Also, dragging it out creates a generation of sacrificial victims who never get their rights, but only the pleasure of knowing that in the future after they die people similar to them will be treated fairly.


To be honest, it's such a fine point that I don't understand it. As I read it, the decision says 'the real point of defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is to deprive homosexuals of the rights which their heterosexual equivalents enjoy. This constitutes a breach of the state constitution because the constitution states that gender is one of the things that can't be used to define how the law is administered.' If my understanding of this is incorrect I would appreciate someone's explaining it to me.

You indicating here Judges were the reason Blacks have more rights now?
You are discrediting then Matin Luther King and the Blacks themselves who fought for their rights.
See what I mean by worshiping the judges and making them like God.

I dunno. It strikes me as a balance for your needless demonizing of judges.

--Jaylemurph

Or maybe you do understand it for you believe in a living Contitution and act like you understand what the 4 Judges is saying and those are facts.
But you are forgetting one thing, not all 7 Judges agreed, 4-3 was the vote so what you are saying is still nothing but a different opinion.
And you thought you had a dog in the race.

so gays haven't marched for their rights ? haven't died and fought for them ? you'd be wrong.

yes , judges were the reason blacks have rights now. i

The Supreme Court and Equal Rights

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/equalrights.html

I say the Blacks who fought for their rights were the reason.

well if it wasn't for those judges they wouldn't have them yet. The majority of whites then didn't want to extend equal rights to blacks then. alot of white culture still doesn't like the fact they got equal rights ! if left for society to become accustomed in order to change - it never will.

I still give the credit to the Blacks who fought for it, with or without Judges they would have prevailed with what they were fighting for.

I like the constitution the way it is. Unlike the current neocon government, I don't think you can simply reorganize government as you see fit. It's illegal.

I was not arguing the case, which I believe was the right decision. I was ranting about Aroces wanting to somehow change the government to suit his misguided beliefs. There are conservatives that are reasonable. There was a time when I counted myself among them. For the last 10 years they have sat on their hands. However the NEOCONs which can be identified by the 23% of Americans that still support GWB, are completely around the bend. That is NOT conservatism. The neocons have gone so far over the brink that the ONLY way to bring it back into balance is a serious dosage of liberalism. I believe that to be Barack Obama. You are, of course, quite correct about this case and this decision in California. And any first grader could have told them that BEFORE they wasted everyones time and money on the proposition in the first place.

Hartz wrote


No but they are on the ballot. They are part of the election. They do count votes. They are confirmed regularly by a majority of "Voters".

My thoughts exactly. Thank you for posting that

As a Californian, I was very happy that gays and lesbians have the same rights as heterosexuals in that they can get married now. I believe that if two consenting adults love each other and want to do a beautiful thing like getting married, then so be it. I am not a homosexual so I can't imagine what it must be like to be denied something I can take for granted.

California's constitution does not define marriage between a man and a woman and that is something the religious front is going to try to do - to change it to define it as such. They already have the needed amount of signatures and are going to go forward to turn this around. I feel this is so sad. In about a month the wave of gay people going to get married will begin and some fear that in just a matter of 6 months there marriage will mean nothing to the law once again. Here is progess and religion wants us back in the dark ages.

I hope the religious front fails and gays continue to have rights just like everybody else.

Oh gawd I wasn't being sanctimonious. All that was supposed to do was illustrate the separation of church and state. Our people are religious, but our government is secular.

I'd like everyone to please note that I am not arguing for any ban on gay marriage here. In fact, I'm all for same-sex marriage.

Like many, I wish such a right would be recognized constitutionally or at least legislatively, but in the absence of such recognition, I agree that the courts are the only venue a claimant may have in order to achieve equal status, regardless of sexual preference.


Here is what the Court said they were addressing, this comes from the published opinion of the Court itself, and not somebody's interpretation of it. I will highlight the pertinent sentences that further illuminate what I've been saying:


The above is from pages 3 and 4 of the Court's published opinion.

