Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Jazzy

Dudess wrote: »

People are against it because it's icky pretty much.

Oh and if there's a link between homosexuality and paedophilia then there must be a link between heterosexuality and paedophilia, seeing as paedophiles also fancy children of the opposite sex to them.

how do you know?! lads & lassies, i think we got one!

bodice ripper

Stinicker wrote: »

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual

sorry, let me stop you right there. in the united states, we have seperation of church and state. the state is not required to pay lip service to religious views in this. its a contract.

Dudess

Stinicker wrote: »

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual

Not if you get married in a registry office, or if it's a marriage of convenience.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

That's the problem with judicial activism. Judges can be completely out of touch with the actual electorate, whereas the electorate can give the broader opinion as to what their society really wants.

Out of interest - Do you think that the 1988 ECHR Norris judgement was wrong?

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is right that people should be able to decide how things are run in their own country, or in this case in their State. That's what democracy means, the term is derived from the Greek words demos - people and kratia - power.

That's lovely, but the USA is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. It's in the name. If it's unconstitutional then it doesn't hold any sway regardless of what the people vote.

Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[2] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.

eightyfish

Just reading some of the ignorant comments on FoxNews about the story such as:

Homosexuals are turning California into Sodom and Gomorrah. My recomendation to all God fearing Americans living there is to move out of that state while you still can.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

No man, you have it back to front. The ammendment was to change the constitution to say that marriage must be between a man and a woman. It didn't pass. Therefore for a State to introduce a ban saying that marriage must be between a man and a woman is not supported by the constitution. It is infact inconsistant with the parts of the constitution the judge, and others have highlighted.

There are two constitutions binding on California. The California State Constitution, and the US Constitution.

When Proposition 8 was passed, an amendment was added to the California State Constitution to say that marriage was between a man and a woman.

This was appealed by the 'No to 8' side, who challenged the Constitutionality of this amendment, in comparison to the US Constitution.

At least that is what I thought.

It is difficult to see how it is unconstitutional if there are other States with such amendments either in their Constitutions or in their State Statutes.

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Out of interest - Do you think that the 1988 ECHR Norris judgement was wrong?

There is nothing concerning LGBT sexual acts in the Irish Constitution. There was a clear mention of what marriage is in the California State Constitution.

This is different in that it proposes an entire change of family structure and marriage from its former position. This is something that can and will change entire societies, so it is something that the people need to think about, and decide for themselves on.

I would be wholly opposed to an EU-wide top-down imposition to change the definition of marriage.

Nodin

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Sadly, it's democratic. AKA the tyrrany of the majority.

jakass wrote:

I think it is right that people should be able to decide how things are run in their own country, or in this case in their State. That's what democracy means, the term is derived from the Greek words demos - people and kratia - power. .

Not in a Republic. The whole American setup was created to avoid that kind of thing.

jakass wrote:

I don't believe that essential legislation that changes the way of life for an entire State.

You might note that gay marriage was made legal, not mandatory.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing concerning LGBT sexual acts in the Irish Constitution. There was a clear mention of what marriage is in the California State Constitution.

This is different in that it proposes an entire change of family structure and marriage from its former position. This is something that can and will change entire societies, so it is something that the people need to think about, and decide for themselves on.

I would be wholly opposed to an EU-wide top-down imposition to change the definition of marriage.

You didn't answer my question

philologos

I did. I don't think that in that case the ECHR did anything out of the ordinary, as it wasn't defying the Irish Constitution.

In this case it was going clearly against the State of California Constitution. In the Irish context when the divorce law was considered out of step with the EU, it wasn't amended immediately, it was brought to referendum.

In this case, if it was deemed unconstitutional, the best thing to do would have been to bring it to referendum again on the November ballot with the mid-term elections.

bluewolf - A Constitutional Republic is a form of representative democracy.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

bluewolf - A Constitutional Republic is a form of representative democracy.

The point is that it's set up so that majority vote doesn't necessarily win if it's unconstitutional. So if you're complaining about the people not getting their way, well, that's probably a different debate

Magill

Magill wrote: »

i guess there are alot of gay haters in cali.

They are called Mormons. There are some freaky documentaries where they try to un-gay people. Seems so surreal.

wes

Good to see this being over turned. There is no good reason for a ban on Gay marriage, as it doesn't hurt anyone.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

It is difficult to see how it is unconstitutional if there are other States with such amendments either in their Constitutions or in their State Statutes.

Why?
The fact that something is in a State 'statute/constitution' does not necessarily mean it is in compliance with the US Constitution.

The judge in this case felt that introducing/maintaining a ban on gay marriage was against the US Constitution. Whether the people of California voted for it or not is immaterial. By way of analogy, if the people of California voted to re-introduce slavery, it would still be repugnant to the US Constitution.

