Judge Strikes Down Calif. Marriage Law

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: raildogg
Most Californians are against gay marriage.

What this activist judge is in fact saying is screw Democracy and screw the will of the people.

No, he's not, and not only you, but everyone else KNOWS he's not.

Constitutional democracy does not mean 'majority rules'. It means the legislative branch gets to make laws, which for simplicity we can pretend is the 'majority rules' part of the equation.

Then those laws are enforced unless they are found to conflict with constitutional protections.

What the judge is saying is that the law, as written, is unconstitutional. If you believe the judge has made an error, then why not contact whatever lawyer will be handling the appeal, and offer your expert constitutional advice.

If you've thought of something they haven't, then maybe, just maybe, it will turn the tide and the appeal will find that the constitution is not violated by the legislation in question.

The problem is when judges twist and read thigns that aren't their the Constitution to suit there own opinions, i.e. they legislate from the bench.

You're right, that can be a problem. However, it is hardly as simple as 'over-ruling the will of the majority'.

Your constitution and most others are actually hopelessly vague; when an issue is a matter of equality and rights which weren't even conceived of at the time the constitution was written, divining the will of the writers becomes extremely difficult; and interpretting that will in the context of hundreds of years of social history is even harder.

Did the writers of the constitution intend to protect the rights of non-whites? I'm not sure, there isn't much evidence that they did though. The same problem applies here.

Is broad-strokes language protecting equality more important than the lack of specific mention for a particular situation? There's no right answer, objectively speaking. Was the will of the founding fathers of America to create a very free nation? Or a nation free within the bounds of Christianity? This is a little more clear, but still muddy; after all, the implicit assumption was that everyone in America was Christian (or Jewish) anyway, so why would such a distinction matter?

The Constitution only gave educated, male, land owners the right to vote. That was remedied by a Constitutional amendment.

Now judges just change the Constitution on the fly.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The Constitution only gave educated, male, land owners the right to vote. That was remedied by a Constitutional amendment.

Now judges just change the Constitution on the fly.

Modern politics have made constitutional amendments a de facto impossibility in most constitutional democracies around the world.

The prospect of passing ANY amendment, about ANYTHING has been made highly unlikely by strong polarization in the last 30-50 years (I would guess beginning with the Cold War, and controversy over communism).

There may be no amendment needed, however, if equality language is given strong weight.

 

[mhillary]

Originally posted by: Baked
Sorry, I'm too scared to post in P&N.

Be afraid the government is watching.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Now judges just change the Constitution on the fly.

Why is it that if MY 5-4 (or 6-3, or whatever) Supreme Court majority renders a ruling, you call it "legislating from the bench", whereas if YOUR majority renders a ruling, it's "strict construction"?

Do you and the rest of the righties have some special training in Consitutional law that allows you to make these fine distinctions? Or is this clear vision in approaching abstruse writing merely a byproduct of your broad experience deciphering the Bible?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stark
the new version of marriage being created by the courts has nothing to do with giving incentives for procreating. (You'll notice that the countries that have adopted gay marriages already have declining populations).

That's hardly surprising. Populations are declining or static in all first world countries.

Interestingly, the most gay-friendly countries (including the small number of countries which have legalized gay marriage) have the world's LOWEST rates of abortion. The most homophobic countries have the world's highest rates of abortion. Riprorin take note.

Originally posted by: Stark
Instead, the new version of marriage is strictly a contractual agreement between two people that can be entered into or broken for any reason. ANY two people (or perhaps more than two) can enter into this agreement whenever they want.

Marriage is still considered to be (ideally) a life-long commitment to love and care for a partner, I would have thought.

Originally posted by: Stark
Under this new definition, there should be abolutely no reason why a single mother should not be allowed to marry her live-in son to enjoy the tax-filing benefits (or father-daughter, brother-sister, etc).

The recent rulings on same-sex marriage have simply removed the requirement you marry someone of the opposite gender. All other legal requirements (pertaining to age, number of partners, degree of genetic relatedness of partners) remain intact. If you strongly desire to marry your mother, or your father, for that matter, you will need to head for the courts and argue your case. Good luck with that.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: raildogg
Most Californians are against gay marriage.

