Activist Judges

[OCA]

This proposition was passed in 2000 and is law in the California constitution. http://www.lao.ca.gov/initiatives/2000/22_03_2000.html

How then does a judge who swore to uphold the law come to this decision? What more information does he need?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/18/MNGPH531401.DTL

 

[Scourge]

Sometimes certain principles are contradictory between constitutions and laws. Plus the 'spirit' of the law must be taken into account when reviewing a law or changing one. Perhaps when the law was made, other issues were top-of-mind... anyhow, anyone who is old enough and sane enough to engage in a legal partnership and consents should be able to marry.
I mean if the majority was gay in this country, they wouldn't have a right to tell me who to marry... not that I would ask permission anyhow.

 

[DKSuddeth]

both sides have their judicial activists, thats why judge owens isn't receiving her vote.

Not all laws are just nor are they constitutionally sound when compared against the bill of rights. Thats what the courts are for, to protect the minority from the majority.

 

[OCA]

The fact of the matter though was that it wasn't this mayor's job to interpret the law as he saw. Let it go through the courts first. On that note all these marriages should be stopped and nullified until further notice.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Scourge
Sometimes certain principles are contradictory between constitutions and laws. Plus the 'spirit' of the law must be taken into account when reviewing a law or changing one. Perhaps when the law was made, other issues were top-of-mind... anyhow, anyone who is old enough and sane enough to engage in a legal partnership and consents should be able to marry.
I mean if the majority was gay in this country, they wouldn't have a right to tell me who to marry... not that I would ask permission anyhow.

If the state constitution defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman (which it does), there's not much room for interpretation, or divining the "spirit of the law," or conjuring up a contradiction. And if there was a contradiction between state law and the constitution, the constitution would win out anyway!

As far as gay marriages, I think I've stated my points before, but I don't think that they should be legal. This goes way beyond "what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom," as so many are fond of saying. This is extending legal rights to people who choose to engage in a certain behavior. They can still get married, if they so desire - any man can marry a woman, and any woman can marry any man. And if they want to give power of attorney rights to each other, or buy a house together, they can already do that. There is no reason to allow same-sex marriages, and I am glad that they are being opposed everywhere they are attempted.

 

[acludem]

Massachussets and California have no such Constitutional amendments. The court in Massachussets decided that the state's Constitution demanded equal protection under the law, and thus the state could not deny the right to marry based upon sexual orientation. Massachussets will have to amend it's constitution to deny gay people marriage. California has a similar problem. There is a state law defining marriage, but the state's Constitution demands equal protection under the law like Massachussets. California courts are already preparing to hear this issue, but this time it's gay marriage opponents filing the case. Activists judges are on both sides. Look at the U.S. Supreme Court - William Rehnquists is BY FAR the most activist Chief Justice we've had. He, along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, has consistently used the power of the Supreme Court to advance his right-wing conservative political agenda. See Bush vs. Gore if you don't believe me.

acludem

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by acludem
Massachussets and California have no such Constitutional amendments. The court in Massachussets decided that the state's Constitution demanded equal protection under the law, and thus the state could not deny the right to marry based upon sexual orientation. Massachussets will have to amend it's constitution to deny gay people marriage. California has a similar problem. There is a state law defining marriage, but the state's Constitution demands equal protection under the law like Massachussets. California courts are already preparing to hear this issue, but this time it's gay marriage opponents filing the case. Activists judges are on both sides. Look at the U.S. Supreme Court - William Rehnquists is BY FAR the most activist Chief Justice we've had. He, along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, has consistently used the power of the Supreme Court to advance his right-wing conservative political agenda. See Bush vs. Gore if you don't believe me.

acludem

There is a huge difference between equal protection under the law and complete avoidance of prohibiting behavior. There are no rights being violated by same sex marriage restrictions as marriage is not a right - it's a contract. Furthermore, behavioral restrictions are certainly constitutional in this country.

I fail to see how the case on the election was in any way avoidance of the law in favor of a political objective.

 

[wonderwench]

Moi - you are really playing a game of sophistry.

Equal protection under the law involves the liberty to enter into legally recognized contracts.

That is all a marriage is from the governmental point of view.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Moi - you are really playing a game of sophistry.

Equal protection under the law involves the liberty to enter into legally recognized contracts.

That is all a marriage is from the governmental point of view.

Does this equal protection afford someone the right to break the law?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Moi - you are really playing a game of sophistry.

Equal protection under the law involves the liberty to enter into legally recognized contracts.

That is all a marriage is from the governmental point of view.

And you are playing a game of boring repitition. There is no equal protection argument. Gay men are entitled to marry JUST THE SAME AS A STRAIGHT MAN. Gay women are entitled to marry JUST THE SAME AS A STRAIGT ONE. There is no difference in the application of the law between one single man and one single woman.

There is certainly no "equal protection under the law to enter into contracts" no matter how hard you truly wish there were. If that were the case, no restrictions on contracts would be permissible. Clearly, that's not the case and contract law is a well-documented, exceedingly complex theatre.

 

[Psychoblues]

Isn't "marriage" a religious term that has somehow sneaked it's way into our legal system that promises no respect for religion? Commitment to one another is enough for me and I've been legally married for 28 years, 34 if you count my first wife. Some states even recognise "common-law" marriages where it is assumed, legally speaking, that a couple is married based on years of cohabitation and/or other factors. Whatever, it's no concern or consequense of mine that gay couples wish to "marry" in order to satisfy arbitrary regulation by private enterprise. Why are some so upset by all this?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Isn't "marriage" a religious term that has somehow sneaked it's way into our legal system that promises no respect for religion? Commitment to one another is enough for me and I've been legally married for 28 years, 34 if you count my first wife. Some states even recognise "common-law" marriages where it is assumed, legally speaking, that a couple is married based on years of cohabitation and/or other factors. Whatever, it's no concern or consequense of mine that gay couples wish to "marry" in order to satisfy arbitrary regulation by private enterprise. Why are some so upset by all this?

