California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned: Major Updates

Gay Marriage Ban Overturned: "In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot," AP reports.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The Background: The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody - not just in the state of California, but throughout the country - will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

Story continues below

advertisement

Challenge For Gay Rights Advocates Not Over: A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

The Ruling: A key highlight from the California court's decision (pdf):

"Furthermore, 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, 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."

Schwarzenegger Vows To Uphold Ruling: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday. The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."

He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.

Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.

Pelosi Hails Decision: A statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco:

I welcome the California Supreme Court's historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California's citizens and families, which today's decision recognizes.

I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court's decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.

Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.

Comments

[rextrek]

You would think these so-called " religious Folk" would be upset about....oh, I don't know.....$3 Billion a week going to WAR to KILL people...Hunger in America and Around the world, 47+ Million Americans WITHOUT Healthcare...the economy, Gas Prices...the environment...you know, the Things that REALLY Effect society as a whole? Nahhh - they're too busy worrying about 2 consenting­,committed adults loving each other....P­RIORITIES?

[TheBlackCat]

Found this article written by a Buddhist Monk I found very good, will throw up an excerpt:


As for the more general issue involved, Buddhist ethics (at least in the Theravada or southern school in which I am ordained) does not really address homosexuality. For monks, the ethical position is clear. Any kind of sexual activity, with any sort of partner, is explicitly forbidden. For the lay Buddhist, sexual ethics is laid out in the Third Precept which calls for "abstaining from sexual misconduct."

In the only place where the Buddha defines sexual misconduct he is speaking to a (presumably heterosexual) man, so the definition is couched in terms appropriate to that perspective. The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy.


Another consideration is that the Buddha often spoke about the spiritual dangers of unrestrained sensuality. This would mean, for instance, that promiscuity of any type is spiritually harmful. The implication in sexual matters would be that celibacy is the highest state, with monogamy a good situation for most people. Since gay people wanting to marry would presumably be monogamous, this should be seen as a positive development.

I respect that some religions have strong prohibitions against certain practices but I can't see the sense or justice in making such prohibitions general law. It's as if the Orthodox Jews were lobbying to ban eating of bacon.

[TheBlackCat]

I'm an Obama supporter, but his civil union as opposed to gay marriage stance is extremely disappointing. He SAYS his religious tradition is what influences him...but when HIS parents married it was a common religious notion that blacks and whites were created differently because they weren't supposed to mix. I'm not suggesting that religious traditions are a bad thing generally speaking, but to use that as the ONLY reason not to do something just doesn't cut it.

There are issues like abortion and the death penalty which have religion as A mitigating factor but not THE ONLY factor. Arguments can be made against them which have nothing to do with religious beliefs, there are secular moral or legal positions for why abortion or the death penalty should be abolished. Therefor it makes sense for issues like these to be debated in the political sphere of America.

However, when it comes to gay marriage, the ONLY reason I have ever heard offered for why it should be banned is religious in nature. It's a SIn; GOD made a man and a woman and that's that. But we do not live in a Middle Eastern country where what some believe to be God's law is enforced. We live in a society where church and state are separated, this is one of our nation's founding principles. Therefor, a law (such as a marriage ban) which is ONLY predicated on a religious notion has no place in our society.

[ChicagoBob]

!

It's about citizenship.

Even residency.

Even passing through, as in visiting.

EVERYBODY deserves to have the SAME RIGHTS.

It's about law, not religion.

Good for the California Supreme Court.

!

[randyjet]

Judicial activism of either the left or the right is BAD! People forget that the courts were judicial activists for most of our history, only on the conservative side. We got segregation because the Supreme Court twisted the law to suit their prejudices to circumvent the clear intent of the 14th Amendment. To overturn that distorted ruling, even though it was clear black letter law, Warren thought that to overturn the precedent he HAD to have a UNANIMOUS vote. The stupidity of the CA court is such that it not only voided past customs and law, went against the will of the people, with only a narrow split decision. THAT is incredible and without legal merit. To make up law as the court did in its own opinion is wrong. They observed that since the views have somehow been determined to have changed, that now gays are a protected class. They could not cite any law or legal precedent which is the usual method. It is only a vague assertion on their part. THAT is not doing their job. It is NOT their job to make new laws as they did in this case.

[NoOneSpecial]

So you're saying that unless the court overturns or re-interprets a law with a unanimous or near-unanimous majority -- and only then with the backing of a majority of the public's opinion -- it's without legal merit?

Boy, the public school system really is a mess these days.

