Cal Supreme Court Say YAY to Gay Marriage

[All Else Failed]

My bet is all of the definitions were man and woman until the last 20 or 30 years or so. Don't know that for sure, but I think that's a safe bet.

Marriage has never been, in concrete, globally defined as a "man and woman" through out human history.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Why would you want the government's sanction on your private life? Haven't they ruined enough things without giving them any excuse to become more involved in our relationships and sex lives?

 

[All Else Failed]

What the hell does that mean?

it means that there has never been some sort of universal "law" that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. Study various ancient and recent societies and you'll find that out.

 

[All Else Failed]

There is no right to marriage.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

mar·riage [/b]
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marryDate:14th century

1a:(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Actually it would be, just wanted to point that out.

I don't mind if homosexuals wish to be married, it's their life not mine.

 

[FreeWorkVest]

LOL at this rant. What part of the constitution did the judges violate.

Where in the constitution does it define marriage at all?
Where is abortion made illegal in the constitution?

So you'd rather have 4 judges do it? I don't think you understand the import of what I'm saying here. I would rather have the people decide issues of morality, not 4 judges because while all the liberals applaud these types of half-assed, unconstitutional decisions, they bemoan when the 5 conservative judges on the SC DON'T subvert the Constitution.

Look--nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to same sex marriage just like nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to an abortion yet by a vote of 5-4, 5 judges invented it from whole cloth. And while I myself may actually agree with the result (I think its better economically that we allow abortion), I don't agree with getting there by unconstitutional means. Judges shouldn't be finding things in the Constitution that aren't there.

There are 3 equal branches of the government--the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the Executive Branch. Liberals claim to adore the Constitution, yet they've been screaming for 8 years to neuter the power of the Executive branch because they don't like Bush. Point is he has EQUAL power to the other two branches, but that power has been subverted over the years and taken away--specifically after the Nixon era.

A perfect example of this is all the sqauking over the Patriot Act's provision on wire tapping without a warrant. THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL. The President has the power to order wire taps without a warrant where it involves a foreign power--that's why he can do it if the communiations are with suspected foriegn terrorists. He IS GIVEN THAT POWER IN THE CONSTITUTION. Yet for years liberas have squaked about "illegal wire taps" and "stealing our constutional rights"--bullshit. Learn the Constitution before claiming your rights are being violated. In fact, if Congress limited the President's power to wiretap, THAT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I respect the Constitution--ALL OF IT--all the amendments--the ones I don't like and the ones I do like. If you respect the Constitution, you should be concerned about the attempts to neuter the power of the President and also about judges invalidating laws with not basis in the Constitution to do so.

If the US Supreme Court finds that states cannot define marriage as between an man and woman, then it would do so with no basis in the Constitution. You may not like the prohibition, but you can do something about it--write your representatives--conduct grassroots activities to change the law--don't rely on 5 judges to do it for you.

 

[dt3]

LOL at this rant. What part of the constitution did the judges violate.

Where in the constitution does it define marriage at all?
Where is abortion made illegal in the constitution?

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage, what they violated was the very intent of the framework of our government. The judicial branch DOES NOT pass laws. That's the legislative branch's job. It goes against every check and balance there is.

 

[FreeWorkVest]

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage, what they violated was the very intent of the framework of our government. The judicial branch DOES NOT pass laws. That's the legislative branch's job. It goes against every check and balance there is.

What law was passed by this ruling?

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Supreme court, state or federal, to pass a law

 

[Tim]

The supreme court did not make any law regarding marriage. They only interpreted the current law (which is the role of the Judiciary) to say that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Marriage is already a law on the books, it was not created by the supreme court. There was a case brought before the supreme court questioning the legality of discrimination of said law concerning same sex marriages. The court looked at the current law and ruled that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation... That's it.

Now just like any law, this can be brought before the courts again. But it should not be done because people don't like the ruling. The will of the people have no place in a court of law. The supreme court MUST rule based on the law, and only the law. They must make their decision based on the facts that were presented to them then apply the rule of law as they interpret it. I don't care how many people sit outside and demand they rule in their favor. That is up to the legislature to create a new law based on popular vote/support.

 

[groundpounder]

...Now just like any law, this can be brought before the courts again. But it should not be done because people don't like the ruling. The will of the people have no place in a court of law. The supreme court MUST rule based on the law, and only the law. They must make their decision based on the facts that were presented to them then apply the rule of law as they interpret it. I don't care how many people sit outside and demand they rule in their favor. That is up to the legislature to create a new law based on popular vote/support.

I was wondering when this point was going to be addressed in a succint and elegant way

Nice.

 

[FreeWorkVest]

There was no abrogation of legislative powers in the decision.

So, if the constitution doesn't definemarriage, then the legislature has no constitutional right to prevent certain people from seeking this legal distinction, does it?

 

[FreeWorkVest]

That makes no sense--you have it ass-backwards. The legislature can do anything it wants as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution--the Constitution is a floor--they can provide greater civil rights (and often do), but not less. So the point is the SC of California INVENTED a right that does not exist in the Constitution because that's the only way it could thwart the will of the people. That's why the dissenting justices said the court has committed a grave error--it has violated the Separation of Powers by acting as a "mini legislature" and enacting by judicial fiat what was not enacted by the Legislature.

The law TOOK AWAY a right, that of people to marry.

 

[FreeWorkVest]

Can I knock your head up against a wall?

Anything to get oxygen flowing to your brain again I am a saint

 

[FreeWorkVest]

LOL. I call him fred, and how can you see my webcam!?!?!?!?!


NSA NSA NSA

 

[FreeWorkVest]

Those aren't curtains, I just haven't dusted in a while.