Hey, bossman, are you trying to start a turf war or something? I thought I was in charge of Massachusetts-bashing.

I KNEW I shoulda stayed out of posting about sports...

J.

When are the peoples represenatives going to start moving against these activist Judges and start procedings to throw them off the bench!!! Judges are supposed to enforce/interpret law not make it! ARE there none with "cahones" enough to stand up and say this far and no farther!

IMPEACHMENT

It is a huge mistake for these issues to be imposed by judicial fiat.

This is something that has to be decided in the state houses and debated among the people and their representatives.

In the end this is not going to be a good thing.

I am not certain about the superior court trial judges, but the California Supreme Court Justices are elected --- remember the infamous Rose Bird, Supreme Court Chief Justice, who was impeached in a recall election back in the 1980's?

If the trial court judges are elected also, this could be fodder for a very entertaining campaign.

Joser,
Allowing evil to prevail in society and usurping the clear will of the people of an entire state is by no means compassionate. This judge's ruling has nothing to do with enforcing the Constitution and everything to do with rule by fiat. If you are so all-fired intent on having gay marriage, then win that right through changing the law - not the imposition of the will of activist judges. What happened today is an egregious and shameful act of piracy.

I made a promise with my girlfriend that I wouldn't marry her until gays could get married as well

1. Does this bullshit line really work? lol

2. If the California Supreme Court reverses, are you willing to divorce her?

"This judge's ruling has nothing to do with enforcing the Constitution and everything to do with rule by fiat. If you are so all-fired intent on having gay marriage, then win that right through changing the law - not the imposition of the will of activist judges."

Exactly.

It isn't so much that allowing gays to marry isn't the right cause to fight, it is how it is being fought. This case should be made in the state legislature and debated there, not imposed through the judiciary.

I made a promise with my girlfriend that I wouldn't marry her until gays could get married as well

Fucking brilliant! I'm going to use this line!

Joser, one question, how does "lack of marriage" mean not being treated as a human being?

See Joser that is half your problem you don't think you can make a case for your position before the people, therefore your opinion is the only one that counts and should be imposed by judicial fiat, rather than the will of the people.

If you feel your position is the correct one, then make a case for it, most people in fact are not biggots, many of them just may not have bothered to consider all sides of the issue.

Make your case, argue your point, but don't just paint everyone with the biggot brush, and say you shouldn't have to, because that really isn't how the consitution or our government or the judiciary was ever designed to work.

Sure some people out there are biggots, but when you consider that huge majorities of people in the various states (many of them states that went for Kerry) you have to realize that you are dealing with more than biggots, unless your position is that 60-70% of the voters are hopeless biggots and whose opinions can't be swayed by open and honest debate.

They already have the same rights as straight couples - they can marry anyone of the opposite sex.

"So, though people may watch Will and Grace and Queer eye and think that gay people are normal everyday people, there are always going to be republicans, and some democrats alike, who are going to make sure that the masses are afraid of the repurcusions of the institution of gay marriage."

See this is half your problem, you just think everyone is a biggot.

When in fact that just haven't heard anyone make a case.

It isn't a matter of making sure the masses are afraid of anything, but the problem is that gay marriage absolutely does take an instutition that has been around since the begining of time, and flips it on its ear, it is rediculous to think that there won't be any ramifications from that flip. Some will be easy to deal with, others may not, and others may not be felt for generations to come.

That is why these issues should be debated, and if takes 20 more years, then it should take 20 more years.

When our constitution was written, there were abolitionists at the time, but the US wasn't ready to end the institution. Now was it right at that time morally? No, but the abolitionists didn't win through judicial fiat, they won by taking the debate to the people, they won, by making a case against slavery, and it still took a couple of generations to change the tide of public opinion.

Look at the civil rights movement for AA's, that also wasn't done over night, and for the most part wasn't brought about through the judiciary, the civil rights acts were debated on the floor of the senate (remember that wonderful senator from WVA who fillibustered the civil rights act?), and passed over time.

The problem is that those in favor of gay marriage want to avoid the debate, they don't want to be bothered with it, and they want what they want now.

But if they win this war by judicial fiat, instead of bringing peopl around, and educating them, they are instead going to have to overcome hostility and anger that the issue was decided by some judge they didn't choose.

Sure going the route of legislative debate takes longer, and requires far more efforts, but in the long run you will win more people over to your side, if you take the time to persaude them, than just have the debate declared over, and that their position loses.

I realize I may appear a bit naive about all this... BUT - it is my understanding that the Constitution of the United States specifically puts the ultimate "last word" in the hands of the people.

