Welcome to PatsFans.com

CA Supreme Court overides "Will of the People"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by FreeTedWilliams, May 15, 2008.

  1. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +87 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Obsessed with homosexuals, today?
  3. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +87 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    I think it is absolutley agregious, that appointed judges, overturn the will of the major of the people in California, and the will of the only statewide elected official in the state.

    The subject matter, is irrelevent.
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  4. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    You make a fair point. It's largely symbolic though. It won't stand if it goes to the next level. You cannot flagrantly ignore the will of the people in a freely held election.
  5. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +87 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    They are the last line, the only way this could be "undone" is by amending either the Californai or US constitution, that is what makes this so bad.
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Great news. One of the reasons we have a Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. For instance, several states continued to vote on and uphold laws against mixed marriages even after the Supreme Court ruled they were illegal. In other words, there's precedent for ignoring the will of people in order to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not ban gay marriages, just as it did not ban mixed marriages. The CA Supreme Court ruled properly, and even this conservative US Supreme Court will have trouble overturning their ruling. In fact, this issue came up already, and "without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court justices declined to intervene in the case by prohibiting clerks from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples in Massachusetts." (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38514)
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  7. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +87 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    The Constitution doesn't prohibit murder either. It leaves those rationals for the states, and the state talked, and the judges overuled them, and basically made legislation.

    Patters, do you honestly think that the lawyers that are pushing this, care about "rights" or access to all that untapped same sex couple divorce money? Imagine how the lawyers languish about all of that money that they could get, if only same sex couples were allowed to marry (and hence divorce).
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Do you think the government should even be involved in "marriage" licenses? Why don't they just get out of that whole business? It's not about health insurance. Life insurance should be willed or have benefactors who could be anyone. If you don't have a will, you should get one to handle any rights to property of partners or anything. I don't see what business it is of the government who someone spends their life with or who they leave their stuff to. Why doesn't the gay community push on that angle? Am I missing something?
  9. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Not if constituents amend the constitution as they hope to in November, besides they likely have a route to the US level to if the ban together and claim that their voting rights were nullified, or some such legal-beagle thing like that.
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  10. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Live and Let live......:rolleyes:
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    No, I think marriage should be a church issue and the church's should be allowed to marry who they want. The state should offer civil unions or domestic partnerships. Something is necessary under our present system due to estate laws, hospitalization visitation rights, Social Security benefits (for the partner of the deceased, for instance), protection of children of gay couples, and various property rights especially those that are affected when one moves from one state to another (for instance, a gay married couple moving from MA to GA, but retaining property in MA), etc.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    There are good lawyers who fight for issues for moral reasons. As I've said before people are the same in every field. You have a certain number of highly ethical people, a large number of honest but not terribly ethical people, and a small number of crooks. That's as true among police as it is among lawyers as it is among teacher, engineers, doctors, and so on. I know a lawyer (straight and married) who is quite wealthy but does pro bono work for gay rights. I would also add that lawyers do quite well with gay estates even in states that don't allow gay marriage. When a family that disowned a child steps in to claim that child's estate, it can lead to difficult legal battles regardless of what the will says in some states.
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Wouldn't it be easier to change ALL of those other laws that are affected by "marriage licenses"? We change them all the time depending on who's making the money at the time.

    Honestly, I don't think about this subject except when I sense that my American brothers and sisters are being discriminated against for what I think is a biologically fixed situation.
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0


    I strongly disagree. Off topic, I know, but your assertion that lawyers are just as honest as any other occupation (teachers??!!) is so far off.....
  15. Siddiqi

    Siddiqi Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This is a travesty and abuse of the judicial system. This measure passed by one judge, let me repeat that one judge decided that who gives a rats ass about what a majority of people voted for, we're smarter and have a better moral standard than the voters.
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    When gay marriage was legalized in MA, I remember reading an article that said it would affect something like 900 laws! So, multiply that by 50 states, and then figure how inept state legislatures are, and I would estimate it would take a little longer than eternity to change those laws.

    Thanks. I agree with you on that!
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I think that people are people. You're in construction, right? You know then even better than I do that there are honest people and dishonest people in that field. There's no reason to think that one occupation would attract more crooks than another. Some occupations do not lend themselves to dishonesty as much as others, but even among teachers you have those who, upon getting tenure, slack off.
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    I just can't understand why people can't keep marraige between a man and woman, and civil unions between people of the same sex. If two people of the same sex want to spend their lives together, and want the same rights as the man and woman who do the same, then why not? I think Civil Unions are the answer.
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Actually, it was a 4-3 ruling, meaning that 4 judges ruled that the California constitution does not allow people to be treated differently based on sexual orientation.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

    "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court said in the 120-page ruling, "and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

    "We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

    The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as no federal constitutional questions are at issue.

    ...

    California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would not pursue further action. "I respect the court's decision, and as governor I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    The problem is that there are many laws that use the word married. For gay couples to have access to the protection that those laws afford, they need to be "married." A simple example of this is at the federal level where when a spouse dies, the surviving spouse is often able to get an increase in SS based on the deceased SS payments. This is not true for gay couples.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>