices are better than one of them is; one of those choices is optimal.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I hav a a proposal that might do something. The minions of those who oppose gay marriage will be out soon, collecting signatures on a petition to change the CA constitution to outlaw gay marriage. They need about 900,000 valid signatures to get it on the ballot. After they have collected the signatures, they turn them over to the Secretary of State, and they are evaluated to verify that they are actually valid. Donald Duck is not allowed to sign the petition.

A sample of the signatures is taken, and if too many of them are found to be invalid, the whole pile is rejected. In other words, if enough of the names and addresses do not match those of registered voters, those are thrown out, If there are enough Donald Ducks and Porky Pigs and Daisy Ducks, the petition is rejected and not placed on the ballot.

My proposal is this: If I and other Californians go about signing the petitions, using fake names and addresses, and enough of these bogus signatures are included in the sample, it may sabotage the effort of the bigots. I don't believe any danger would adhere to the signers, although they would be committing perjury. I don't know if the signature gatherers ask for ID or not. That could kill the idea, but it might be worth considering.