The next step is for this to be appealed to the Appelate Court and then to the Supreme Court. If the SC believe such a law is repugnant to the US Constitution, then any State with such a law will be forced to repeal it. That will be lots of fun.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Why?
The fact that something is in a State 'statute/constitution' does not necessarily mean it is in compliance with the US Constitution.

I never said that. What I mean is, if it was so blatantly unconstitutional to regard marriage under the most common definition of a union between a man and a woman, why haven't these other States had their amendments to constitution or statute struck down.

drkpower wrote: »

The judge in this case felt that introducing/maintaining a ban on gay marriage was against the US Constitution. Whether the people of California voted for it or not is immaterial. By way of analogy, if the people of California voted to re-introduce slavery, it would still be repugnant to the US Constitution.

The question is whether or not it is in fact unconstitutional to begin with.

drkpower wrote: »

The next step is for this to be appealed to the Appelate Court and then to the Supreme Court. If the SC believe such a law is repugnant to the US Constitution, then any State with such a law will be forced to repeal it. That will be lots of fun.

It will be certainly interesting to see where this leads.

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing concerning LGBT sexual acts in the Irish Constitution. There was a clear mention of what marriage is in the California State Constitution

That came about in the first place because of Prop 8... which was deemed unconstitutional with respect to the US constitution by this court.

As for other states, I don't know if challenges have been brought to amendments to their constitutions. Until such was done or until a case reached a federal court, the states act independently here. If a court in California deems something to be unconstitutional, it binds California in that regard, not the other states in question. When federal courts get involved, it becomes a cross-state thing.

jackiebaron

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nowhere near as extreme as that. Nobody is saying that LGBT couples shouldn't be allowed to formalise their relationships, but rather that they should be recognised as civil partnerships rather than de-facto marriages. If the people of California felt that was best in a referendum, that should be respected. That's their prerogative, and if the people of California wish to change that they should do it themselves via referendum rather than have it imposed by a judge.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Civil partnerships do not afford them the same rights as married couples with regard to taxation, medical , immigration, rocognition in other states, inheritance, etc. If you're going to ban same sex marriage on the grounds that you "feel" it should be between a man and a woman then you better ban blowjobs and anal sex too between heteros since they don't contribute to procreation.

philologos

jackiebaron wrote: »

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Civil partnerships do not afford them the same rights as married couples with regard to taxation, medical , immigration, rocognition in other states, inheritance, etc. If you're going to ban same sex marriage on the grounds that you "feel" it should be between a man and a woman then you better ban blowjobs and anal sex too between heteros since they don't contribute to procreation.

Where did I say I supported retaining traditional marriage on the basis of "not contributing to procreation"?

Indeed, that would go against my current position on contraceptives. (I think their use is acceptable).

The main argument I would currently hold against same-sex marriage is that I feel that as many children as possible should be raised with both a mother and a father (Edit: Preferably their biological parents). I find this important. Marriage is a major factor towards securing that children are raised with both male and female role-models while growing up while not being deprived of either.

Do I have a problem with LGBT people formalising relationships? - No.
Do I have a problem with radically changing family structures? - Yes.

dsmythy

MagicMarker wrote: »

Nope, just an oppressive zealot.

I disagree.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that. What I mean is, if it was so blatantly unconstitutional to regard marriage under the most common definition of a union between a man and a woman, why haven't these other States had their amendments to constitution or statute struck down. .

It doesnt have to be blatant, merely unconstitutional will do;). The reason they havent been struck down is that noone has challenged any such laws to the Supreme Court. In other words, noone has asked the question, so there has been no answer. You seem to want to use that simple fact as some form of quasi-support for your position. Which is pretty weak, to say the least.

Many many many things have never been ruled upon by the US Supreme Court. The fact they havent does not make them constitutional in any way whatsoever.

jackiebaron

Every opponent of gay marriage is always bleating on about how they think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Well, I say it's time to redefine marriage into two types. You've got straight marriage and gay marriage. Straight marriage is strictly between a man and a woman; gay marriage is strictly between same-sex couples.

So a an can get down on bended knee and ask his girlfriend "will you straight-marry me?".

There you have it. They can go about their merry ways arguing that "straight-marriage" is for men and women. The gays can say "Good, we don't care. We don't want straight-marriage. We have gay-marriage."

All these people who hold marriage and its sanctity in such high regard certainly don't care a fig when those sacred vows are violated when adultery or divorce creep into the equation.

General Zod

Deleted User wrote: »

They are called Mormons. There are some freaky documentaries where they try to un-gay people. Seems so surreal.

