Andrew Sullivan and others twisted and contorted to assure readers that what happens in Massachusetts stays in Massachusetts. He’s wrong. Gay marriage will be imposed not by the peoples representatives, but via the bench. Funny I was saying the same thing last month when it was New York, today it’s California.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A judge ruled Monday that California’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state’s highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
“It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,” Kramer wrote.
The judge wrote that the state’s historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.Judicial activism – it’s whats for dinner…
Update: Law professor Eugene Volokh notes that what some have, in the past, called “hysterical,” “emotional scare tactic[s],” or “canards” may well have been quite reasonable predictions. Interestingly he’s not referring to the standard denials of same sex marriage advocates, rather he’s looked back to the Equal Rights Amendment era.
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?
Joser:
How does jerking around your girlfriend like this achieve anything but jerking around your girlfriend?
And if the Calif. Supreme Court overturns Judge Kramer are you going to divorce your wife? According to you, it would be the only decent thing to do.
Brad, what “Right” are you referring too.
Uh, Loving v. Virginia held marriage was a fundamental right between a man and a woman. The founders never dreamed of gay marriage. Pretty weird that you would say gay marriage was the intent of the founding fathers. Just because you disagree or don’t like a decision, doesn’t make people fascists or this a fascist country. Anyway, this fascist meme of yours is so old moonbat (osay oldway oonbatmay).
“”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.”
Well, that’s not exactly what I asked, but I guess I’ll clarify :
I’d really like to hear someone who supports gay ‘marriage’ explain why someone – who is not already married – can’t get ‘married’ to 2, 3 or more other people at the same time.
Sorry Mantis, the exclusivity of the marriage contract is as negotiable as the sex of the participants. When the house falls it falls on everything.
As to the DOM contract, it may be that these Juditial fiats may be all it takes to break the log jam. Everywhere that a DOM initiative is placed on the ballot it passes by huge margins.
It was said that Sen Kerry lost the election when the Mass. Supreme Ct. forced gay marriage.
By the way, I am not pro or anti gay; it’s an individual decision, but I am resentfull of an agenda being forced down my throat by totalitarian judges.
We live in a “Democratic Republic”, not a “Democracy”. We, as the people, do not vote on every issue before the nation – we elect “Representatives” to foster our points of view. In rare instances, in some municipalities and states, citizens MAY bring before the voters, by referanda or initiatives, issues that they want ALL voters to decide.
The Judicial Branch of the government interprets these laws and decides disputes between parties based on the laws as passed by the Legislative Branch. The only way the Judicial Branch can circumvent the laws of the Legislature is to declare all or a portion of the law as “Unconstitutional”. As long as the law comports to the constitution, judges must decide disputes based on the “merits” of the case,not the constitutionality of the Law.
There are currently laws on the books in California that prohibit marriages of minors without parental consent, that prohibit marriage if one partner has a STD, that prohibit sisters and brothers from marrying each other, first cousins from marrying, fathers from marrying daughters and sons from marrying mothers. None of these laws are unconstitutional.
Since a California Judge has declared the law banning same sex marriage as unconstitutional, theoretically brothers may now marry in that state. Since there is no current law prohibiting marraige between a man and his dog or a woman and her cat, one could assume that would now be legal.
The Constitution of the US gives us certain rights as outlined in the Amendments. Nowhere in that document is a right of people of the same sex to marry. There have been many amendments to this document, everyone of them a major national issue. Same sex marriage IS NOT a major national issue.
If California or any othe state wishes to allow same sex marriages, then the people (Legislature or referendum) should pass such a law. However, such a law would then force a calling for a Constitutional Amendment banning such marriages, as the Constitution prohibits States from not recognizing marriages from other States in the Union.
I personally do not care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes and am of the opinion that wills and living trusts provide all the protection non-married partners need. What I do NOT condone is giving “extra” rights to a class of individual, because of their gender, sexual preferences, race or religion or whether they are blue eyed or left handed. Gays currently enjoy all the same rights as straights – what they want is “special rights” written into the State Constitution for them.
