Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights Discuss California ban on same-sex marriage struck down at the Political Forums; WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:28 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,320
Thanks: 274
Thanked 700 Times in 421 Posts
Post California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.


California's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California becomes the second state to allow same-sex couples to legally wed. Massachusetts adopted the practice in 2004, and couples don't need to be state residents to wed there.

Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Connecticut permit civil unions, while California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights.

Seven other jurisdictions around the world have legalized same-sex marriage: Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, South Africa and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

San Francisco officials in 2004 allowed same-sex couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.

"We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.

One issue before the justices was whether San Francisco's laws carried legal weight when the rest of the state banned same-sex marriages. Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The state law in question is the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22.

Oral arguments in the case in March lasted more than three hours, a sign of the political and legal issues at stake. Six cases were consolidated.

Same-sex marriages that were nullified by the law remain nullified, CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said.

Groups saying they were promoting a pro-family agenda had vowed to fight a statewide law allowing same-sex marriage.

"The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. The federal high court has never addressed the question of same-sex marriage.
California ban on same-sex marriage struck down - CNN.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:40 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,083
Thanks: 162
Thanked 1,264 Times in 923 Posts
Default Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Quote:
California’s 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 (or Prop 22) prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 4,618,673 votes versus 2,909,370 against
So much for the will of the people...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:52 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,320
Thanks: 274
Thanked 700 Times in 421 Posts
Post Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
So much for the will of the people...
Funny how you quote the "will of the people", but if it goes against what Bush wants, then suddenly you realize that the "will of the people" isn't always supreme...

When the "will of the people" wishes to discriminate without a legitimate state interest, and the law allows it, the country doesn't deserve the claims to "equality" or "freedom".

The "will of the people" was thwarted in Loving v Virginia as well, the court case that knocked out miscegenation laws. Would you rather have had the "will of the people" win out and discrimination continue to be enforced?

Or is that just a standard you have when you AGREE with the discrimination at hand...
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:58 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,083
Thanks: 162
Thanked 1,264 Times in 923 Posts
Default Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Funny how you quote the "will of the people", but if it goes against what Bush wants, then suddenly you realize that the "will of the people" isn't always supreme...
Don't bother ducking...the sarcasm whizzed WAY over you...

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
When the "will of the people" wishes to discriminate without a legitimate state interest, and the law allows it, the country doesn't deserve the claims to "equality" or "freedom".

The "will of the people" was thwarted in Loving v Virginia as well, the court case that knocked out miscegenation laws. Would you rather have had the "will of the people" win out and discrimination continue to be enforced?

Or is that just a standard you have when you AGREE with the discrimination at hand...
The fact that this was done today proves that California is stupid...

What they SHOULD'VE done was to see if the proposition was constitutional BEFORE putting it on the ballot...

Imagine how much money (especially in lawyer fees) could've been saved had the constitutionality of the proposition been answered before putting it up for the peoples' will...

California...bass ackwards...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 02:08 PM
saltwn's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: small town in the Northwest- population 400 (+2)
Posts: 2,782
Thanks: 1,202
Thanked 631 Times in 464 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

This will be an interesting case as it goes before the SC.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 02:23 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,320
Thanks: 274
Thanked 700 Times in 421 Posts
Post Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
Don't bother ducking...the sarcasm whizzed WAY over you...
Sarcasm in text is soooo easily interpreted...
Usually why I include some comment to make it so clear...


Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd
The fact that this was done today proves that California is stupid...
What they SHOULD'VE done was to see if the proposition was constitutional BEFORE putting it on the ballot...

Yeah. How often does that ACTUALLY get done cnredd?

The miscegenation laws were on the books in the vast majority of states. (Possibly every state).

Ballot measures typically get challenged AFTER they have already been approved. If it gets challenged before, it's typically because of some logistic technique (like some state constitutions evidently require state amendments to only deal with one specific issue).


Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd
Imagine how much money (especially in lawyer fees) could've been saved had the constitutionality of the proposition been answered before putting it up for the peoples' will...
California...bass ackwards...
More like California doing business like every other state in the union.

Can you name me any state that does business like you discuss?

Any state that struck down a law as "unconstitutional" BEFORE it was actually approved by vote?
Your criticism applies to all 50 states. Not just "california"...


Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn
This will be an interesting case as it goes before the SC.
I agree.
At the moment, I'm questioning the grounds by which somebody would appeal it to SCOTUS in the first place.
We're talking about making the jump from a state decision, to the federal government saying that it can't recognize a specific issue as a "right".

State / Federal rights are obviously invoked...

Wasn't there already an attempt to do this with Massachusetts that got shot down?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 06:15 PM
saltwn's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: small town in the Northwest- population 400 (+2)
Posts: 2,782
Thanks: 1,202
Thanked 631 Times in 464 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Sarcasm in text is soooo easily interpreted...
Usually why I include some comment to make it so clear...




Yeah. How often does that ACTUALLY get done cnredd?

The miscegenation laws were on the books in the vast majority of states. (Possibly every state).