Actually it was Mormons in another state which provided alot of the funding for the "yes to 8" campaign.

smokedeels

The ideal solution for all this would be Civil Partnerships with the same entitlements for all, relegate "marriage" to spiritual-wallpaper you paste over it and if your Church won't recognise you then you probably shouldn't be a member.

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

The main argument I would currently hold against same-sex marriage is that I feel that as many children as possible should be raised with both a mother and a father (Edit: Preferably their biological parents). I find this important. Marriage is a major factor towards securing that children are raised with both male and female role-models while growing up while not being deprived of either.

Do I have a problem with LGBT people formalising relationships? - No.
Do I have a problem with radically changing family structures? - Yes.

This line of thinking that a man and a women is the traditional way to raise a child is kind of false, it's traditional for a a large extended family unit to raise a human child.

Of all the higher primates (I think it may even extend down to the monkeys in fact) Humans spend the least amount of time with their off spring at the infant stage, we hand over responsibility to other members of our community that's how children are raised traditionally in the human species so trying to encourage people to raise children with just two adults isn't really the best practice.

So really as long as the gay couple lived close to relatives and got on well with the rest of their extended family they could make much better parents than a same sex couple stuck in a city miles away from their family.

We don't really learn everything, maybe not even the majority of information from our parents, they'll usually give you the standard advice of don't do this or that, be home by this hour but we learn most the valuable information from other members of the community.

MagicMarker

dsmythy wrote: »

I disagree.

You're wrong.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

This line of thinking that a man and a women is the traditional way to raise a child is kind of false, it's traditional for a a large extended family unit to raise a human child.

Traditionally the way in which we have done it, and the way that makes most sense given that children are normally born of a mother and a father, and that both male and female role models are positive in child development.

ScumLord wrote: »

Of all the higher primates (I think it may even extend down to the monkeys in fact) Humans spend the least amount of time with their off spring at the infant stage, we hand over responsibility to other members of our community that's how children are raised traditionally in the human species so trying to encourage people to raise children with just two adults isn't really the best practice.

I am talking about human structures, rather than animal structures, as I would consider humans to be different in numerous respects to animals.

ScumLord wrote: »

We don't really learn everything, maybe not even the majority of information from our parents, they'll usually give you the standard advice of don't do this or that, be home by this hour but we learn most the valuable information from other members of the community.

We learn a lot from our parents in terms of how best it is to behave, cultural norms amongst other things, we also learn different things from our mothers and our fathers in child development. Again there are numerous studies done on how mothers and fathers provide different aspects to their children while growing up.

eightyfish

ScumLord wrote: »

This line of thinking that a man and a women is the traditional way to raise a child is kind of false, it's traditional for a a large extended family unit to raise a human child.

Even more than that, tradition itself is irrelevant. The "traditional family unit" is irrelevant. It simply comes down to the question: Do children raised by same-sex couples do worse in life in terms of success/mental health/friendships etc than "average" children? The answer, from what I've read and people I've talked to, seems to be no.

During the Frontline debate about this - the Catholic Think Tank anti-gay-marriage guy kept asking "Do you believe that the best place for a child is with its natural mother and father?" Ivana Bacik didn't answer the question. My answer would be "No. Not necessarily."

bronte

Jakkass wrote: »

Where did I say I supported retaining traditional marriage on the basis of "not contributing to procreation"?

Indeed, that would go against my current position on contraceptives. (I think their use is acceptable).

The main argument I would currently hold against same-sex marriage is that I feel that as many children as possible should be raised with both a mother and a father (Edit: Preferably their biological parents).

I'm adopted.

Why is it preferable that children should be raised with their biological parents?

ScumLord

Jakkass wrote: »

Traditionally the way in which we have done it, and the way that makes most sense given that children are normally born of a mother and a father, and that both male and female role models are positive in child development.

Of course they're positive but there's nothing to say that in most cases it's not your aunt that proves to be the best role model for a child because she may give slightly less biased information.

I am talking about human structures, rather than animal structures, as I would consider humans to be different in numerous respects to animals.

Every animal is different to every other animal but we're all essentially in the same boat when it comes to survival and reproduction. The more you look at the human species overall and not just as individuals the more like every other animal we become.

We learn a lot from our parents in terms of how best it is to behave, cultural norms amongst other things,

Of course we do, but over all we learn more from the rest of the community throughout our lives I'd guess, perhaps even at the fundamental behaviour level.

eightyfish wrote: »

During the Frontline debate about this - the Catholic Think Tank anti-gay-marriage guy kept asking "Do you believe that the best place for a child is with its natural mother and father?" Ivana Bacik didn't answer the question. My answer would be "No. Not necessarily."

I think I would have said yes. The ideal, on paper solution would be a man and woman, but same sex couples wouldn't necessarily be any worse because when does anything we've planned out on paper ever work in the real world?