The reason this issue is so important to some people - no matter which side of the debate they fall - is because laws do regulate behavior and morality. Those on the side of male/female marriages are sick and tired of people chipping away at the morals of this country. Those on the other side believe that because they aren't "affecting" anyone else, they should have the right to do what they want. I can't speak much for the side of pro gay marriage.

As to why I am against gay marriages, there is nothing about marriage which doesn't affect society. Acceptance of a homosexual life style does impact others through the fact that once it's accepted, I have no choice but to read about it, see it, hear about it, have laws to protect it, etc. My son will be schooled by them, have employers who are them, lawmakers who are them, etc. all parading their sexuality in our faces.

Most of the people who believe that gay marriage should be illegal have no desire to legislate against gays or harm them. They just don't want homosexuality to be defined as a lifestyle and accepted and forced upon them. They aren't the ones who are leading the charge on this legal issue...they are reacting. I would not have stepped into the legal fray if indeed homosexuals weren't out of the bedroom so to speak.

If homosexuality were indeed truly "behind closed doors" and were a matter between two, and only those two individuals, as some have suggested, then this would not be the case. But it is. You only have to look at the court cases involving gay people suing others for the right to their "lifestyle". Once that behavior is out of the bedroom, it's free game. You can't have it both ways...it isn't private when you sue the boy scouts to allow gay leaders. it isn't private when you want a marriage ceremony. it isn't private when you sue to march in a st. patrick's day parade. It isn't private when school teachers sue to teach about it as an alternate life style. It isn't private when it's on the television in the form of accepted gay characters.

Before the debate begins anew about not leglislating morality, let's all please remember that there are few, if any, laws which aren't based in some concept of morality. Why do we have welfare? Becuase it's deemed better for mankind to take care of those who can't take care of themselves...that's a moral decisison. Why do we have seatbelt laws, anti-suidicide and euthanasia laws? Again, society is foisting their morals on someone.

ALL LAWS ARE BASED UPON SOMEONE'S DETERMINATION OF WHAT'S RIGHT FOR SOCIETY.

 

[Reilly]

" There is no equal protection argument. Gay men are entitled to marry JUST THE SAME AS A STRAIGHT MAN. Gay women are entitled to marry JUST THE SAME AS A STRAIGT ONE. There is no difference in the application of the law between one single man and one single woman. "

This is a really silly argument. Under this reading of the Equal Protection Clause, laws preventing the mixing of races would be equally okay. In fact, the US Constitution Equal Protection Clause has been interpreted for many years to prevent treating similarly situated persons differently on the basis of certain characteristics (race, sex, national origin). The question is whether the California Equal Protection Clause recognizes sexual orientation as such a characteristic. There is definitely an EP question here, whichever way it goes.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
" There is no equal protection argument. Gay men are entitled to marry JUST THE SAME AS A STRAIGHT MAN. Gay women are entitled to marry JUST THE SAME AS A STRAIGT ONE. There is no difference in the application of the law between one single man and one single woman. "

This is a really silly argument. Under this reading of the Equal Protection Clause, laws preventing the mixing of races would be equally okay. In fact, the US Constitution Equal Protection Clause has been interpreted for many years to prevent treating similarly situated persons differently on the basis of certain characteristics (race, sex, national origin). The question is whether the California Equal Protection Clause recognizes sexual orientation as such a characteristic. There is definitely an EP question here, whichever way it goes.

You're right, it is a silly argument. A constitutional amendment will take care of this and then it's game over for the queers. Seeya, Queers!

 

[Reilly]

You're right, it is a silly argument. A constitutional amendment will take care of this and then it's game over for the queers. Seeya, Queers!

You add nothing to the thread, and that is fine. Please don't detract from it by name calling.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
You're right, it is a silly argument. A constitutional amendment will take care of this and then it's game over for the queers. Seeya, Queers!

You add nothing to the thread, and that is fine. Please don't detract from it by name calling.

That's what they call themselves, so I'll use it when necessary.

I've added plenty, the hopes of marriage in the minds of the queers are going down the tubes!

 

[OCA]

Uh hey smart guy ever hear of the show "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" what word do you see in there? Queer is a valid term for them since it denotes something thats a little off center, not right in other words.

ON WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL BAN AND CRUSH THE HOPES OF THE QUEERS FOREVER! Thank god for W because with Gore i'm sure there would be copious amounts of man on man fellatio on the West Lawn as we speak.

 

[jimnyc]

What about their slogans: "We're here, We're queer..."

 

[Reilly]

Jimmy, I was wrong to say you add nothing to the thread. I apologize.

However, the word "queer" has historically had a negative connotation. It, like many words, has a different connotation depending on how it is used. There are certain words used to refer to African-americans that are the best examples of this. When used by homosexuals about each other, or amongst each other, it has a decidely different connotation than when it is used by those who seek to oppress them (I understand you don't view it as oppression).

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
Jimmy, I was wrong to say you add nothing to the thread. I apologize.

However, the word "queer" has historically had a negative connotation. It, like many words, has a different connotation depending on how it is used. There are certain words used to refer to African-americans that are the best examples of this. When used by homosexuals about each other, or amongst each other, it has a decidely different connotation than when it is used by those who seek to oppress them (I understand you don't view it as oppression).

If it's ok for them to call themselves that then it's certainly ok for me. EQUAL RIGHTS, remember?