Gay marriage opponents vow to fight Calif. ruling

[Saint Peter]

An argument against electing judges maybe?

Works good with the Supreme Court.

Oh, wait.

Nevermind.

 

[overthebow]

There is supposed to be an constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot this fall in California which would ban same gender marriage.

I think gay marriage supporters should put an amendment initiative on the ballot which would allow gay marriage. That would fuck things up royally.

I wonder who would get to sort out that mess should both pass.

 

[Luk]

I wonder who would get to sort out that mess should both pass.

Most likely California taxpayers. Heh.

 

[Absolut]

The judges said a law banning same-sex marriage violates the State Constitution. The voters in the State can change the constitution. Thus, they don't want the ruling enforced until they try to change the constitution to make the ruling moot.

Thank you for explaining it to me, much appreciated.

Does this occur a lot? It almost seems like what came first, the chicken or the egg? There's the states constitution, and then there's a ruling on it, and when a ruling is made that some people don't like then there needs to be changes made so the ruling, as you said is moot.

 

[Absolut]

An argument against electing judges maybe?

They don't do that we're I am, all of our are political appointments for life I believe. It seems to have worked rather well so far.

 

[Wrong Element]

Holy shit really?

It seems rather like a bit of circus then ... we'll elect you, but if you make a decision we don't like please don't make it law until we can vote on it.

I looked it up: judges aren't directly elected, but they're appointed by governors and then have to face the electorate for "keep/don't keep" votes. California has had Republican governors for all but 4 1/2 years since 1983, so I'm guessing most of the judges were originally Republican appointees--possibly why some of the usual suspects are muted in their criticism.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

please stop posting....

Please stop misunderstanding the issues.

 

[Legenda]

Thank you for explaining it to me, much appreciated.

Does this occur a lot? It almost seems like what came first, the chicken or the egg? There's the states constitution, and then there's a ruling on it, and when a ruling is made that some people don't like then there needs to be changes made so the ruling, as you said is moot.

All 50 States have their own constitutions and rules for changing them. Some states have proposed amendments on the ballot every election, others not so much. I hear a lot about California changing theirs quite often, so I assume its a rather easy process.

Of course, a State Constitution cannot proscribe something protected by the Federal Constitution.

 

[Sean]

Is this at all making sense?
In simple terms, people vote for elected officials, those officials appoint people to the bench to act as judges, the judges make a ruling but now some people want the judges to wait so the people can now vote on their decision?

Don't get me started on electing judges.

 

[shoulderblade]

They don't do that we're I am, all of our are political appointments for life I believe. It seems to have worked rather well so far.

Same here. There seems to be some issues that come up in either 'election' or 'appoint/verify' that don't come up otherwise.

I'm learning stuff here.

 

[shoulderblade]

Don't get me started on electing judges.

Stay calm. Sit and watch.

 

[Absolut]

Don't get me started on electing judges.

Oh go on, I'm sure your just bursting to tell me.

 

[Absolut]

All 50 States have their own constitutions and rules for changing them. Some states have proposed amendments on the ballot every election, others not so much. I hear a lot about California changing theirs quite often, so I assume its a rather easy process.

Of course, a State Constitution cannot proscribe something protected by the Federal Constitution.

It seems a rather slippery slope when politics and the law are so tightly intertwined. Judges I always thought were there to make rulings, but this system seems to circumvent that process by needing people to then vote on a particular ruling by making changes to their constitution.

 

[Sean]

Stay calm. Sit and watch.

Oh go on, I'm sure your just bursting to tell me.

I've got a few rants on Lit about this.
Electing judges panders to the lowest common denominator. You end up with a system where your AG's and Prosecutors and Judges become politicians. It's bad Law.
It also fucks with your much vaunted separation of powers.

 

[Legenda]

It seems a rather slippery slope when politics and the law are so tightly intertwined. Judges I always thought were there to make rulings, but this system seems to circumvent that process by needing people to then vote on a particular ruling by making changes to their constitution.

Without a dose of outrage on occasion, the people would get bored. Since WWII the power has been dramatically shifted to the Federal government and most State constitutions have become largely symbolic.

