Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To request a stay makes sense inasmuch as there is an initiative on the ballot (November) - and the petitioners make a valid point: If gays, under this ruling, get "married", and the voters vote gay marriage down, there would be significant legal entanglements to be dealt with.
Before people spout off nonsense its helpful to know the facts about California state government.
The state legislature twice passed a bill legalizing sane sex marriage. The governator vetoed the bill twice and curiously said he would defer to the decision of the California Supreme Court. He is opposed to the Constituonal amendment banning same sex marriage. Also it is important to note that court justices stand for reelection in California so they are subject to the will of the people.
It is also helpful to note that judges are rarely voted down. Technically they are subject to the will of the people but they are not appointed by the people.
Also, voters resoundingly approved Proposition 22 only 8 years ago by a 61% vote. The court could have went either way in this decision. The could have easily fit the will of the people within a reasonable interpretation of the state constitution. Instead they decided to overthrow the will of the people. The least they could do is say that prop 22 doesn't fit with the state constitution but the voters have until November to pass something that does.
The governator vetoed the bills because he deferred to prop 22 as the voice of the people. (I only wish now he would have the courage to stand up and say the court overstepped its bounds and he will not enforce the ruling until after November.) The CA legislature has overrode propositions approved by voters several times in the recent past. They are arrogant insulates who have nothing by disdain for the the voters if the voters stand in the way of their agenda.
A conservative legal group is asking the California Supreme Court to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage until voters get a chance to weigh in.
The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund wants the ruling stayed until November, when voters are likely to encounter a ballot measure would amend the state's constitution to ban gay marriage. That vote would overturn the justices' ruling.
I understand your argument but you essentially just acknowledged that the court didn't grant gays equal rights but a special right. They already have the same right as everyone else.
Nope, not at all. There is nothing special about equal protection. By your logic, blacks and whites intermarrying is a special right. Is it really? With same-sex marriage both heterosexuals and homosexuals will be able to marry people of their sex. It's not a right only for homosexuals just like opposite-sex marriage isn't a right only for heterosexuals.
"Domestic partnerships" is a special right. That is what the court did away with.
Quote:
Politics aside, then, I think the people - directly or via the legislature - should be the ones to grant special rights, not the court.
There is no special right granted here.
Quote:
I saw a poll on this issue this morning. 52% of Californians disagree with the ruling and 51% support a state constitutional amendment to reverse it. I'm not saying the people are right or wrong. I'm just posting the poll numbers.
If I recall correctly, a more significant majority than 51% is necessary for a constitutional amendment.
It is also helpful to note that judges are rarely voted down. Technically they are subject to the will of the people but they are not appointed by the people.
Also, voters resoundingly approved Proposition 22 only 8 years ago by a 61% vote. The court could have went either way in this decision. The could have easily fit the will of the people within a reasonable interpretation of the state constitution. Instead they decided to overthrow the will of the people. The least they could do is say that prop 22 doesn't fit with the state constitution but the voters have until November to pass something that does.
The governator vetoed the bills because he deferred to prop 22 as the voice of the people. (I only wish now he would have the courage to stand up and say the court overstepped its bounds and he will not enforce the ruling until after November.) The CA legislature has overrode propositions approved by voters several times in the recent past. They are arrogant insulates who have nothing by disdain for the the voters if the voters stand in the way of their agenda.
Prop 22 violates the CA Constitution. There is no reason to try to work out a way to justify bigotry. Really, now.
Nope, not at all. There is nothing special about equal protection. By your logic, blacks and whites intermarrying is a special right. Is it really? With same-sex marriage both heterosexuals and homosexuals will be able to marry people of their sex. It's not a right only for homosexuals just like opposite-sex marriage isn't a right only for heterosexuals.
"Domestic partnerships" is a special right. That is what the court did away with.
There is no special right granted here.
Of course gay marriage is a special right. Interracial marriage is not a valid argument. All people, gay or straight, have the right to marry any person (of age) of the opposite sex of any race.
No person, gay or straight, currently had the legal right to marry someone of the same sex
Domestic partnerships were created by representatives directly elected by the people in an effort to give gays some partnership rights without outraging the voters. I think they violated the spirit of what the voters approved by going too far but at least they were not unelected judges.
I am not trying to argue the merits of gay marriage in this thread. I am only trying to make the point that the court did indeed create a special right by allowing anyone (gay or straight) to marry another person of the same sex.
I have a problem with the most powerful branch of government being the one least accountable to the people. The judiciary branch also decides for itself what it has authority over which is generally everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiloMike
If I recall correctly, a more significant majority than 51% is necessary for a constitutional amendment.
Why is an Arizona group concerned with California?
"Arizona based" - their offices are here - they are involved with these types of propositions all over the country
The issue IS - California does have a ballot issue on Gay Marriage for November (as will Arizona).
The groups point is correct IMLO: If Gay Marriages are allowed under the courts ruling, and the Ballot initiative passes - there will be significant legal issues for those who got "married".
"A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope"
Remember this anytime the majority wants to impune on your personal rights.
Of course gay marriage is a special right. Interracial marriage is not a valid argument. All people, gay or straight, have the right to marry any person (of age) of the opposite sex of any race.
Interracial marriage is a very valid argument: all people black and white had the right to marry someone of their own race (of age). There was no special punishment for blacks that wasn't applicable to whites for the same transgression. This was an equally enforced prohibition, just like today where men can't marry men and women can't marry women yet they can marry their opposite sex. Equally enforced prohibition. That the SCOTUS allowed the races to all of a sudden intermarry created a special right that did not exist prior.
Quote:
No person, gay or straight, currently had the legal right to marry someone of the same sex
And before CA legalized interracial marriage in 1948 no person black or white had the legal right to marry someone of the opposite race.
Quote:
Domestic partnerships were created by representatives directly elected by the people in an effort to give gays some partnership rights without outraging the voters. I think they violated the spirit of what the voters approved by going too far but at least they were not unelected judges.
Actually, the representatives twice created same-sex marriage but the governator vetoed it both times.
Quote:
I am not trying to argue the merits of gay marriage in this thread. I am only trying to make the point that the court did indeed create a special right by allowing anyone (gay or straight) to marry another person of the same sex.
The court, as I see it, clarified that the right to same-sex marriage has existed and still exists per the CA Constitution in theory (due to CA's recognition of marriage as a fundamental right, the recognition of gays as a suspect class, or whatever they call it, and the equal protection clause) and that it wasn't being practiced and was actually outlawed by Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.
Quote:
I have a problem with the most powerful branch of government being the one least accountable to the people. The judiciary branch also decides for itself what it has authority over which is generally everything.
This apprehension I share with you.
Quote:
I'm not sure on that. You might be right.
Anyone wanna google it? I'm teh lazay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