If the people define marriage as "one man one woman," and a judge who overturns that is un-Constitutional.

Now, I know that the States have specific rights granted to them, BUT - again - the ultimate power is held by the people.

Just wondering...

---R'cat

I have no illusions of convincing y'all that GLBT Americans deserve the same civil rights as straight Americans---for the same reason I wouldn't try to convice a racist that blacks deserve the same civil rights as whites.

Either you believe in equal rights, or you don't. Clearly, most of the people on this blog are in the "don't" column.

Fifty years ago, many of you would have been howling about activist judges legislating from the bench in Brown v Board of Education

Separate but equal isn't equal. It's just that simple.

If you would like to tell your children someday that you were on the side of equality and justice, you should be supporting gay marriage any way you can.

If you want to explain to your children someday---as Sen. Byrd has had to do---that you hated people who were different than you and tried to make them second-class citizens, then by all means carry on.

Human rights are things like freedom, the right to vote, free speech, etc.

They don't include the "right to marry whoever you want", the "right to happiness", the "right to abort your baby", the "right to file taxes jointly", or the "right to not be called a hedonist".

Gay people already have protections against discrimination in jobs, housing, etc. Almost no one is taking away their freedom, or trying to prevent them from voting, or speaking their minds. (And by the way, comparing their sexual practices to bestiality may not be nice, but it does not constitute taking away any rights.)

Try to be a little less hysterial, and maybe you'll convince someone.

This argument that this is an example of judicial fiat is shallow. Judges are there to interpret the constitution, and therefore, laws get thrown out all the time. It is a checks and balances thing. The general theme in this thread is a curious argument against judicial review, which we've had for 200 years since Marbury v Madison.

And just because California voters passed a ballot initiative doesn't make the initiative constitutional. All of California's controversial direct initiatives go through judicial review, and many of them get tossed out. It is frustrating when it happens, but a completely and necessary constitutional process.

So the majority doesn't exactly rule in my state, or anywhere in the country, and for good reason. The tyranny of the majority can sometimes be quite a burden. Thank goodness we have judicial review, and a judicial branch that is co-equal with the legislature. Who would want it any other way?

Oh and Don, there are many people who don't think there should be any discrimination at all against gays in terms of housing, jobs, etc, but don't think they should get married. There are even many people who think civil unions between gays are ok, but don't think we should call that marriage.

This is not hatred, and it's not treating gays like second-class citizens. There's many people who can't get married - for instance people who are already married, and people who are under a certain age. That doesn't make them second-class citizens and those laws don't mean that everyone hates them.

Maybe instead of insulting everyone, you could try to convince them.

And by the way, I wouldn't at all be suprised if there are some old folks, some of them judges, out there who supported/agreed with Brown v. Board of Education but don't support gay marriage.

"Either you believe in equal rights, or you don't. Clearly, most of the people on this blog are in the "don't" column."

Actually this is a huge assumption to make.

I am not opposed to gay marriages, I am opposed to judges taking the debate out of the hands of the people and telling the legislature what laws they must right.

Even civil rights and slavery-two huge things from our history were not defined in the courts, but in the state houses. Shoot the supremes even gave us the dred scott decision, which should teach us all that, court decisions without the will of the people behind them, can be overturned.

If you want support for your position, you must first garner the support of the people to bring them to your way of thinking, people don't like being dictated to, and court decisions on these issues make them feel that way, it makes them feel powerless and ends up pissing them off.

"See Joser that is half your problem you don't think you can make a case for your position before the people, therefore your opinion is the only one that counts and should be imposed by judicial fiat, rather than the will of the people."

Democracies are not simply defined by their deference to the will of the majority. Political systems that only protect majoritarian interests are fascist. Democracies are also defined by their structural mechanisms to defend the rights of minorities. The right to marriage in this country, since Loving v. Virginia, has been defined as a fundamental human right. It is not constitutional under our democracy to deny a fundamental human right to a class of citizens simply because the majority of citizens don't think that class is entitled to it.

The courts are functioning, in this instance, as the founders intended them to, with the result that we are becoming more like the founder's dream of America (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and less like a fascist state (werk macht frei).

So, just because the state (not to mention the ENTIRE country) has a history of defining marriage as a HOLY union between a man and woman, doesn't mean it should stay that way? How long before the Christian (all of them) church(es) are FORCED to recognize these "marriages" (no matter that to do this would be a CLEAR violation of the 1st Ammendment).

Which state defines it as a HOLY union?

