Pajamas Media » Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down
Going over the opinion, I appreciate the majority’s recognition that marriage is more than a right. It also involves the granting of state privileges while imposing certain responsibilities on the partners in the union. But the court overstepped its bounds in redefining (for purposes of state law) an institution which has long been limited to monogamous relationships between individuals of different genders.
Yeah, and which was also long limited to relationships between individuals of the same race.
Sorry, but the stare decis argument doesn’t cut much ice with me.
And a note to those bigots who’ve been whining forever that marriage definitions should be left to the states. Well, the state of California just legally decided such a definition. But it’s not a definition you like, so now you’ll whine that it should be left to the people of California, in order to fit your notions of federalism. Of course, the fact that the state legislature (who are the legal representatives of the people of California) have twice passed bills legalizing gay marriage must also be disregarded, because the definition still doesn’t fit what you want. So you’ll toss courts and legislatures and representative republicanism to the winds and start whining for pure democracy to make the decision. And if that fails?
You’ll just whine. Because for you, it’s not about marriage. It’s about bigotry. Bob Barr, and honest man, has it right: (from an email today)
Bob Barr, former Member of Congress from Georgia and current candidate for President for the Libertarian Party, today issued the following statement in reaction to today’s decision by the California Supreme Court allowing for the recognition of same sex marriage in that state:
“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”
Exactly.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Do I have the right to enter into a contract with another adult of my choice?
As you point out, the state has made a decision. If Californians want to change their laws, they can do so, but the tyranny of the majority will be just as unconstitutional as the tyranny of the minority.
The principle of individual rights is not limited because some people don’t like the choices individuals make.
You’re right that California (and every other state) ought to able to make its own policies viz. gay marriage. Whether Californians should be happy that it was a California court as opposed to the California legislature that set the policy is another issue.
That analysis is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? The legislature did set the policy. Schwarzenegger vetoed it twice, saying he didn’t want to interfere with the legal process. Now, presumably, he would vote to approve, given that the legal process has issued a judgment. And, in fact, he said today he opposes an amendment overturning the court’s decision.
The fact is that a sizable portion of those who vociferously oppose gay marriage (most don’t really give a damn) do so out of simple bigotry, nothing more. And they will continue to fight it, no matter whether it is accomplished by a court, a legislature, or a ballot initiative.
Which was the point of my post.
By the way, California is a somewhat different state than it was eight years ago. I think the amendment attempt will fail.
Hey, Bill, I thought you were an originalist when it comes to questions of the Constitution? There is no way any sane and honest person could argue that the framers of the State Constitution envisioned gay marriage. Seems to me that it’s a clear case of judges trying to legislate from the bench.
Actually, Bill, you are the one being disengenuous. Prop 22 banned gay marriage. It was passed by the people by a 61.4% margin. So you think over half of Californians are bigoted because they don’t believe what you believe? Sorry, but those are your leftist roots showing.
The legislature could have overriden the governors veto if it had 2/3rds support. But a smaller margin of legislators approved the bills than the percentage of Californians that supported the ban.
Most Californians do approve of domestic partnership and would probably have voted for expansion of rights under that legislation. The gay activists shot themselves in the foot when they started pushing this issue through the court (typical liberal strategy).
You thought wrong. I am an originalist in the sense that I hold that the Constitution means what it says - but what it doesn’t say is not automatically banned. It originally provided for slavery. Do you think I support slavery, you dumbass? I support liberty, and I believe the constitution does as well.
So what? They didn’t envision the internet, either. So are we violating the constitution by making use of it? Does originalism require banning the internet?
And overturned in a thoroughly legal process provided for by the California constitution, which has been entirely ratified by the people of California.
Most of them, yes. Just as I would believe so if 62% of them voted to ban marriage between races.
Again, so what? California, like the United States, is not a direct democracy. It is a representative form of government.
Are there any circumstances under which you would support gay marriage, or are you just a bigot?
Nash,
Bigotry does not mean only a minority believe something. It means the motivation for the belief is rooted in an evil caricature of the object of your hatred. (OK, technically you can be bigoted in favor of something, by a caricature that exaggerates the good, but the word has only negative connotations now.)
As for the distinction between Marriage and the Domestic Partnership laws - long before this came to the fore, I thought that ‘marriage’ should be defined as what you get from the leader of your particular brand of religion, and a ‘Cohabitation Contract’ (yes, Heinlein) would be an acknowledgment by the signatory parties that they are committed to each other. The contract would confer the same privileges that our current ‘marriage’ assumptions do, only explicitly. Note that if your priest or rabbi marries you and you do not sign the Cohabitation contract, you are not married so far as the state is concerned (separation of church and state). The only limit on who can or cannot sign such a contract would be legal adult (no child marriages, no pets)
That having been stated, since we do not having something that sensible in place, then having the California SC recognize that the marriage laws are discriminatory is the correct step.
As for the straw man from the article, that it is ruining Sweden - I think that has more to do with 60 years or so of soft socialism, cradle to grave nanny statism and crushing tax burdens.
The next step will be for someone to use this ruling to get it imposed nationwide - then hopefully, the debate will go away and everyone can live in peace.
Of course, given what Roe v. Wade gave us, probably not.
At least they will have something else to get upset about.
And my friends who have waited all their lives for this, can now have what they have wanted.
Bill,
Would it also be bigoted to say that no other state has to recognize these marriages unless CA in general and SF in particular has to recognize my TX Concealed Carry permit? or are some state acts more bigoted than others?
SDN, if you deliberately choose to be obtuse, I see no reason to answer your silly questions.
But….
People who oppose gay marriage are, for the most part, doing so out of simple bigotry. That judgment has nothing to do with the law, (or state acts) per se.
Given that I generally support federalism as an approach (although it wouldn’t work for slavery or miscegenation, and I can make a case it shouldn’t work for denial of gay rights and liberties, either), but I’m willing to forego that position and accept the notion of states’ rights on this issue. Which would mean that other states needn’t recognize California’s marriage laws. It would also mean that if California, for some reason, should choose not to recognize your state’s heterosexual marriage laws, it would be perfectly legal for it to do so. And knowing California, that’s not as far fetched as it sounds - it wouldn’t surprise me to see California demand that all married immigrants to the state re-marry under California law, and pay a hefty license fee in order to do so, much as it treats automobile registrations. Purely as a revenue grabbing measure. But hey, like I say, if your state doesn’t have to recognize California marriage law - all of it - then California need not recognize your state’s marriage law - all of it.
On the other hand, the right to bear arms, whether concealed or not, is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which trumps all notions of a federalist approach. Therefore, it doesn’t matter one whit what your state - or California - says about the right to bear arms, concealed or not. They have no voice in the matter.
IT WAS CHANGED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, NOT BY A VOTE OF THE JUDICIARY! WHO’S THE DUMBASS NOW, BILL???
Go ahead and ban me, but nowhere in the Constitution of the State of California or the United States does it say that new rights are left to the whims of the judiciary.
And yes, I’d approve of a gay marriage amendment if it also got rid of no-fault divorce, banned adultery (yes, that probably got your spittle flying), and generally made divorce tougher. Keep domestic partnerships for people who want no-fault divorce and who want to be swingers. Put that on the ballot and I’ll vote for it.
But I’m still the bigot because I don’t agree with you 100%, right?