Winners: Beleivers in indvidial rights who think the state should stay out of people's lives.

Losers: Bigots who probably hated the brown vs board of education decsion almost as much (damn activist judges!). and hate when the courts overule democratic processes that violate the highest law in the state(or nation) the constituition.

For people who actually believe in freedom this is a good day.

tkp,

Well said.

Losers: Those who believe that unconstitutional voter referendums should be upheld because the majority is always right (i.e. morons)

Btw, how do "traditional marriage proponents" lose here? Did something happen to traditional marriage?

Winners: Beleivers in indvidial rights who think the state should stay out of people's lives

Removing the ability to apply a standard to permitting such relationships hollows out marriage as anything but an expensive pronouncement of going steady.

Winners: By making marriage a triviality, people who harbor contempt to the concept of family.

The court ruled that the state will give a sexual deviancy the same rights as people who are traditional. ww

In this country, the marriage contract is two a two part deal.

Part one is instituted by the religious entity of the couples choice.

Part two is the a contractual/legal part controlled by the government. You can have either part without the other. You don't need a ceremony, all you need is for an authorized individual to sign the wedding license saying you agreed to be married.

You can also have a religious ceremony that has no legal standing. A family member of mine had a wedding in Mexico. Since they didn't get a wedding license there, the ceremony had no legal standing. They had a filled out the paperwork in the U.S. and were legally married when they had the ceremony in Mexico. The two events were separate.

The California ruling says that under the California constitution, you can't stop a two people of the sex from having the same legal/contractual arrangement as a mixed sex couple.

As far as separation of powers advocates being losers, if the Supreme Court of California can't rule on whether or not a law violates the California constitution, what do you perceive their job to be?

You missed another winner - John McCain.

The activist judge thing will make the Rep. voters move back into his camp. He may even pick up California, if the Dem voters are still PO'd and split after the DNC.

"Btw, how do "traditional marriage proponents" lose here? Did something happen to traditional marriage?"

Are you trying out for moronic comment of the year? Or do you actually believe that traditional marriage has traditionally been between members of the same sex?

"Bigots who probably hated the brown vs board of education decsion almost as much."

Brown v. BOE was the right thing to do, but it was a horribly wrong way to do it. It was a regressive, fascist, activist judicial dictat, and as such an aboration to justice and liberty. I'd say that that one judicial dictat was probably the most evil in the history of the US since it opened the floodgates to fascist leftist judicial activism which is probably the greatest threat to America today.

While I support gay marriage this was in fact just as bad and wrong a Brown. You see, unlike you leftists, I do not believe ends do not justify the means.

Actually California already had the best solution to this problem. The gays could form unions that were in no legal way any different from a traditonal marriage, but that wasn't enough. A compromise is never eenough for the fascist "progressives". They want it all and they want it now.

Now Californian's will have to change their consititution to protect the people from the judicial system and even then some idiot will file a law suit claiming that the consitiution is unconstitutional. Just wait.

Wille...this must reinforce your desire to have terrorists released in San Francisco. Has your spittle dried up yet?

re: Sep. of power, Rance - the court didn't just say a law violated the constitution, the law has always said marriage was man+woman, this was further strengthened by the recent vote, they didn't stop at saying this law was unconstitutional, which is within their purview - they took the further step of saying the traditional definition of marriage was itself unconstitutional and must be overturned and forced the state to marry gays. That's the sep. of powers issue, not just saying 'this law is bad' but, like Mass.'s supreme court, saying 'the state must now take a positive action and redefine what a marriage is to make it include things which is has never included before'. There is no law allowing this redefinition for them to uphold, there is nothing in the constitution for them to uphold, they had to manufacture a new right/force the State to take an action unrelated to legislation, which is NOT their job. Each citizen of CA has the right to marry, no one is arguing that, no one would argue that the CA constitution does not allow that. That's not what they ruled, they ruled that not only do they have the right to marry one unrelated, unmarried person of the opposite sex, but they have the right to have a new type of relationship called something which is has never been recognized as before pretty much in the history of the world.

I still believe the best answer is for the state(s) to stop regulating marriage. We don't need the states permission to get married, if indeed marriage is a religious statement/sacrament etc.