What are they teaching in US Government social studies anyway? Obviously not the way the judiciary actually works.

[randyjet]

NO The fact that it had only one vote majority simply means that it is a very weak legal opinion which can be overturned if one justice loses the next election which is coming up.. It does indicate that the legal reasoning behind it is rather weak. It does not mean it does not have legal force. So we can have the fun of going back and forth, on and off which is the problem with such narrowly decided opinions. THAT is why such activism is WRONG! That is also why Warren was NOT engaging in such activism in his tenure and court because all of the controversial decisions were done with near unanimous votes. That showed the legal solidity of those opinions. There would be no change in opinion if one, two, three, four, five justices were to leave the court. THAT is solid legal work and opinion.

[ChicagoBob]

Since when is providing equal protection under the law activism?

[howdydostu]

Randy, I appreciate your opinion on this issue.
If not the courts, then whom? The people? There was Prop. 62 (?), Randy and "the people" also spoke through their accountable representa­tives...wh­o voted, not once, but twice in support of marriage equality. This was vetoed by the governor because he wanted to see how the courts would rule...the cat chasing its tail, so to speak.
The most prized concept about our democracy is that no majority could impose a lawful will against a minority simply because they were different or shared an opposing view as to how we were to all accomplish our persuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Judges get an oppertunity to do something that many of us do not get a chance to do at a ballot box. Judges hear the stories of REAL people in REAL LIFE situations. The judges hear of people being turned away from loved ones who are in hospitals. Judges hear the stories of couples partnered for many years having their property torn apart by estranged family members.



We were married in Canada July 27, 2004. It was awesome to be treated with the dignity and respect that two people who love each other deserve...and where no church is forced to perform a service that contradicts its beliefs.
Randy, read the full text of their decision. You will be proud as a Californian that your state has helped, not hindered the great cause of freedom and justice for all.

[randyjet]

If there were enough votes the legislature could have overridden the veto. That is part of our set of laws too. The governor has that power of veto. Maybe the court will overturn that as being unConstitutional too. It seems that they have no limit to their power.
Marriage is a state sponsored privilege which is given for the states reasons. Just as they can give corporate charters, subsidies, and the like. Just because one entity gets a subsidy does NOT mean that ALL others get the same and that denying them is discrimination. That is what legislators are for. The people are the ones who determine what the laws will be. The people also determine the constitution as well. If the amendment to the CA constitution is passed, that will be the end of gay marriage. Unless it is repealed.
The state most certainly DOES have the power and the RIGHT to determine how people will decide their happiness. The Mormons, Muslims, and others who believe in polygamy have THEIR rights infringed upon by the state denying them that right. Should that be allowed as well? Does that not infringe upon their religious freedom? I certainly do NOT think so for the reasons I stated. You stand on the other side in that. I guess you never heard of the draft which I was subject to. The state had the right to take away my life because I was young and male. Can't get any more discriminatory than that.

[Agentprovokatur]

You obviously are shooting from the hip and have not READ the decision. The California Supreme Court is interpreting the California State Constitution. They cite previous cases under California law and the decision doing away with restrictions on inter-racial marrage as having established (under California Law) a fundamental right to marry. They then based on their analysis of California legislative actions and jurisprudence ruled in accordance with California law. They are not voiding past customs nor are they "making up the law as they go along" (a standard rallying cry of the mostly right wing "anti judicial activists" I note) but are interpreting existing jurisprudence.

In addition your own standards regarding your erroneous considerations of Federal law are not even internally consistent. An "activist" court which "twisted the law to suit their prejudices to circumvent the clear intent of the 14th Amendment" requires a UNANIMOUS vote to overturn? So you acknowledge it was twisted and wrong, but if only one justice thought it correct at the time it was finally reconsidered the court would be "activist" and out of bounds to right the original wrong?

I'm sensing you are starting to look and sound like that sputtering fool Kevin James who was taken to task by Chris Matthews recently. But please sputter on. It's quite amusing. Especially the canards about plural marriage. We should at least thank you for not raising the other favorite bugaboos of you Santorium-ites – which I refuse to dignify by doing so..

[Agentprovokatur]

As clarification, the plural marriage canard of randyjet was raised by him/her in another posting on this thread and not the one to which my preceding response was addressed.

The 14th Amendment s/he cites is to the Federal Constitution and while applicable to the case as a potential limit on the power of the California Government to prohibit same sex marriages, it is NOT a limit on the power of the California Supreme Court, to find the existence of a right to do so, and neither the beginning nor the end of any analysis that the California Supreme Court undertakes in ruling under California law.