What this activist judge is in fact saying is screw Democracy and screw the will of the people.

No, he's not, and not only you, but everyone else KNOWS he's not.

Constitutional democracy does not mean 'majority rules'. It means the legislative branch gets to make laws, which for simplicity we can pretend is the 'majority rules' part of the equation.

Then those laws are enforced unless they are found to conflict with constitutional protections.

What the judge is saying is that the law, as written, is unconstitutional. If you believe the judge has made an error, then why not contact whatever lawyer will be handling the appeal, and offer your expert constitutional advice.

If you've thought of something they haven't, then maybe, just maybe, it will turn the tide and the appeal will find that the constitution is not violated by the legislation in question.

The problem is when judges twist and read things into the Constitution that aren't there to push their own personal agenda, i.e. they legislate from the bench.

no, they don't legislate from the bench. the legislature legislates. the supreme court assesses the constitutionality (legality) of the legislation.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Now judges just change the Constitution on the fly.

Why is it that if MY 5-4 (or 6-3, or whatever) Supreme Court majority renders a ruling, you call it "legislating from the bench", whereas if YOUR majority renders a ruling, it's "strict construction"?

Do you and the rest of the righties have some special training in Consitutional law that allows you to make these fine distinctions? Or is this clear vision in approaching abstruse writing merely a byproduct of your broad experience deciphering the Bible?

Because judges are only activist judges when you disagree with their decisions. duh!
Anyway, gay marriage is coming in a patch work of states until the SCOTUS has the guts to take on the case and decide the question. Regardless, I believe the history of this country is towards more freedoms and more rights for everyone.

 

[phillyTIM]

Let this be a warning to all those Bush-whacked red states that social progress is on the move and WILL NOT be denied to others.

The time will come when America grows up, just as Europe already has. America, as this proves, is not the all-mighty leader that she/Bush thinks it is right now.

The only thing different about gays and straights are what they do behind their closed bedroom doors of privacy. Gays fall in love, and want a real bond, just as straights do...and should be allowed to form this bond of family.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Yay....Judge rewrites the laws once again like they always seem to do now a days, when they are supposed to have NO POWER to do so.
Also nice to see them rewriting definitions of words such as Marriage. Oh and wrong forum... P&N.

This isn't a matter of re-writing the law, it's a matter of looking at the law and comparing it to the Constitution to see if it stands up. Obviously it DOESN'T. The judge did EXACTLY his job, and it's about damn time someone did.

Just because the Majority vote for it doesn't make it RIGHT, JUST, or LEGAL.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: TheBDB

He's not rewriting a law. He's declaring a law unconstitutional.

:thumbsup:

But how is it Unconstitutional then? Marriage is between man and woman. Not between man and man or woman and woman. He is basically creating his own def of marriage to apply here to call it unconstitutional then.

It's not about the definition of marriage, it's about a simple premise: Does one group of people, no matter how large or well represented, have a right to dictate lifestyle choices to another group of people when those choices do not, in fact, directly and materially impact the first group?

The answer is NO. It doesn't matter how big your group is, you DON'T have a right to stop consenting adults from engaging in whatever behavior they choose so long as that behavior does not materially harm an unconsenting third party.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Vic
So much for democracy... who cares what the people vote, right?

Again, the people have NO RIGHT to run roughshod over the rights of so much as ONE MAN. You don't get more rights just by getting a bigger mob together. Rights are INDIVIDUAL in nature. Individuals have the right to engage in behaviors and make choices with other consenting adults so long as those actions don't materially harm a third party.

You don't have the right to force others to see it your way. Sorry it didn't work out for ya, but if you want to have rule over others you need to move to a Communist/Socialist/Fascist utopia somewhere other than here.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
So much for democracy... who cares what the people vote, right?

That's why we're a Representative Republic with separate Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. It's to prevent the minority from being repressed by the majority.

Amen. If the people suddenly voted to take the top 10 richest people in the country, strip all their wealth, and then divy it amongst the rest of it, that wouldn't be very fair.