By the way, I am not pro or anti gay; it’s an individual decision, but I am resentfull of an agenda being forced down my throat by totalitarian judges.
How is anything forced down your throat? If you’re not gay this will not affect you in the slightest. BTW you still haven’t answered regarding Canadian churches.
The Constitution of the US gives us certain rights as outlined in the Amendments. Nowhere in that document is a right of people of the same sex to marry.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the right of people of different sexes to marry written either. Should we ban marriage altogether?
Um…Brad, I hate to pile on, but jeez…
Do you really think that the government of Canada is a Theocracy? What do you mean by “their” theology (singluar)?
Our Rights are not guaranteed by the government — they’re guaranteed by the Constitution and enforced by the judicial (not juditial) branch, not the government (note that the Rill of Rights doesn’t so much define what our rights are as much as it defines what the federal goverment cannot do to us).
Where did you get your Second Amendment history lesson? Try this one: http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html; or this one, http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5200 —
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia.
Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice – in 1965 and 1990 – the Supreme Court has held that the term “well-regulated militia” refers to the National Guard.
In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.
Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser’s firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precedents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).
Homework, dude.
David…Any right, as listed in the Constitution, usually taken to mean the Bill of Rights. A more correct way to say it would be that the whole Constitution is a set of laws that may only be changed by constitutional amendment.
My point was that our rights are not as we wish they were or think they are but how they are written AND interpreted. In England the Parliment may pass any law it wishes, they are a democracy; in America laws passed by the Legislature are subject to reviewal and rejection by the juditial branch, even if passed by 100% of the legislators.
The Constitution, and our republican form of government protects our civilization from rash and hasty moods of the people. If, God forbid, a majority of Americans favored the containment of a segment of our population (except in times of war) for what they believed the courts would strike down that measure for being in violation of the Constitution reguardless the public support.
If the courts find, as the Mass. S. Crt. and the Cal. Crt. did, that the traditional concept of marriage is un-Constitutional then the only way back will be the DOM ammendment.
If we, as a people, are ready to abandon our traditional concepts of what our civilization is about then this “new way” won’t be wrong but if you hold that our 250 year old society is pinned on the set of beliefs espoused by the founding fathers then maybe we are headed the wrong way.
Totalitarian, adj.:
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul”
I’m no fan of activist judges, but let’s not overdo the hyperbole!
Joser and Don,
Gays and lesbians already have the right to marry. There is no law that singles them out for exclusion.
Before you have your knee jerk reaction, let it sink in a moment.
I have known several gays and lesbians who have made the decision to marry. The central issue is not if homosexuals can marry, it is how marriage is defined. It has been defined for centuries as one man and one woman. Do you really think an activist judge, going against the will of the people and centuries of human history should get his way?
Mantis, no answer for me? :
” I’d really like to hear someone who supports gay ‘marriage’ explain why someone – who is not already married – can’t get ‘married’ to 2, 3 or more other people at the same time.”
Would anyone like to try to answer that?
Though, I think Brad has the truest answer yet, given the current social/political climate:
“the exclusivity of the marriage contract is as negotiable as the sex of the participants. When the house falls it falls on everything.”
Does anyone disagree with that?
I don’t have the links at hand but the Clinton DOJ disiminated a paper that agrees with you but reciently the Bush DOJ has issued a paper in support of the individual right to gun ownership. The issue isn’t as settled as either of us would like and both sides can find some support. Most Constitutional scholers suggest that the weight of evidence is on the side of individual rights; and just to prove that, in most places, individuals do in practice have an individual right to bear arms. The limitations you list are more in line with the prohabition of some types of weapons rather than the limitation of the second amendment to state militias.
Brad, I beg of you, stop (and while I’m at it, use spellcheck)!
“If the courts find, as the Mass. S. Crt. and the Cal. Crt. did, that the traditional concept of marriage is un-Constitutional (sic) then the only way back will be the DOM ammendment (sic).”