Even with this issue, the US Supreme Court will probably get involved. Because the Federal Constitution requires each State to give "full faith and credit" to every other State, someone who marries in California will still be married if they move to Nevada. Thus, the other States who are more homophobic will want the US Supreme Court to rule that "marriage" is not a fundamental right, and can be regulated by the States.

 

[shoulderblade]

Even with this issue, the US Supreme Court will probably get involved. Because the Federal Constitution requires each State to give "full faith and credit" to every other State, someone who marries in California will still be married if they move to Nevada. Thus, the other States who are more homophobic will want the US Supreme Court to rule that "marriage" is not a fundamental right, and can be regulated by the States.

Though the Supreme Court is not elected.

And 'marriage', though the cornerstone of civilization is not really fundamental.

Interesting.

 

[Faneros]

What I thought I heard was the Judges overturned what the people voted on....thats not great

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sometimes what the people want is wrong.

 

[KRCummings]

What I thought I heard was the Judges overturned what the people voted on....thats not great

Just because an issue goes up for a vote doesn't mean it's constitutional. That can sometimes only be decided by the higher courts who are not allowed to say one way or the other until it is brought before them.
Of course you're an idiot so you'll believe whatever you want.

 

[Saint Peter]

What I thought I heard was the Judges overturned what the people voted on....thats not great

That's not great unless what the people voted for is unconstitutional or illegal.

Keeps mob rule down to a low rumble.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

What I thought I heard was the Judges overturned what the people voted on....thats not great

It's California. Things are different. Everything from Abortion to what color toilet paper to put in city bathrooms is decided by election. (It takes too long to explain why.) It's meant to be an imperfect system, with the courts as a fail safe. Hundreds of laws "chosen by the people" (instead of the legislature) are later determined by the courts to be unconstitutional and are overturned.

Don't get all bunched up that this is denying the "Will of the People". Very few people actually vote on these things.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

What do I keep saying? It's not about fucking. It's about America. Their concern is for the basic building block of civilization (as they see it). If you want to deal with them, seriously, then you have to recognize that this is the level they're playing on.

Or wait until enough people who feel this way have gay sons/daughters who want to get married.

 

[Faneros]

It's California. Things are different. Everything from Abortion to what color toilet paper to put in city bathrooms is decided by election. (It takes too long to explain why.) It's meant to be an imperfect system, with the courts as a fail safe. Hundreds of laws "chosen by the people" (instead of the legislature) are later determined by the courts to be unconstitutional and are overturned.

Don't get all bunched up that this is denying the "Will of the People". Very few people actually vote on these things.

"You're a smart man" -- said in Forrest Gump voice

 

[zipman]

What do I keep saying? It's not about fucking. It's about America. Their concern is for the basic building block of civilization (as they see it). If you want to deal with them, seriously, then you have to recognize that this is the level they're playing on.

I prefer the analogy of "tearing the fabric" of our culture.

It brings to mind images of conservative mid-western quilting bees.

Much more powerful.

 

[MechaBlade]

Sometimes what the people want is wrong.

This is true.

America has no one religion ("Christianity" hardly covers all the sects). No one Royal family. It has marriage as the leveler, the center of every community, the yardstick for everything else we value. It's not religion or leadership around which this country was formed. It was marriage. It's the pivot around which the country was built. That's why they care. They think if homos are allowed to call their unions "marriage" the keel of the ship that keeps America on course will break. They're quite serious about this.

Disagree. America has Christianity. 76% of Americans are Protestant or Catholic. Religion is our one social value, specifically Christianity. Historically, to justify any social issue, we bring out the Bible.

Marriage isn't the cornerstone. It's just the last block, maybe. We stripped away prayer in schools and blue laws and bans on sodomy in Texas. There are people who think we should remove "under God" from our Pledge (me). We allowed abortion (somewhat a religious issue), quickie marriages... Hell, we were scared that a presidential candidate might be Muslim just because he has an Arabic name. The de-Christianization of America started long ago, and perhaps the last "marriage" of church and state is marriage. Without traditionally Christian marriage enforced by law, we're not a Christian nation, just a nation of Christians.