The whole no-gay marriage thing is just oppression, and it's got no place in a FREE country.

Almost correct, but I fixed it for you

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Citrix
what is the point in going to the polls and casting a vote. if some group doesnt like the outcome of the popular vote then all they have to do is find a judge that thinks like they do and rule in their favor.

What do you want, full, pure democracy with unlimited majority rule?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Eli
Good.

It shouldn't be against the law in the first place, it is a violation of our constitution.

Who's interpretation of the Consitution?

Sorry, we have plenty of Subjectivism here, please take yours home!

Jason

 

[Vic]

Yawn. And judges legislating from the bench is somehow better, more constitutional, and/or more in line with protecting individual freedoms than voters legislating from the polls? Both are wrong IMO.

That's what I hate about this issue. It's trivial, divisive, and exclusionary... from both sides. But it does IMO highlight just how much the liberals desire to penalize those couples who choose to have children, and to reward those who don't.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Michael
Just for the record, I have more friends that are poly than I have friends who are gay (just my sister-in-law, and I went to her wedding ceremony). So Vic's point is not just slippery slope. Is the law going to be marriage is between and 2 people so more than 2 is out? Why is that fair to the poly minority?

Personally, I think being poly is a poor lifestyle choice, but why shouldn't they get the same rights as everyone else?

Michael

You make an interesting point. Poly is *definitely* a bad lifestyle choice; having once lived with 2 bi-girls who were with me and each other I can tell you that there is always a little jealousy and competition for attention one way or the other, and my experience is that no way is it gonna work out. It's fun to play that way, but would I do it again as a relationship scenario? Not on your life.

Regardless of that, there are LOTS of things that constitute "Poor lifestyle choices", but there is no justification for making them illegal. Eating fast food regularly is a bad lfiestyle choice. Taking too much medication is a bad lifestyle choice. Buying pink carpet is a *horrible* lifestyle choice. Should these things be illegal? No. As long as the parties involved are all consenting adults, there is no reason to make these choices illegal.

There has to be a distinction between things which are IMMORAL and things which are ILLEGAL. They are NOT the same, nor should they be.

Jason

 

[MCWAR]

last time I checked, a gay man had exactly the same rights as I do. The lable is the only thing causing a problem here. For example: I can marry a woman - a man who enjoys another mans genitalia can also marry a woman. No one is being treated any different. I can not marry a man - a man who likes a mans bottom cannot marry a man. See, same rules for every one. Exactly who is being discriminated against?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The Constitution only gave educated, male, land owners the right to vote. That was remedied by a Constitutional amendment.

Now judges just change the Constitution on the fly.

Please do back this up with some evidence

1. Where does the Constitution say that all Male, Educated Land Owners get the right to vote?

2. When was the Constitution amended "On the fly" by a judge? I mean as in, *ever*?

Jason

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
But it does IMO highlight just how much the liberals desire to penalize those couples who choose to have children, and to reward those who don't.

JHuh? How does allowing gays to marry penalize couples who choose to have children? It does nothing to stop them. And how can you possibly conclude this any part of any "liberal" agenda.

Obviously, gay couples aren't going to procreate by themselves, but that's their choice. Many hetero couples also choose not to have kids.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Vic
Yawn. And judges legislating from the bench is somehow better, more constitutional, and/or more in line with protecting individual freedoms than voters legislating from the polls? Both are wrong IMO.

That's what I hate about this issue. It's trivial, divisive, and exclusionary... from both sides. But it does IMO highlight just how much the liberals desire to penalize those couples who choose to have children, and to reward those who don't.

Is it any different than those who want to penalize those who DON'T have children in favor of those who DO? I've seen on *this board* where NeoCon crackpots have argued that people without children should be taxed at higher rates in order to *encourage* people to have children! I've seen people argue that without incentives of that kind people will actually *not reproduce*, thus threatening the solvency of the entire nation! People actually BELIEVE that tripe!

In any case, this guy isn't *legislating* at all, he's saying "a review of this law, weighed against the Constitition of the State of California, indicates that the law is not consistent with the Constitution."