The Massachusetts SJC ruled that the MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION gave same sex couples the right to marry. The case had nothing to do with the U. S. Constitution. The federal DOM is only intended to protect other states from having to give full faith and credit to the law of Massachusetts (i.e., recognize a marriage that is lawful in Masachusetts, even if it is unlawful in that state).
I’d really like to hear someone who supports gay ‘marriage’ explain why someone – who is not already married – can’t get ‘married’ to 2, 3 or more other people at the same time.”
Because there are laws against it.
Before this even gets to the Cal. Supreme Ct. this will be on the ballot as an initiative to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Since, it was only a few years ago that Californians voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as that between a man and a woman, I predict it will pass.
wavemaker and JustMe (among others here) have already made excellent (and quite lucid) comments here but I can see that sense and sensibility are the ways of the bigots (the actual ones) on this issue, this thread and others. Because, the actual bigots are those who insist that “rights” are whatever they want them to be, however ‘they’ are interpreted and deemed due on delivery by demand. And that includes today this entire demand for “gay marriage.”
Every citizen already has the same “right” as every other citizen and that is the right to marry another person of the opposite sex. There is, actually, no “right” in our Constitution to marry anyone, and yet that’s just bypassed by this ill defined accusation by “gay marriage” proponents that it’s “a right” and provided, even, by our Constitition, for “gay” people to “marry” other “gay” people.
Anyway, read the Constitution and come back afterward with an accurate reference but I seem to recall that it’s the issue of ‘right to happiness’ and something related to contracts and such by individuals, licenses in a civic sense…
Which is already resolved, since “gay” citizens already have all the same rights and privilegs as any other citizen. What “gay marriage” proponents want (by demand) is a special right, something above and beyond what currently is provided to all citizens, something that is special to “gay” behavior. Which is, again, something that would be apart and beyond and in addition to what rights already are provided for all citizens.
But, the entire offense here — I agree with what wavemaker and JustMe and others have written here — is that the issue is being insisted on being resolved by the judiciary by those making these demands and THAT is bigotry, THAT is the offense to the Constitution since we are provided BY that Constitution to be a government determined by the people, not by the judiciary.
And that’s the difficulty here on a social level, that bigots demanding special ‘rights’ not already in the Constitution, be established aside and apart from the Constitution and by quite contrary-to the Constitutional process, some newly carved territory.
The concept of “marriage” isn’t based in homosexuality throughout our society, our government, the history of human societies any/everywhere, and bigotted “gay marriage” proponents use the very concept of reproductive family relationship (which is what “marriage” is, in definition, despite the naysaying that “gay marriage” proponents always detract when this subject is raised which always leads me to to ask, why detract, destruct the very relationship that you say you desire and demand — if “marriage” is such a tawdry, disposable thing then why do “gay marriage” proponents seek it so?), anyway, bigotted proponents of this rewrite, in my opinion after reading so many hundreds of illogical statements about this meme, seem to want to actually change the concept of reproductive family relationships, if not destroy the very thing itself.
There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” You can share wills, materials, property, finances, even children in some states, but it’s anti-Constitutional to insist that judiciary start carving out “new” or additional Constitutional concepts and territory just because it’s demanded by a few. If this concept holds water, then respect the voters and allow it to be determined within a Constitutional process, not by elected judiciary.
The judiciary is not the legislative branch of our government and San Francisco has proven today that. And proven again just how little they respect the U.S. Constitution. And, again, to my read, the real bigots in this issue are those (both on the judiciary and off) who are insisting on carving out special concepts for other bigots. Think about that: you have a minority insisting on being provided with a social process on demand that is unacceptable to the majority, and so far clearly identified as such by the legislature, by representational government.
What is bigotry is the vile insult to a social relationship by a few who even revile the very Constitution they make pretense to represent, but don’t. Let the people vote on this issue and live with the results.
You may want whatever, but desire and want do not make it a “right” by demand to be delivered that whatever. People confuse subjective wants with freedoms.