[randyjet]

I see agent has to be kidding or can't read. If you look at the justification and statement given, it states quite clearly that the state now recognizes that ones sexual orientation does not preclude committed relationships. Unfortunately, they DON'T say how the state has now recognized that apart from their own ruling. It is thus a circular argument. It does NOT rely on any rational test or law. THAT is making up the law as you go. As for not violating customs and law, I did not know that gay marriage was previously recognized in CA before this.
You also cannot understand the simple point about Brown vs Topeka. If it was so important to Warren to get a unanimous decision on a case which was so clearly right, it should be even MORE important when the court makes up new interpretation of the law. That they couldn't get more than 4-3 testifies as to the legal weakness of the decision.

[docallen001]

Also good for the court. I believe I saw in one news article that most of the judges were appointed by repub governors. The laws against interracial marriages were supported by reference to the bible just as is the case with the rightwing refusal to accept gays. Somehow allowing same sex marriage is going to destroy marriage and will be harmful to children. If the rightwing wants to make a real effort to protect children, they could propose a constitutional amendment to ban divorce. There are some religions that are against artificial birth control and probably would like to see laws to support that position (and state laws that did exist were on the books). I would be a lot more comfortable if the state legislative systems used the constitution instead of the bible to develop laws. And last but not least it is clear that the founding fathers put into place procedures that would protect minorities from the unreasonable will of the majority - even if at times the process works slowly.

[bayguy13]

When San Francisco was actually doing civil wedding, a woman was protesting outside city hall saying that gay marriage would lead to people marrying horses, cows, etc. Now that the court has overturned the ban, I would not be least bit supprised if one of those crazies actually tries to marry their horse/cow/dog just to enflame the fundie crowd.

[Crozier]

Do fundies have birth certificates issued by states for human beings for "dumb animals and beasts"??? Does your state ask if you are related by consanguinity or by marriage? Forget it...the dumbing down of America has not yet reached beyond WV....or has it reached this blog via trolls and theocons?

[Orlando]

Freedom rings again in America!!!

Americans have the right of free will and should be free from all government intervention, ESPECIALLY when it comes to your own personal life.

I think that the people that oppose gay marriage must on some deep level, have repressed feelings that they are covering up and are ashamed of.

I am a straight man who does not need a law to tell me who I am attracted to.

We should defend all of our brothers and sisters who can find love in this world.

Hoorah for the judicial system!!!

[TheBlackCat]

So I looked up state by state divorce rates:

5 lowest divorce rates:
1.Massachusetts
2. Connecticut
3. New Jersey
4. Rhode Island
5. New York

Five HIGHEST divorce rates:
1.Nevada
2. Arkansas
3. Oklahoma
4. Tennessee
5. Wyoming

Um, why is it again that conservatives/ the Bible Belt claim to be the party/region of family values and protecting marriage? And if liberals are so immoral about values and has policies that threaten marraige, why are the five states with the lowest divorce rates liberal, Northern states?

I'm not saying this just to tick people off, I really want to know what other posters (both conservative and liberal) think about this.

[Crozier]

It is because the theocons are hypocrites....and their TV evangelists know it.....fir­sthand....

[Staash]

"And if liberals are so immoral about values and has policies that threaten marraige, why are the five states with the lowest divorce rates liberal, Northern states?"

Maybe because marriage is a prerequisite for divorce?

[j.gold]

Take the government out of marriage now!

One law for everyone!

The government should not be in the marriage business at all. If you want to get married go to your church, synagogue, temple, mosque, priestess, etc and abide by your own religious rules. If you want a legal binding contract that shares your rights with another person(s), no matter who that other person(s) is then you should have the right to do so. To enter in this kind of contract, like any contract you must be of consenting age.

The government should have one set of rules for everyone and must not discriminate against people. And the government should not be used to enforce one groups "morals" amongt consenting adults.

Get the government out of our marriages and out of our bedrooms.

[stkarnick]

Although government recognition of same-sex marriages is typically presented as a liberating idea, it's actually government imposition, by force, of a small group's sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population. People are perfectly free to have a church marriage or other ceremony vowing fidelity to each other. Same-sex marriage laws, by contrast, are intended to force other people to recognize such marriages, which is a government imposition, not freedom. See http://stkarnick.com/blog2/2008/05/california_courts_samesex_marr.html. S. T. Karnick

[klmebane]

ok, how about this... you guys can keep your straight marriage, and all of us gay citizens can just stop paying taxes for a government that won't guarantee us equality under the law. the population can be resistant if they want to, but they aren't the ones who can't marry the person they love. we aren't trying to force people to recognize same sex marriage, we want the government to recognize that we are equal citizens who pay taxes and otherwise contribute to our communities and that we deserve THE SAME RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUAL AMERICANS. period. we don't care if people wish to recognize the love we have for one another, we just don't want our government writing discrimination into the books. haven't we had enough of that?