See, the Court was not ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. It was, in fact, ruling on the constitutionality of California's granting a certain set of rights and privileges to one group, and calling the set of rights for that group a "marriage," while granting the exact same set of rights and privileges to another group, yet calling the set of rights for the second group a "domestic partnership."

The Court found that this practice was discriminatory and hence unconstitutional according to the Constitution of the State of California.

If you dig further into it, you'll find that they came to this ruling by invoking the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

I only bring up this "fine point" because it is actually bad news for gay people in California. Because of the way the Court based it's opinion on the domestic partnership laws, a small change in those laws is all that is required to moot the decision. That is, there can be no discrimination under this ruling if the State decides to change the "set of rights and privileges" for domestic partnerships that I mentioned above, since this set of rights and privileges being congruent to those associated with "marriage" is the entire basis of the ruling of discrimination.


The writers of the Constitution believed it to be a "living document." Why shouldn't I?

Things have changed since the 18th Century, in case you haven't noticed.

The Court opinion above makes no changes to any constitution and is subject to review in the future like any other decision. It may be a stretch, but it is by no means as great a stretch of existing writ as, say, Roe V. Wade or even Miranda.


It is not unusual for court opinions to be majority opinions and not unanimous, is it? I daresay that many Supreme Court decisions you probably applaud were majority opinions and not unanimous. In those cases, did you "forget" that some Justices dissented?

And no, I have no dog in the race either. I just wanted to point out how tenuous the ruling actually is, as E.J. Dionne pointed out to me (originally) in his column on it.

Turns out that this particular ruling is not of the "Landmark" variety in that it can be quite easily circumvented by the people of California.



Ripley,
You have a point, but the analogy is somewhat faulty.

While I agree with the idea of gay marriage being a good thing, I have to say that with regard to your post, you should realize that the rights granted to African-American Citizens were, long before the Civil Rights movement and the Civil rights Act of (when was it, 1965 I think?), already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

In that case, the Courts were (properly) exercising their function of executing justice based on existing law.

In the case of gay marriage, regretably, no such right is explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, nor in the Constitution of the State of California.

That leaves some wiggle room for those like Aroces that wish to complain about "activist" judges.

It should be pointed out here that this particular court has a somewhat conservative reputation, though, and as such is not exactly "activist." As I said, courts are only empowered to act on the action that is before them, though they often get to choose what action comes before them.

Anyway, the quote from my link comes from one of the dissenting Justices. The dissensions are also published in the same .doc format page I linked.

Here is the full quote - which was from E.J. Dionne's column (a well-known and highly liberal pundit):


Here is a quote from Corrigan's dissent from that page I linked that may better explain the dissenting position she took:


Here she is basically disagreeing with the majority's use of a higher standard of scrutiny (partially based on scrutiny required when a case comes under the equal protection clause) for making a determination in this case.

And then, further on, she states:


Also, Corrigan herself refuted what you are saying regarding race-based discrimination in the same dissenting opinion:


It takes some reading, but all this can be found in the published opinion I linked.



Point taken


Again with the use of "neocon" as a slur?

Can you truly define "neocon" and not simply apply the term to an entire set of voters, most of whom I would say do not themselves know the meaning of the term you so cavalierly use to describe them?

Are you aware that the "neocons" grew out of a group of disgruntled members of the Democratic Party?

That the prefix "neo" attached to "conservative" was appropriated by these former Democrats to distinguish themselves from Republican conservatives of the "old school" (like Barry Goldwater?)

Have you seen some of the articles appearing in the Weekly Standard that have bashed the very same President you claim the "NEOCONS!!!" are supporting?

Do you know who the editor of the Weekly Standard is?

I wish you would understand that your knee-jerking about neocons is essentially the equivalent of Aroces' knee-jerking about Judicial activism.


