California Supreme Ct overturns Gay Marriage Ba

[The New Guy]

what is up with that? activist judges are at it again. i'd like to think us voters have some legal recourse but the way things go here in cali our appeal would end up in the 9th circus court of appeals!

well, i expect to see it on the ballot this fall and hopefully california voters set it straight.

[Mink]

This will be like legalizing marijuana. It just won't happen. California may be a blue state but it has its' limits.

[ferrous]

At first, I was somewhat outrage that the court had reversed the will of the people and granted "single-sex marrigages.

After some though, I realized that it just didn't affect me or my wife in any real Physical way.

Looking back at it now, I see apponited judges enacting laws to fit thier political agendas.

For a Supreme Court to rule on such an important issue with a bare minimum of a majority, go against the will of the people (66%), and cater to a select minority with the false premise that it denys equal protection under the constitution is a travesty of justice.

Is it about time for another "judge recall" like when the voters of California were unhappy with other California Supreme Court Justices?

[bolverk]

The State requiring marriage licenses is unconstitutional, and violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. Just a glance at the history of how State sanctioned marriage licenses came into being verifies this, especially when the history of marriage is taken into consideration.

In fact, State marriage licenses were born out of bigotry and racism, and violated the First Amendment to the Constitution, and may well have violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as well, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

When you consider the reasons that State required marriage license were created, it would be easier to remove the law then to validate it through court preceding. In the long run, it does more damage then good. Churches should be the ones who issue and validate marriages, not the state, over 1600 years of history proves this.

[saunterelle]

I agree with bolverk that the state should not require marriage licenses.

Since they do, however, it should be open to any two consenting adults as long as they aren't family. Like ferrous concluded after giving it some thought, how is it affecting you? People should be free to marry the person they're in love with and reap the benefits that come along with marriage.

Churches should be free to decide if they will marry gay couples or not. But in the eyes of the law, all should be considered equal.

I disagree with Mink because I don't think CA voters will overturn this. Now that gay marriage is legal and tens of thousands are rushing out to get married, it would be unconscionable for voters to take away their right at this point. Especially when they consider, like ferrous did, that it doesn't affect them or their family. And, it brings some much needed money to our state in marriage license fees.

[mrroqout]

Right but just like Prop 215 (Medical MJ)the FEDS are the ones that need convincing.

[subdjoe]

"Now that gay marriage is legal and tens of thousands are rushing out to get married, it would be unconscionable for voters to take away their right at this point.'

Well, the left is working hard to take away other rights from citizens. Even ones that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Why should this be any different?
Also, the left seems to love to change the rules for every issue. On the one hand they scream that the majority rules, and whatever the majority decides is the law of the land. On the other hand, they scream that a small minority should be able to dictate to the vast majority on many issues. Consistancy is what is needed. And respect for the Constitution and its plain, simple and clear meaning as written. Jefferson warned against trying to twist meaning out of it rather than relying on its plain words.

[The Big Dog]

I'd say 62% of California's voters, who passed the iniative defining marriage between a man and a woman, might need a little convincing too.

This decision, while I am not really for or against it on point, is every bit as bad as the decision which killed Prop 187 back in 1999... and empowered a cowardly Governor named Davis to abandon further appeal in spite of nearly 60% of the voters approving it.

[crossride]

One way this affects alll of us, potentially: Spouses are eligible for benefits from employers. The number of companies that recognize "domestic partners" for benefits is slim compaed to the number that allow benefits to spouses. Now we're opening up that definition to many more "couples". We'll all pay for that part of it.

[Mink]

Love between two people is understandable. I don't know how they expect the children within or outside the union to comprehend it all. California is just one state of this country.

[subdjoe]

It will be interesting to see how the full faith and credit clause applies to this. And, using the same arguments, it does open the door to issuing licenses for polygamous and polyandrous groups. If two people can love each other, then why can't 3 or more have a loving bond equally as strong?

[saunterelle]

It doesn't open the door to polygamy any more than traditional marriage does. The slippery slope arguments are getting old. There are laws against bestiality, there are laws against polygamy, there are laws against incest.

In the eyes of the state, marriage can be between two consenting adults who are not related. End of story.