Smoke Eater, the Catholic church has never been forced to accept marriages of other churches, or civil marriages of any kind. Ever. And they aren't forced to recognize divorces either. That argument is a red herring.

If the law forbids me to marry my sister or my labrador retiever is it inhuman? Has our republic been inhuman for over 200 years?

Whom you choose to sleep with or room with or commune with is your business, I don't see why I even need to know; but why apply marrage to these arrangements? What does marrage have to do with sex anyway. Would you agree that you must be married in order to have sex? If I am incapable of having sex am I incapable of getting married? Is being married about living together or making a household? If my best buddy and I want to buy a house together must we marry first?

Tolerance is about allowing others their way, not forcing others to embrace their ways. The Mormans tried to redefine marrage and were denied.

Marrage isn't about a piece of paper to file away or about a tax break; it's about a commitment to make and raise babies.

Where IS that Marrage Ammendment?

"There's many people who can't get married - for instance people who are already married"

Well, why not?

I'd really like to hear someone who supports gay 'marriage' explain why someone can't get 'married' to 2, 3 or more other people.

Anyone care to explain that?

This argument that this is an example of judicial fiat is shallow. Judges are there to interpret the constitution, and therefore, laws get thrown out all the time. It is a checks and balances thing. The general theme in this thread is a curious argument against judicial review, which we've had for 200 years since Marbury v Madison.

And just because California voters passed a ballot initiative doesn't make the initiative constitutional. All of California's controversial direct initiatives go through judicial review, and many of them get tossed out. It is frustrating when it happens, but a completely and necessary constitutional process.

So the majority doesn't exactly rule.....

That argument just doesn't hold water. Majority rule Isthe rule of this country> That's how elected officials from the President down to Judges etc. etc., get to represent us and our wishes-by the majority rule of our Vote which dictates Our choice of how we choose to live and by which representative, in whichever capacity we wish-by majority rule of our vote. Which I might add is how Proposition 22 came about to amend California's Family Code-section 308.5. By a majority Vote of the citizenry 61.4% to 38.6% .
When activist Judges circumvent the majority rule of the people by overthrowing their wishes they have denied us of our rights. They have become minority dictators,saying in effect "We shall tell you what you can and cannot do." "We shall decide for you." Mostly according to their personal political mandates.

Where is representative government in that? Where is the will of the People? Of what use is our Vote and Our right to decide, if a small minority of activist liberal or conservative Judges circumvent Us(In this case by legal Proposition) or the laws enacted by our duly elected representatives?

The churches of Canada ARE being forced to recognize and embrace gay marrage. A situation which is clearly outside their accepted theology.

How far can the State go in demanding accordance with "public attitudes" before we become a totalitarian society?

If the governmental imprint of legitimacy is placed on gay marrage will we as citizens be forced to embrace it in our homes and churches? My first amendment rights are muted to the point of irrelevance if the gay rights agenda can be used to define the Bible as hate literature.

I have no hatred for any person regardless his views but I also have a first amendment right to free association and the right to practice my religion.

It totally figures that this would snowball in the way that it has. These activists can't make a really good, cogent argument to their state's legislature, so they go to a judge and ask them to do the heavy lifting for them. It's total weasel-like behavior.

Jesus, some people around here badly need a junior high civics class.

Be careful David. We live in a republic not a democracy. Our rights are GRANTED by our Creator and guaranteed by the government. A majority is not sufficient to overthrow a right, not even a super majority. The courts have a responsibility to interpret the law but only within the bounds of the Constitution. A right, as defined in the Constitution, may only be modified by an amendment to the Constitution.

For years it was shown that a "majority" favored removing the second amendment but no amendment was ever successful. It was then that those against private gun ownership turned to the juditial branch to "redefine" the second amendment as a right given to official state militias (the guard units).

Marrage isn't about a piece of paper to file away or about a tax break; it's about a commitment to make and raise babies.

So what about married folks who don't want to or can't have children? And must you be married in order to conceive?

Where IS that Marrage Ammendment?

Your precious DOM amendment was never going to happen, it's a carrot dangled in front of you in order to get votes. It's simply, what's the word? Oh, right, pandering.

I'd really like to hear someone who supports gay 'marriage' explain why someone can't get 'married' to 2, 3 or more other people.

Because marriage is a legal contract, and entering into one while already married would be acting in bad faith. However, it should be noted that by some estimates there are about 30,000 polygamists in Utah right now, and no one is bothering to prosecute them.

hpe:
Given the quality of the average High School Civics teacher, I'm afeared the cure is worse than the disease.

The churches of Canada ARE being forced to recognize and embrace gay marrage.

Says who?