That is blatantly untrue. After all, Courts must follow existing law in one form or the other. Like I said, California does not Constitutionally recognize a "right" which allows same-sex couples to marry. In fact, as Aroces (and Justice Corrigan) points out, the finding in this case is a little tenuous. Your hyperbole, like "...any first grader...," is really over the top.

Harte

well it wasn't exactly enshrined in the us constitution for blacks either. many argued those rights were reserved for whites only since it didn't specify color.( many believed blacks inferior - many believed they weren't 100% human ! ) - yet marriage does not specify sex. Marriage itself is a relgious tradition , but in the context of the constitution and the seperation of church and state , no where does it state both parties had to be of opposite sex. we assume so , but that wasn't stated until the Defence of Marriage Act was added because of that arguement. ( which itself can be turned over and eventually will)

don't forget - 18 states had 'Jim Crow' laws West Virginia well into the 90's with it's school systems.

I think the whole bi-polar concept of marriage discriminates against bisexual people.
when will they have their day? huh... let's be civil, we're talking about civil rights here
And it's about time too. About time.

hey if you want to marry a man and a woman - as long as they are adults and concent ? I don't care.

I don't forget it, Ripley.

I also note that the subject of Jim Crow was addressed in the dissent I mentioned previously. States with Jim Crow laws were operating contrary to existing constitutional law, though it was done so with a wink and a nod (to our great shame and regret.)

Discrimination against gays has not received any constitutional prohibition as of yet. That's no doubt why rulings such as this recent one are so weak and easily gotten around - there's no firm basis (yet) for finding discrimination based on sexual preference. Such a basis is thus often "manufactured" from existing law - simply because legislatures are too cowardly to stand up for what they know is right (that should be read as "too used to pandering for votes by scaring people about the gay lifestyle.)

Don't get me wrong - I thing it is egregious that same sex couples haven't access to the same rights of matrimony as opposite sex couples (though I must state the caveat - be careful what you ask for! )

What I'm really trying to do in this thread is "curb the enthusiasm," so to speak.

This ruling is a weak ruling that can easily be overturned, mainly because of the basis the Court chose to use. IOW, the headlines are somewhat hyped.

Gay people should celebrate the ruling, but keep both eyes on what happens next in California.

Harte

Where does it say that the writers specifically believe it to be a living document thru the Judicial branch?

no doubt . I think no matter what it should go to the US Supreme court ...... any law concerning 'marriage' federal or state has crossed the line of church and state since 'marriage ' itself is a religious term. Let churches keep the term marriage and let the term Civil Union be used by all citizens when it comes to the government ceremony. That in itself is a plausible argument to remove DOMA from the US Constitution and remove marriage as a term used by any city hall for any one. Then the argument of marriage being only ment for a man and woman becomes moot since the term marriage wouldn't apply to the government ceremony.

as for being careful what you wish for ? of course . but where 'marriage ' is concerned - gays have just as much rights to be as miserable as straight. lol. I myself would never marry and am glad I haven't or I'd be divorced twice probably paying alimony. My friends are all into double digit relationships and I always end up with Ms. crazy. I figure the solitary artists life is for me.

I agree. The root of this problem is the fact that we've already woven religion into our laws by calling the legal ceremony "marriage". The legal procedure should never have been called the same thing as the religious ceremony.

I'd prefer a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting discrimination of any kind that is based on sexual preference.

That would cover pretty much all the grievances I know of.

Harte

Edited to add:

I meant "sexual preference among consenting adults."

H.

RECENTLY, McCain appeared on Ellen DeGeneres' show:

Transcript:

DEGENERES: So let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about the big elephant in the room. So, by the way, I was planning on having a ceremony anyway this summer, even though it wasn’t legal, but I feel that at least I get to celebrate my love. And then, it just so happens, I can now legally get married, as everyone should.

McCAIN: And I saw where even registered you.

DEGENERES: Yeah, yeah. Illegally registered me. But, yeah. So, I’m obviously excited, and to me, this is only fair and only natural, and what are your thoughts?

