CA Supreme Court strikes down Gay Marriage Ban - is this proper for a court to do?
Today, in a 4-3 decision, the Republican appointed CA Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the law banning Gay Marriage.
Christians and conservatives are upset, saying that this is an improper thing for the court to have done. Recently, though - the same court struck down as unconstitutional a San Francisco law that banned ownership and possession of handguns in the city, and those same conservatives applauded the court for *that* decision.
Is it possible they don't see the hypocrisy of those two conflicting standpoints on the SAME issue? Can people really be that illogical? Are people sleeping through civics in high school? Do you know what Supreme Courts are supposed to rule on?
2008-05-15T21:12:51Z
1. In both cases - the banning of gay marriage, and the banning of handguns in the city of SF, the Supreme Court of CA struck down the laws as unconstitutional. They did NOT legislate - they interpreted the Constitution of California.
AND - btw - here's what the CA Constitution says:
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
So - taking that into account - how can Conservatives whine about the CASC striking down one law they liked - and applaud it when they struck down a law they didn't?
magicbird2008-05-15T16:16:57Z
Favorite Answer
What you're talking about is the CA SC striking down NEW laws that were created by certain groups of people which were challenged by other people that didn't like the new laws.
That's not the same as 'legislating'--the CA Supreme Court didn't 'legislate' these laws--other people did. The CA SC just looked at them to see if they were constitutional or not, that's what supreme courts are supposed to rule on. Tthey were not 'legislating.' [at least, not in purity or in theory].
But I get your point. Personally, I'm glad they struck down the law banning Gay marriage as unconstitutional--it should be. Why should anyone else intrude into 2 peoples' personal relationship when they're not hurting anyone? The handgun thing? It all depends on the LEGAL wording of that SPECIFIC law. and legal wording can be really nit-picky.
But yes, I agree--the hypocrisy is glaring. Can people be really that illogical? YES. HEY, I accidentally posted a question in the 'hunting' section last week and lemme tell ya, there are some creepy people out there.....
The states rights claim is nonsense - witness this quote:
"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.
This is the true intention: to inject plain bigotry back into the Constitution - I guess some people still haven't gotten over the 14th, or that inter-racial marriage di not cause the republic to fall, or that gay marriage has not caused Canada, Spain, or anywhere else it is legal a minute's worth of trouble.
I guess they are really just projecting religious fears of being smote or something, but that is not something for either State or US Constitutions to worry about.
Edit: Allen - this is not the Court legislating - there was a specific case/dispute that was tried in lower courts, and appealed to the SC, and they ruled - how else do you expect it to work if not like that? Perhaps a review of ALL of the checks and balances part of civics class is in order for you?
As the judge pointed out in his decision, marriage is a civil contract. Numerous people confuse this fact with personal belief regarding what a "marriage" should be. Despite the fanfare of a typical marriage ceremony, a couple will not be announced to be married by a pastor, etc., unless they have signed the marriage license that has been provided to them by the State. The pastor declares that a couple have become one, but that is merely a declaration of the pastor. The pastor can make such a declaration, only because the State has granted the pastor the authority to do so. Based upon my understanding of the law, a couple that has signed a marriage license would still be married even if both of them decided to bolt from the wedding ceremony and declare themselves disengaged.
Yes. Gay marriage is a constitutional issue, due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as well as the Equal Protection clause. Unless LGBTs are no longer considered people or US citizens, those apply to them. All people are entitled equal protection under the law, but the LGBT community is denied that. Also, it brings up the issue of state sponsored religion, since there aren't any solid non-religious arguments against it. This would not be the first time that a court has had to go against what is popular to enforce the Constitution. Look at Loving vs. Virginia, or Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education.
I think the Court made the right decision. This is the United States of America. This country was created for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. People have the right to marry whoever they want even if it is their own gender. I don't see a problem with that.