CA Supreme Court strikes down Gay Marriage Ban - is this proper for a court to do?

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.

In a case like this that deals with a small minority of people, it would be totally unfair to just "let the people decide". That would be like asking Georgia to decide who would rule the state, Baptists or Catholics. Of course you'd get a result that would be dictatorship of the majority. In this case, the court decided that it was not constitutional to deny the right of forming a family to people of the same sex. It's no one's business what 2 consenting adults do in their bedrooms or who someone wants to consider his/her mate. Churches aren't going to be required to perform these weddings; it's simply a legal matter, so petty-minded people should butt out.

Of course it should be struck down. It's a totally bogus issue. How is it your business or mine whether or not two people who love each other are entitled to be married? Give me a break. This issue is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt of latent prepubescent homophobes to make @sses of themselves at the expense of others.

People will always whine when things don't go their way. It would seem they have never heard the term "Life is not fair"

There are hypocrites on both ends of the spectrum. They will eventually get over it...and realize it's not going to bring the apocalypse.

Which amendment guarantees the right to a gay marriage? I can see the right to bear arms but not to marry. Since this is not a specific right in the Constitution then the rights (and all others) are left to the states and people to decide as they do now.

The courts have arrogated a LOT of power unto themselves over the years, especially since the 1960s. The Founding Fathers didn't think the courts would ever start legislating, but they have.