If marriage is purely a legal contract between two consenting adults, then the state should treat it as such and at best record the contract for public reference. The state records and adjudicates contracts and contractual issues all the time, no reason to treat "marriage" as anything different.

Some of the best and longest lasting "marriages" I've witnessed were between persons that were not married by the state or any kind of religion.

JFO, it is you and your ilk that do not think terrorists that come out of Cuba are killers? Why are you afraid of them? Maybe you and your significant other can figure that out. At least you can get married in California now. ww

Are you trying out for moronic comment of the year?

No, but you sure are in the running.

Or do you actually believe that traditional marriage has traditionally been between members of the same sex?

I asked what effect this decision had on traditional marriage. I did not suggest that same-sex marriage was traditional. RIF

Actually California already had the best solution to this problem.

And they went ahead and improved it. Good on them.

They want it all and they want it now.

Yes, yes we do. Here's why:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

---------

Now Californian's will have to change their consititution to protect the people from the judicial system and even then some idiot will file a law suit claiming that the consitiution is unconstitutional. Just wait.

Keep waiting. Won't happen.

Huh? It's you Willie who wished the release of terrorists in SF. And I'll bet you fancy yourself a righteous Christian don't ya?

Mantis: "Without due process of the law" you dumbass. The legistature passed the law through due process with the voters approving. How much due process do you want? Nevermind. I don't think you know what you want. ww

Here's the post from that righteous Christian Willie on a blog about terrorists:

I wish they would release them to San Francisco. ww

1. Posted by WildWillie | May 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)

You would then like to see women and children killed in SF or just gays Willie?

Wild Willie is an insane nincompoop who deserves far less attention than what you're paying him.

As for opponents of gay marriage who think it should be put to a referendum, I agree, only so long as your rights are subject to democratic approval as well.

As for this having no effect on traditional marriage (mantis' point), it doesn't. You can still have your traditional wedding and traditional marriage and traditional family and derive whatever worth from that you so choose. Now two men or two women in the country's most populous state can also engage in it. A hundred years from now gay marriages and same-sex parents will be nearly universally accepted, and the bigots who fought it will be regarded in the same light as those who fought (violently) to keep white women from marrying black men.

Massachusetts and California.

No surprises here.

"I asked what effect this decision had on traditional marriage."

Judging by the fact that almost every time this issue has been left to traditional American democratic processes gay marriage has been rejected, I'd say that the majority of the citizens perceive gay marriage to be harmful to traditional marriage.

I can't argue that I agree with that or fully understand the harm (when I did actually have the chance to vote on it I voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage), but I can respect the traditional American legal processes.

Again, I believe the best solution was the compromise of civil unions which already existed in California, but it appears that compromise, the cornerstone of American liberty, is unacceptable to leftist fascists.

Yeah, not sure how this affects "traditional marriages" at all really. These would be marriages in the "eyes of the state", granting gays the same protections and benefits afforded to heteros; they are, however, not marriages in the "eyes of God".

If I'm not mistakes the state can't force churches to recognize gay marriages. If so, that would be an entirely different matter.

In the end, I've come to see the Republican/Christian opposition to this issue on the basis that it will affect traditional marriages as argumentatively weak, intolerant and, worse, not very Christian. Do I agree with gay marriage? No. I find one dude or dudette wanting to marry another dude or dudette and calling them "husband" or "wife" to be really, really weird and, well, oogie. But whatever. This is America and all men and women are to be treated equally, and the state not recognizing the marriage isn't being equal.

Most importantly, it doesn't affect me or my relationship with God or my wife whatsoever.

(I'm sure I'll get ooddles of negative votes. Go ahead, click away, Ye Openminded Christians.)

Black guy ca. 1930: "I want to marry my white girlfriend."

P. Bunyan's Grandfather: "Most people don't think you should be able to. I happen to think it's fine, but rights are subject to democratic approval, and you don't have that. Let's compromise: you can live together, but we can't call it a marriage, because most people in this country are ignorant and prejudiced on this issue."

If everybody's wrong, P. Bunyan, fuck everybody. Every opponent of gay marriage can still enjoy all that 'traditional' marriage has to offer (tradition dating as far back as 1900, but not much further, 'cause marriage before then was one bizarro institution!), whether or not gay people can as well.

