Calif appeals court upholds same-sex marriage ban

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Oct 5, 2006.

  1. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,323
    Thanks Received:
    2,018
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,820
    What a surprise. A judge who believes that a state legislature, and the state's voters, should actually have some say in how things are done in their state. Just because the Constitution says it should be that way. And this is in California, yet!

    Have the gay advocates warmed up the tar and feathers yet?

    --------------------------------

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/05/BAG4KLJAF24.DTL

    Appeals court upholds same-sex marriage ban

    Bob Egelko, Cecilia M. Vega and Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Thursday, October 5, 2006

    (10-05) 15:40 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Gays and lesbians have no constitutional right to marry in California, a right that can be granted only by state lawmakers or voters, a state appeals court ruled today.

    The 2-1 decision, which reversed a San Francisco Superior Court judge's ruling, was a defeat for gay-rights advocates, who have looked to California courts to follow the lead of a 2003 ruling by Massachusetts' high court legalizing same-sex marriage in that state. The California Supreme Court is expected to have the final word in the case sometime next year.

    In today's ruling, the Court of Appeal in San Francisco said the boundaries of marriage are up to the Legislature, which passed a law in 1977 defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. State voters reaffirmed that decision in a 2000 initiative that denied recognition to same-sex marriages in other states.

    "The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that 'marriage' in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning,'' Presiding Justice William McGuiness said in the majority opinion.

    Although California courts have recognized a fundamental right to marry, he said, it applies only to the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex. "That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings,'' McGuiness said.

    He also noted that California has passed laws that give registered domestic partners the same rights as married couples under state law, although those rights are not recognized by the federal government.

    "We believe it is rational for the Legislature to preserve the opposite-sex definition of marriage, which has existed throughout history and which continues to represent the common understanding of marriage in most other countries and states of our union, while at the same time providing equal rights and benefits to same-sex partners,'' McGuiness said.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Wow, states should be able to regulate marriage? :shocked:
     
  3. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    I've been looking for these words for months. I couldn't have said it better, myself.
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Wow... a republican appointee who rules against gay marriage... I'm shocked I tell ya... shocked. :thewave:

    Boy... Ahhhhnold is gonna have to sleep in the garage for the next few weeks. Heh!
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Nice response. By all means let's don't address the perfect logic presented by a justice who understands the bounds of his position.
     
  6. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    In California no less....Great news. It's time the gays take the hint and stop trying to push their ridiculous phony gay "marriage" upon our country. They've lost and if they keep pushing they're going to lose even more than that.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427

    I have no problem with your agreement with Justice McGuiness. My only issue is with the pretense that his position is somehow apolitical. This game of pretend that it is done to somehow be true to the Constitution..... it's not intellectually honest.

    Judges make their decisions first and, if they can without violating binding precedent and risk being reversed (judges HATE being reversed), they find the law that supports those positions and that's what they use in their decisions. ALL judges do this... dems, repubs, libs, righties....
     
  8. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    if i remember correctly....all the judge did was uphold the law that was voted on and passed by the people of california
     
  9. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669

    Yes so nice to know French and Sweedish law were not taken into account this time. :thup:
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    That isn't the job of a judge making a constitutional determination. The fact of it being enacted is irrelevant to the question of constitutionality or every law, by definition, would be Constitutional.

    Begs the question...
     

Share This Page