CA Supreme Court oversteps its authority

[ilikeboobs]

Where does the CA Supreme Court get off overturning something that the people of CA voted for, the will of the people as it were?

As far as I know that's a no-no.

This is the pure definition of judicial activism. If the people of CA want a law allowing gay marriage they ought to pass a law. It's not up the courts to decide. Judges like that should run for office. They're nothing but tyrrants.

Voters in CA in 2000 said we want to reserve marriage privileges (not rights - there's no right to be married) to those who procreate. Why - so we can raise the next generation of americans. The laws of marriage are not for the partners, they're for the society/civilization. Look at Europe - it's dying out because people aren't having kids - thus the reason we give benefits to those who make babies.

This gets to a bigger issue, too. Who do we want governing us? Do we want to live under the laws that we, the people, create, or do we want a few select individuals in black robes to govern against the wishes of the people?

 

[Richard Savage]

The California Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do, i.e., review a challenge that the law violated the California Constitution.

And, by the bye, unlike federal judges, the judges of the California Supreme Court must be elected by popular vote to serve beyond the term of their appointment.

 

[bododie]

And that is just one of the reasons why I, a native Californian, no longer live in the state. It's lost to a lack of morality, no personal responsibility and economic despair.
In the end, California will be home to none other than the elite, and those who feel the land belongs to them, and are turning it into the booming cultural and moral country from which they came. The truth of the matter is that over 25,000 millionaires have left California during the last ten years, and took their tax revenue with them. If Californian's come to your state, don't brand them. They are the ones trying to get away from everything that turned the Golden State to tin.

 

[top gun]

The California Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do, i.e., review a challenge that the law violated the California Constitution.

And, by the bye, unlike federal judges, the judges of the California Supreme Court must be elected by popular vote to serve beyond the term of their appointment.

Excellent point and to add to it... There is a fundamental reason why the decision is correct. There is nothing in any Constitution Federal... State... none... that says marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Laws the protect minors or laws that prohibit say... sex with animals have grounds for completely different reasons. I'm not gay. I don't even understand why someone would be gay. But knowing gay adults that seem totally happy with their situation I see no problem with them getting the same full protection and benefits as a couple that straight couples do.

It hurts me in no way.

 

[Bunz]

I thought this would have generated more discussion at this rate. But either way, The California Supreme Court acted in a lawful way, seems the bickering comes from the decision they made.

 

[Libsmasher]

Petitions are circulating to amend the california constitution to allow only heterosexual marriage. I predict it will pass.

 

[Rhodri]

There is a fundamental reason why the decision is correct. There is nothing in any Constitution Federal... State... none... that says marriage can only be between a man and a woman.[/B]

It opens up pandora's box. What about Polygamy? Seems constitutional unfair to have a law against it. I mean,,since we're throwing morals out the window.

 

[top gun]

It opens up pandora's box. What about Polygamy? Seems constitutional unfair to have a law against it. I mean,,since we're throwing morals out the window.

Actually you bring in other issues with Polygamy. You get into the rights and benefits of others. Multiple wives... multiple children by multiple wives creates a serious legal issue and a compelling state interest as far as divorce/separation and also spousal and children's inheritances.

Two adult people of either sex married just gives all the legal protections & benefits of whatever marriage holds. There are no outside legal interest or inherent damages to others.

 

[Richard Savage]

The right of a person to marry is defined by law. Under the law, marriage is a three-party contract between a man and a woman (although some state laws use the term “persons capable of contracting” or similar language, that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Most people don’t realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. In this regard, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.

Contrariwise, the federal government has no direct interest in any of these things. There is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant to the pursuit of happiness, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It is the recent instances of states such as Massachusetts (and now California) recognizing same-sex marriage that has prompted the move to amend the Constitution to provide a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; which would be an intrusion on states’ rights to govern marriage, and an unwarranted limitation on the liberty of the people.

The problem, perhaps, is the failure to differentiate between marriage as a religious rite, and its place as a secular institution of society. In this regard, efforts to legislate the morality of marriage will not add to its sanctity, and only detract from its social purpose by making a federal case out of it.

 

[Here We Go]

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married? They should have the right to go through messy, expensive divorces like the rest of us.

 

[SW85]

It's not up the courts to decide.

Tragically, in California, it was -- Arnold said as much when he vetoed the gay marriage bill.

It is a yet another stunning example of how the left gets it agenda passed largely without popular consent.

 

[top gun]

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married? They should have the right to go through messy, expensive divorces like the rest of us.

I've heard that before. It's not only good as a joke... but also true.

 

[Rhodri]

Actually you bring in other issues with Polygamy. You get into the rights and benefits of others. Multiple wives... multiple children by multiple wives creates a serious legal issue and a compelling state interest as far as divorce/separation and also spousal and children's inheritances.

Two adult people of either sex married just gives all the legal protections & benefits of whatever marriage holds. There are no outside legal interest or inherent damages to others.

Just because it's a pain in the a** shouldn't prevent constitutional rights, if polygamy does in fact qualify for constitutional protection.

 

[top gun]

Just because it's a pain in the a** shouldn't prevent constitutional rights, if polygamy does in fact qualify for constitutional protection.

Maybe I explained it poorly. There has to be a compelling state interest for the courts to intervene. The reasons I cited create a compelling state interest in the case of polygamy. The interests of the multiple wives and their children.

The act of two gay people getting married carry with it no more no less compelling state interest than two heterosexuals getting married.

 

[Rhodri]

Maybe I explained it poorly. There has to be a compelling state interest for the courts to intervene. The reasons I cited create a compelling state interest in the case of polygamy. The interests of the multiple wives and their children.

The act of two gay people getting married carry with it no more no less compelling state interest than two heterosexuals getting married.

What if you wanted to decriminalize it for constitutional reasons?