The legistature passed the law through due process with the voters approving. How much due process do you want?

Umm, how about all of it? Which includes the review of laws by courts. Or should we just follow due process up until it reaches the conclusion that you desire, and then dispense with the rest of it?

I believe the best solution was the compromise of civil unions which already existed in California, but it appears that compromise, the cornerstone of American liberty, is unacceptable to leftist fascists.

And the three Republican justices in the majority opinion. And the Republican governor. Leftist fascists, all.

I generally support gay marriage (or it's legal equivilant,) but I'm greatly opposed to this decision. And I think that any supporter of the cause of gay marriage who is happy with this decision is a short-sighted idiot.

This decision WILL allow same-sex couples to marry in California, for a few months. However, since people (even Califorinians,) don't like having social policy dictated them by the courts, and will now turn out in huge numbers to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

It also will furhter entrench the "rightous anger" amongst gay marriage oponents. This means that it will become that much more difficult for supporters to win over the hearts and minds of the people to their side. And if and when the majority of the population does come to support same-sex unions, it will NOW require another constitutional amendment to reverse the one that this court decision has just garanteed will be enacted.

So good job advocates for gay marriage, you've just set your cause back 20 years.

"but rights are subject to democratic approval,"

Wrong. Right are unalienable. But we're not talking about rights, we're talking about laws. And those are subject to democratic approval, or at least they were before the fascist leftist took control of our legal system.

Well, I'm working my way through the text of the decision. It is astonishing how it makes several leaps of logic and turns precedent and logic on its head. The court seems to think that volume substitutes for reasoning.

California's Supreme Court has put another nail in the coffin of constitutional government.

Instead, we get the rule of the judiciary trumping that of democracy and constitution.

we're talking about laws. And those are subject to democratic approval, or at least they were before the fascist leftist took control of our legal system.

Laws are subject to court review. Or at least they were before the fascist right took control of our legal system.

This decision is going to increase the public perception of a judiciary that invents decisions without legal foundation. There will be a serious backlash in California. I expect that a constitutional amendment will pass in California, which will end up setting back gay rights instead of advancing them.

This is the result of the counterproductive strategies being pursued.

You're a fascist! No, you're a fascist! Everyone's a fascist! The Doughy Pantload would be proud.

Instead, we get the rule of the judiciary trumping that of democracy and constitution.

Democracy and the constitution established the judiciary as a mechanism of reviewing laws. Are you trying to have your personal opinion trump the democratically approved, voter approved, elected representative approved judicial process?

This decision is going to increase the public perception of a judiciary that invents decisions without legal foundation. There will be a serious backlash in California. I expect that a constitutional amendment will pass in California, which will end up setting back gay rights instead of advancing them.

Perhaps, but it is not the job of the courts to advance gay rights, but to determine the constitutionality of the law. And they did. If the voters of California want to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage, that will be another struggle (I imagine such an amendment would have to amend the California Constitution's Due Process Clause, Privacy Clause, and Equal Protection Clause, rather than just declare gay marriage illegal - a tall order), but I doubt they will.

Brian, the foundation of the decision is a fraud. Sexual orientation as a suspect class is a fraud, as sexual orientation has never met the foundational elements of a suspect class. The claim that not establishing same-sex marriage as a equal protection violation is equally fraudulent as a legal theory - as it confused equal protection with redefining the very meaning of the institution supposedly not being applied equally.

This is not a review of law - it is a creation of law and imposition of it without authority.

Mantis, previous initiatives banning gay marriage already passed in California - that was what the court overturned in section 308.5, a voter approved statute - a constitutional amendment will pass as well.

Republican governor of California:

"I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Brian, that's irrelevant. The Governor does not approve voter initiatives.

The Mormon polygamous thugs in Texas must be cheering and celebrating right now, as they plan the rape and conquest of more young teenage girls.

The Muslim polygamous thugs in Michigan must be cheering and celebrating as they plan the rape and conquest of more young teenage girls.

If traditional marriage falls to the "gay" crowd, gay men and women won't be the ones who are hurt. The gays are not hurting now -- civil unions give them protection under the law. The ones who will be hurt are young women who, without the protections of traditional marriage laws, will be subjected to polygamous marriages, rape, torture and abuse.

Thanks, gay crowd. Way to go.