Why did the people of California bother voting then when a judge can make the final decision anyway?
I suggest then we let go of voter approving laws, have congress just present laws and judges decide which laws to passs or not.

Here's a better question, why does a country that prides itself on it's freedom feel the need to outlaw things which don't cause any harm at all?

Here's a better question, why does a country that prides itself on it's freedom feel the need to outlaw things which don't cause any harm at all?

Freedom does not mean anything goes as long as no one gets harm, a society is built by people having certain guidelines.
And who is better to decides those certain guidelines, the people or Judges?

I watched a newsclip from yesterday from California showing the Gays and Lesbians waiting for the verdict. They were transfixed and then all of a sudden boom ... laughter, hugs and tears after the verdict was announced. Like they came out of the desert after ten days and found some grape Kool-aid.

Freedom .... with their exception

Just read a newsclip that stated that "gay marriage opponents vow to fight ruling"

These holier than thou's need to get the hell out of my country. Who the hell do they think they are, going around using their religion to force their beliefs on fellow countrysmen and women. I personally think that it should be allowed, even though they should keep it in the "closet" but they have the right ... the right to the pursuit of happiness. This attack on the U.S through religion has to go.

Fortenberry then started in on a rant against science and against scientific explanations for cycles of sin. "Take homosexuals," he said. "Every single homosexual is a sexual-abuse victim. They are not born. They are created -- by pedophiles."

“It is the people and not the judges who are entitled to say what the Constitution means, for the Constitution is theirs, it belongs to them and not to their servants in office” - Teddy Roosevelt

Heavens, I had no idea I've been sexually abused...

...I guess it must have been by Mr Fortenberry since he knows so much about it.


--Jaylemurph

The citizens of any region should be able to vote and decide what the law will be through referendum. Judges should stop overriding the will of the majority. It is not so much about the issue it is the fact that judges should not be into the lawmaking or lawbreaking business.

Freedom does not mean anything goes as long as no one gets harm, a society is built by people having certain guidelines.
And who is better to decides those certain guidelines, the people or Judges?

Why did the people of California bother voting then when a judge can make the final decision anyway?
I suggest then we let go of voter approving laws, have congress just present laws and judges decide which laws to passs or not.

The citizens of any region should be able to vote and decide what the law will be through referendum. Judges should stop overriding the will of the majority. It is not so much about the issue it is the fact that judges should not be into the lawmaking or lawbreaking business.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage will not be the last word.

California voters will almost certainly hold a referendum on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in November, and for the first time anywhere in the U.S., the vote will have a direct and immediate effect on gay couples waiting to tie the knot.

The amendment needs a simple majority to pass, and if the voters reject gay marriage, their decision will supersede the high court's. There are signs the contest's outcome will be close.

It will certainly be costly — the two sides say they plan to spend at least $25 million combined on the campaign.

"The people who want to defeat the amendment are going to have to work very hard to be successful — harder than the people who want the amendment to pass," said Charles Gossett, a California State University-Pomona political scientist who has analyzed a decades worth of poll numbers on the issue. "But I don't think its impossible."

Though the state has a history of being on the vanguard of gay rights, California residents have polled slightly against same-sex rights in recent years.

The most recent polls, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that 51 percent and 49 percent of survey respondents opposed making gay marriage legal, while 43 percent and 45 percent endorsed the idea.

The citizens of any region should be able to vote and decide what the law will be through referendum. Judges should stop overriding the will of the majority. It is not so much about the issue it is the fact that judges should not be into the lawmaking or lawbreaking business.

And what's the point of a guideline banning gay marriage? Marriage is not between one man and one woman, it's between one man and at least one woman. Family isn't the strict definition that seems to be forced onto it, one mother, one father, one daughter, one son. The only right this gay marriage ban is infringing on is the right for homosexuals to be happy.

The people shouldn't be the last word for laws anyway, it has been demonstrated countless times that people are too easily swayed to be a reliable decider. And who is going to turn up for such a vote? Only those motivated by either side, and those motivated against gay marriage greatly outnumber those who are motivated for it. That sounds like a balanced system to me.

Can't say that anymore for judges differ in opinions as well and there are Liberal and Conservative judges.
And what had the people approved gay marriage and the Judges overturned it, I'm sure you be calling to hang the judges.
.

And what had the people approved gay marriage and the Judges overturned it, I'm sure you be calling to hang the judges.

Just spewing the Neocon talking points eh? the people of California DID INDEED VOTE THESE JUDGES INTO OFFICE. The truth hurts don't it.

I'm sure they wouldn't be able overturn it because gay marriage being illegal is unconstitutional.

The people of California did in fact. And no, "hanging" judges is something extreme neo-conservatives want to do when they don't get their way.

The good citizens of California can bring referendums. Unlike almost all states. These judges where voted in by a MAJORITY. A judges job is to interpret existing laws. And they have done so. There was no lawmaking involved.

The people of California voted and defined marriage as between a man and a woman. 4 Judges didn't interpret the will of the people and instead redefined it, kind of like oral sex is not sex.

According to 4 judges, who made a ruling against the 3 other Judges and 37 million Californians.

I thought the US prided itself on staying out of peoples private lives, and getting the people to vote on something that will NOT affect them in any way shape or form is the exact opposite of it.

I thought the US prided itself on staying out of peoples private lives, and getting the people to vote on something that will NOT affect them in any way shape or form is the exact opposite of it.

So if the people wanted to they could go and define education as being for white people?

America is obsessed with controlling peoples private lives and always has been. Think about the Puritans with their intricate legal system controlling peoples sex lives. This cultural obsession is the reason that most people (even people here) are so clueless about the concept of civil rights. Fortunately for America, the founding fathers DID understand civil rights and put the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.

The US pride itself in having a society that have law and order and a system. Not really whatever goes and feels good is the way it is.

You can say that for we have so many who are dependent on the govt for just basically everything, talk about controlling ones life.

Counties with oppressive dictatorships have law and order and a system too. You've got to have individual human rights in the equation too.

Yes we do have that, does not mean it's all gone because of one issue.

Using the gay thing as an example-- how does allowing consenting adults who love each other to create a legally recognized household allow one segment of the population to sponge off of another?

If fairness is gone on one issue it's gone. Being fair to everyone except one person isn't the same as being fair.

Whoever told you that everything in life is fair??? where have you been?

So if Judges wanted to they could go and define education as being for white people?
Now who would you rather have the say, 4 Judges or the majority of the population?

Judges are there to interpret the laws which are made by the politicians elected by the people.

Judges are there to interpret the laws which are made by the politicians elected by the people. That's they way it should be. The judges can't define anything they only interpret the laws. The politicians define things, people elect the politicians. So in that sense both the population and the judges had a say in this and the judges upheld what the majority believes. After all the majority had to be behind the constitution.
All western countries have this silly notion that the majority can't take away rights from the minority when these rights aren't harmful.

Yes, interpret and not redefine. California people voted to define marriage and decided that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now 4 judges said, nope that is not correct under the constitution when there is nothing under the constitution that the judges based their rule on. So the Judges basically had no basisi for the ruling, made it up and overturned the vote of the people.

They're also there to enforce the civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

But by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman the majority (or at least the majority of those who actually voted) infringed upon the rights of a minority. Thereby it because unconstitutional and that's why the judges overturned the law. The judges basis for overturning the law was the constitution of the state, which seems like a pretty good basis to me. So if the majority really has a problem with this then they'll have to change the constitution first.