You’re mistaken, Pil; this is a voters’ issue, not one of States Rights. A few years ago, the voters of CA overwhelmingly passed an initiative defining traditional marriage, and outlawing so-called “gay marriage”. In typical leftie fashion, a few judges have overturned the will of the people. Shouldn’t States Rights reflect the will of the voters of that State?
robert108 - 12:05pm on 05/15/2008
Time for a necktie party
GM CASSEL AMH1(AW) USN RET - 12:05pm on 05/15/2008
This is fantastic news!! Now maybe the country will begin to understand that marriage is a basic civil right. Being from Massachusetts this is a great anniversary gift for our 4th year of the legalization of gay marriage on May 17th. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issuehttp://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Charlio - 12:05pm on 05/15/2008
Rob,
What I am concerned about, however, is the legislative process and the way it’s being usurped by the judiciary.
I don’t suppose that you actually read this 176 page decision, so I’ll quote the most important part of it to you:
The legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples… but whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship… but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.”
The court is merely deciding whether the Californian CONSTITUTION allows California to give EQUAL RIGHTS to two different types of parties but call those parties different names.
There is no “legislative usurping” here, the Constitution is already legislated, it is the court’s job to make sure that the state legislature does not pass laws that conflict with its own rules.
If the people of California are unhappy with this ruling, they can always vote to update their constitution. That would be the democratic way of doing it. So…
how can a group of justices invested with no legislative power possibly have justification to eschew the clearly expressed will of Californians?
They were invested, by the legislature, with the power to make the legislature follow its own laws.
Hairy Polemic - 12:05pm on 05/15/2008
HP: It’s an interpretation, one which clearly doesn’t respect the will of the voters of CA.
There is no “right” to get married, only requirements to be able to do so. The Court has clearly changed the requirements, with no legislation to support that.
robert108 - 01:05pm on 05/15/2008
Hairy,
Can you please quote for me the portion of the California constitution which provides for marriage of any sort being a “right?”
Yeah, didn’t think so.
Rob - 01:05pm on 05/15/2008
Charlio: This isn’t about any non-existent “civil right"(leftiespeak for “entitlement"). No one has the right to get married without meeting the requirments.
This is minority rule(and a very small minority at that), imposed on the voters by agendized judges. It’s not the American Way of doing things; it’s more in line with a dictatorship.
robert108 - 01:05pm on 05/15/2008
"We the people” has, under a liberal judiciary (Kleptocracy) in America, become an anachronism; that is, the Left sees it as a time worn idea that belongs to previous centuries and a positive hindrance to their liberal, secular and anti-Christian agenda. For a long time, especially in California, the people have become subjects of a ruling elite in the Supreme Court that ignores the will of the people in favor of their socialist agenda.
Homosexuals are not interested in being married, the data demonstrates that they do not want to be bound to one sexual partner. Rather, they want to destroy the institution of marriage and its Judeo-Christian roots to avoid any sense of social shame for their perverse sexual lifestyle choices and of course any concept of Divine Judgment against homosexual conduct.
The people of California are gathering names for a petition to amend the state constitution to ban homosexual marriage, but Governor SchwarzenKennedy has said he will not support it, giving lie to his former public statements that he did not support homosexual marriage.
Conservatives had a chance to change America back to a true Representive Republic, but they got drunk with power and even outspent liberals and now for decades, if not forever, we the American people will be forced to submit to the Left’s dream of a socialist utopia in this nation and we will day by day lose our liberty.
Neiman - 01:05pm on 05/15/2008
robert108: I’m hearing that the gay marriage issue will be put to California voters in the form of a referendum this Fall. Is this true? What are he odds?
pparets - 01:05pm on 05/15/2008
I’m hearing that the gay marriage issue will be put to California voters in the form of a referendum this Fall. Is this true? What are he odds?
The Initiative process is written by the voters behind the initiative and the California Supreme Court, as it has in the past, will simply say some words are unconstitutional and throw it out and overrule the people. I know, I live in this craphole!
You’re mistaken, Pil; this is a voters’ issue, not one of States Rights. A few years ago, the voters of CA overwhelmingly passed an initiative defining traditional marriage, and outlawing so-called “gay marriage”. In typical leftie fashion, a few judges have overturned the will of the people. Shouldn’t States Rights reflect the will of the voters of that State?
Time for a necktie party
This is fantastic news!! Now maybe the country will begin to understand that marriage is a basic civil right. Being from Massachusetts this is a great anniversary gift for our 4th year of the legalization of gay marriage on May 17th. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue
http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Rob,
I don’t suppose that you actually read this 176 page decision, so I’ll quote the most important part of it to you:
The court is merely deciding whether the Californian CONSTITUTION allows California to give EQUAL RIGHTS to two different types of parties but call those parties different names.
There is no “legislative usurping” here, the Constitution is already legislated, it is the court’s job to make sure that the state legislature does not pass laws that conflict with its own rules.
If the people of California are unhappy with this ruling, they can always vote to update their constitution. That would be the democratic way of doing it. So…
They were invested, by the legislature, with the power to make the legislature follow its own laws.
HP: It’s an interpretation, one which clearly doesn’t respect the will of the voters of CA.
There is no “right” to get married, only requirements to be able to do so. The Court has clearly changed the requirements, with no legislation to support that.
Hairy,
Can you please quote for me the portion of the California constitution which provides for marriage of any sort being a “right?”
Yeah, didn’t think so.
Charlio: This isn’t about any non-existent “civil right"(leftiespeak for “entitlement"). No one has the right to get married without meeting the requirments.
This is minority rule(and a very small minority at that), imposed on the voters by agendized judges. It’s not the American Way of doing things; it’s more in line with a dictatorship.
"We the people” has, under a liberal judiciary (Kleptocracy) in America, become an anachronism; that is, the Left sees it as a time worn idea that belongs to previous centuries and a positive hindrance to their liberal, secular and anti-Christian agenda. For a long time, especially in California, the people have become subjects of a ruling elite in the Supreme Court that ignores the will of the people in favor of their socialist agenda.
Homosexuals are not interested in being married, the data demonstrates that they do not want to be bound to one sexual partner. Rather, they want to destroy the institution of marriage and its Judeo-Christian roots to avoid any sense of social shame for their perverse sexual lifestyle choices and of course any concept of Divine Judgment against homosexual conduct.
The people of California are gathering names for a petition to amend the state constitution to ban homosexual marriage, but Governor SchwarzenKennedy has said he will not support it, giving lie to his former public statements that he did not support homosexual marriage.
Conservatives had a chance to change America back to a true Representive Republic, but they got drunk with power and even outspent liberals and now for decades, if not forever, we the American people will be forced to submit to the Left’s dream of a socialist utopia in this nation and we will day by day lose our liberty.
robert108: I’m hearing that the gay marriage issue will be put to California voters in the form of a referendum this Fall. Is this true? What are he odds?
The Initiative process is written by the voters behind the initiative and the California Supreme Court, as it has in the past, will simply say some words are unconstitutional and throw it out and overrule the people. I know, I live in this craphole!