When a law is at odds with the constitution of the state, the Constitution wins, PERIOD. If a *state* Constitution is at odds with the Federal Constitution, the Federal Constitution wins, PERIOD. Observe the latter phenomenon by the fact that according to California's Constitution, Chinese people are not allowed to own property!

Jason

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
But it does IMO highlight just how much the liberals desire to penalize those couples who choose to have children, and to reward those who don't.

JHuh? How does allowing gays to marry penalize couples who choose to have children? It does nothing to stop them. And how can you possibly conclude this any part of any "liberal" agenda.

Obviously, gay couples aren't going to procreate by themselves, but that's their choice. Many hetero couples also choose not to have kids.

In addition, those of us who choose not to have little snot gobblers still have to pay property taxes so other's little snot gobblers can be educated!

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Yawn. And judges legislating from the bench is somehow better, more constitutional, and/or more in line with protecting individual freedoms than voters legislating from the polls? Both are wrong IMO.

That's what I hate about this issue. It's trivial, divisive, and exclusionary... from both sides. But it does IMO highlight just how much the liberals desire to penalize those couples who choose to have children, and to reward those who don't.

How is it penalizing those who choose to have children?

This isn't forcing anything on anybody. It's just allowing those that want to get married to do so. What is wrong with that?

I'm really interested in how straight couples are penalized. This should be good...

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
last time I checked, a gay man had exactly the same rights as I do. The lable is the only thing causing a problem here. For example: I can marry a woman - a man who enjoys another mans genitalia can also marry a woman. No one is being treated any different. I can not marry a man - a man who likes a mans bottom cannot marry a man. See, same rules for every one. Exactly who is being discriminated against?

If you fall in love with a woman, you are free to marry her.

If I fall in love with a man (God forbid!), I am NOT free to marry him.

Anyway, this is all easily avoided: The government needs to DROP the marriage business altogether, tax people as INDIVIDUALS and leave the marriages to the churches. Let people shop around for the church that will fit their marriage fancy and let the market decide.

If I had to bet, I'd wager that as time passes more and more churches would allow gay marriages. Why? Because if there's one thing a church can smell even further away than a heretic, it's a dollar, and there's money to be made marrying gays.

Jason

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ELP
How is it penalizing those who choose to have children?

This isn't forcing anything on anybody. It's just allowing those that want to get married to do so. What is wrong with that?

I'm really interested in how straight couples are penalized. This should be good...

Because economics are relative. Right now, we extend various financial benefits (tax breaks, government benefits, etc.) to married couples with the supposed intent of encouraging them to have children. Gay marriage would extend those same benefits to couples who cannot have children. This would effectively negate the value of those benefits to those who already receive them.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Anyway, this is all easily avoided: The government needs to DROP the marriage business altogether, tax people as INDIVIDUALS and leave the marriages to the churches. Let people shop around for the church that will fit their marriage fancy and let the market decide.

On this note, you and I are in COMPLETE agreement. In fact, your statement here is essentially my entire position on this issue. My problem with gay marriage, as it is currently being proposed, is not that I disagree with gays getting married (more power to 'em) but that I see it as an expansion of government's involvement in the marriage business. And I am greatly opposed to that.
So many people get too rabidly polarized by certain issues IMO, and it blinds them. A person may oppose your particular favorite issue for reasons other than why you think they oppose it.

Many churches btw, particularly the Unitarians, have been marrying gays for years (not for economic reasons, but because of their beliefs), and I fully support them in that. A perfect example of how it should be.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Is it any different than those who want to penalize those who DON'T have children in favor of those who DO? I've seen on *this board* where NeoCon crackpots have argued that people without children should be taxed at higher rates in order to *encourage* people to have children! I've seen people argue that without incentives of that kind people will actually *not reproduce*, thus threatening the solvency of the entire nation! People actually BELIEVE that tripe!

Tripe? :roll: Why shouldn't they believe it? I know it. The biggest single reason that my SO and I have decided not to have children is because it is so financially disadvantageous. For years, the biggest single reason why we didn't get married is because it would have cost us significantly more in taxes. This financial disadvantage was levelled recently, but still provides no incentive.