Ballot measures typically get challenged AFTER they have already been approved. If it gets challenged before, it's typically because of some logistic technique (like some state constitutions evidently require state amendments to only deal with one specific issue).



More like California doing business like every other state in the union.

Can you name me any state that does business like you discuss?

Any state that struck down a law as "unconstitutional" BEFORE it was actually approved by vote?
Your criticism applies to all 50 states. Not just "california"...



I agree.
At the moment, I'm questioning the grounds by which somebody would appeal it to SCOTUS in the first place.
We're talking about making the jump from a state decision, to the federal government saying that it can't recognize a specific issue as a "right".

State / Federal rights are obviously invoked...

Wasn't there already an attempt to do this with Massachusetts that got shot down?
WASHINGTON, November 29, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The US Supreme Court rejected Monday a bid challenging the Massachusetts law allowing same-sex "marriage." The Court declined the hearing without comment.

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state government to rewrite marriage laws to include same-sex couples. Since the decision, approximately 3,000 same-sex Massachusetts couples have 'married'. Robert Largess, Vice President of the Catholic Action League, along with eleven Massachusetts legislators launched the suit. Their initial challenge, heard at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, was lost.US Supreme Court Rejects Massachusetts Gay "Marriage" Challenge

But as they say, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. "La-la-la-la-la! La-la" oh! Where was I?
Seriously, there will be another fight to have a U.S. amendment. Hide and watch. But by then, enough ground will have been covered state wise, to throw it back to the SC. Then they will throw it back as a state responsibility, is my guess. For what it's worth.
__________________

Last edited by saltwn; 05-15-2008 at 06:16 PM. Reason: spel
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:08 AM
KnightOfSappho's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: NY
Gender: Female
Posts: 891
Thanks: 145
Thanked 357 Times in 212 Posts
Default Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
Don't bother ducking...the sarcasm whizzed WAY over you...

The fact that this was done today proves that California is stupid...

What they SHOULD'VE done was to see if the proposition was constitutional BEFORE putting it on the ballot...

Imagine how much money (especially in lawyer fees) could've been saved had the constitutionality of the proposition been answered before putting it up for the peoples' will...

California...bass ackwards...
Unless Cali's constitution is substantially different than the other states, there is no legal requirement to insure that a proposal is constitutional before it is voted on.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2008, 11:04 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,320
Thanks: 274
Thanked 700 Times in 421 Posts
Post Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
But as they say, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. "La-la-la-la-la! La-la" oh! Where was I?
Seriously, there will be another fight to have a U.S. amendment. Hide and watch. But by then, enough ground will have been covered state wise, to throw it back to the SC. Then they will throw it back as a state responsibility, is my guess. For what it's worth.
I think the only way the SC would get involved (at this stage) is if a court ruling claimed it was a federal constitutional protected right. Massachusetts claimed protection under state constitution. I haven't read California's ruling yet.

There is already talk about the upcoming state vote for a state amendment in November. I haven't seen any recent state amendment polls on the issue.

I expect there may be more fights for U.S. amendments, but I think the Republicans have overplayed their hands on that one. From one vague statement I heard from John McCain, he won't fight against any Republican "gay" initiatives, but it sounded like he won't lead any fights either.
And I think it's becoming painfully obvious to all involved that the Republican party is doing "lip service" when they make the "effort".

Most people don't want a federal constitutional amendment anyways, but that balance would be affected if a state (say California) suddenly got gay marriage. I guess it's time for new polls to start making the rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:04 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,083
Thanks: 162
Thanked 1,264 Times in 923 Posts
Default Re: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
More like California doing business like every other state in the union.

Can you name me any state that does business like you discuss?

Any state that struck down a law as "unconstitutional" BEFORE it was actually approved by vote?
Your criticism applies to all 50 states. Not just "california"...
Not necessarily...

A state doesn't doesn't have to "strike down" something that doesn't even GET to the ballots when people are smart enough NOT to propose something being on the ballot in the first place because of inevitable court challenges...

I don't think they'll ever be a list of that, but it wouldn't surprise me if that happens a lot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho View Post
Unless Cali's constitution is substantially different than the other states, there is no legal requirement to insure that a proposal is constitutional before it is voted on.
I'm not talking about a legal requirement...I'm talking about a rational conclusion...

You don't think someone ever said "I want to get something on the ballot...and I KNOW it would pass on the public's vote...but I'm NOT going to propose it because opponents would lawyer-fee us to death in the court system and this would be tied up for years...not worth it."

I would think that happens all of the time...And all of that going on in someone's head...It doesn't even NEED to be said out loud, so "legal requirement" doesn't apply here...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by WebRing.
GlobeSpot.Net Web Directory Technorati Profile
Free Search Engine Submission
Free Search Engine Submission
Windows Based Resource
Windows Based Resource
PolitiPoll.net - 
Political Web Rankings AddMe - Search Engine Optimization Submit Website Directory World Web Directory-WWD Submit site web directory Need Business Long Distance, Voice PRI, and Business VOIP service? Compare free Long Distance Price Quotes from over 30 providers! Search Engine Optimization and SEO Tools

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0