McCAIN: Well, my thoughts are that I think people should be able to enter into legal agreements, and I think that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas, decisions that have to be made. I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue.

DEGENERES: Yeah, I mean, I think that it is looked at, and some people are saying that blacks and women did not have the right to vote. Women just got the right to vote in 1920, blacks didn’t have the right to vote until 1870, and it just feels like there’s this old way of thinking that we’re not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same.

(APPLAUSE)

To me, what it feels like, just — I will speak for myself — it feels like when someone says you can have a contract, and you’ll still have insurance and you’ll get all that, it sounds to me like saying, “You can sit there, you just can’t sit there.” That’s what it sounds like to me. It doesn’t feel inclusive; it feels isolated. It feels like we aren’t owed the same things and the same wording.

McCAIN: Well, I’ve heard you articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion and we have a disagreement and I, along with many many others, wish you every happiness.

DEGENERES: So you’ll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you’re saying?

McCAIN: Touche.

Read / Watch VIDEO bit of this HERE


Then recently I read this bit:

Santorum Mocks Gay Marriage: ‘I Love My Brother. Should We Call This Relationship Marriage Too?’

Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer column by former Republican senator Rick Santorum is a shrill rant against the California Supreme Court for its recent ruling allowing gay marriage. Santorum worries about the “future of marriage as the union of husband and wife” and points out that he was “sounding the alarm about marriage” back in 2003.

To underscore his assertion that gay marriage = the collapse of civilization, he points to Norway:

Look at Norway. It began allowing same-sex marriage in the 1990s. In just the last decade, its heterosexual-marriage rates have nose-dived and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children. Too bad for those kids who probably won’t have a dad around, but we can’t let the welfare of children stand in the way of social affirmation, can we?

But what about love? That’s the question a student asked this winter when I spoke at Georgetown University.

Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too? Marriage is and always has been more than the acknowledgment of the love between two people.

Conveniently, Santorum gives no sources for his inaccurate statistics. Norway began allowing same-sex civil unions in 1993. But according to M.V. Lee Badgett, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Norway’s “big surge” in the nonmarital birth rate occurred in the 1980s, jumping from 16 percent to 39 percent. In the decade after Norway authorized civil unions, the nonmarital birth rate rose only “slightly,” and then, “after a couple of years, leveled off at 50 percent.” These rates are similar to those in countries without such laws.

Additionally, in a 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed, William Eskridge, Jr., a Yale professor, and author Darren Spedale found that heterosexual marriage rates have actually risen 12.7 percent in Norway since 1993. Similarly, divorce rates amongst heterosexual couples have fallen 6 percent.

Source found HERE

im bi so this is kick ass!!! wooohoooo!!!

Harte, I wouldn't get involved in a discussion about the Constitution with Aroces.

--Jaylemurph

JM,

I won't. He's on my ignore list now.

Of course, I can still see his "comments" as long as people keep quoting him (hint hint.)

Harte

JM,

Since you did quote him, I'll answer.

The Eighth Amendment provides:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

What was not considered cruel or unusual in the 1700s is today considered quite barbaric.

Had the framers intended a strict reading of what was cruel or unusual, they would have provided a list of forbidden punishments.

Instead, they left this for the Supreme Court to decide.

Thomas Jefferson said:
" I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Edmond Randolph, who was a member of the "committee on detail" which wrote the first draft of the Constitution said:
"In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:

1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events:

and

2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states."

That's all the hints he deserves.

More than he deserves, probably.

Harte

I thought you suppose to ignore me??? Can't help it huh?

It's kind of like looking at a dramatic accident on the highway AROCES. You don't know why you look, but you do.

LOL
And complain about the slow traffic at the same time.

It depends on who is the most rational and fair.

Homosexuals harm no one and merely wish to not be persecuted as well as have the same rights that everyone else has. Well no one is saying that you could not disagree with their life style and how they live them, no person is in any position can tell them they don't have he same right to marriage that everyone else has. Or at least this is how a free nation is supposed to be.