[Futureosophy]

Overturning Marriage
However what should most be highlighted by this decision is that the foundation of the institution of marriage is fundamentally flawed and that the entire structure has for years been slipping into the sea taking all couples, straight or gay, to a watery grave.

I do not say this because homosexuals don’t deserve the right to be married, they do, but because it would be better to completely strike down the very notion of being married in the first place.

Full @ www.futureosophy.com
http://www.futureosophy.com/2008/05/overturning-marriage.html

[JohnKemp]

So, four judges overturn the will of 61% of all CA voters which must be several million.

And the libs are ecstatic.

Libs love activist judges, dictators, censorship & revisionism.

[BadCompany]

They like following the constitution, too crybaby.

[starrianna]

JohnKemp,

What is your problem? Are you tempted or threatened by the gays?

Are you afraid? Hahahahaha.

[Killer1417]

Let's see...

Activist judges installed Bush

Bush acts like a dictator (and has even said it would be great if he were one)

The Bush administration censors pretty much anything they don't like, truth be damned

Bush constantly revises his stand on his many failed policies to make it appear that reality is somehow in-tune with his intentions

Yeah, libs are sure ecstatic on that one.

[Crozier]

My, my, my.....Kemp as usual.......racist and bigot and homophobe......your neocon virtues are showing.....along with greed and enslavement.

[amanda85]

"So, four judges overturn the will of 61% of all CA voters which must be several million."

When the ban on interracial marriage was finally lifted in America, you can bet more that 50% of the population in most southern states would vote to keep it. Social progress cannot be stopped by bigots like you.

[FreeThinkn1]

It was the will of the German people to destroy Jews. Does that make the Holocaust okay?

In case you can't figure it out, the correct answer is NO.

[torrrep]

Guess what genius? Gay is not a race and people are not advocating the annihilation of gays. Comparing the plight of gays with the plight of Jews is disgusting.

[torrrep]

Guess what? Those laws were meant for the Jewsih people at that time period. We as Christians are NOT bound by that law because Christ's resurrection began the NEW covenant. So your point makes no sense. However, since you seem to want to use scripture, why don't you try reading 1 Corinthians.

[GodIs]

Faith counteracts the effects of sinful actions and activities.

[hypnotoad72]

As does asking forgiveness, on the provision one doesn't keep doing it.

And if "liberals" cared, they'd remove their trollish blinders and look at EVERY side to the story. (they love to tolerate men flashing their body parts and body part shaped parade floats too. If this gay thing was even remotely serious, nobody would tolerate such "outlandishness", for lack of more stern terminology.)

Roseanne was right.

[HaloGuy]

Did you ever stop to think that the excessive flaunting of our sexuality might be the direct result of constant oppression from people such as yourself?

I am a pretty conservative gay man (mainly because of oppression from people such as yourself), but I applaud men who take open pride in their sexuality.

If you want to see a change, start giving us some validation, jerk.

[FreeThinkn1]

It sounds like you need to come out of the closet...

[ceu]

And, luckily, we're not required to be part of YOUR faith.

[GodIs]

I'll prey for you anyway.

[JoeBlough]

Let's discuss this issue on its merits and not interject the supernatural into it. Marriage shouldn't involve supernatural beliefs.

[Crozier]

Theocrat - We do not have to believe your theology or religion in the plural USA....and for your information, my mainline religious denomination does not agree with your approach to what you call Christianity.

[waltontynerross]

This is, and always was, a straw man issue.

It's all about one's personal definition of the word marriage. For many Americans that involves their church and a time-honored religious rite. For others, it's a marriage license and a ceremony of their choosing, one that reflects their values and commitment to one another.

The problem therein the word itself--marriage.

I wish the right-wing, which is so very good at catch phrases and positioning, would just serve up a new term for the type of church marriages they feel must stay between man and woman (and, of course, yes, that is a church's right). Why not "holy marriage" or "blessed marriage."

Alternatively the states that choose to permit gay marriage could stick to the euphemism of 'civil union.' The issue there, I think, is that many, many traditional couples get married outside the church these days. And they still think of it as a marriage--in both civic and spiritual terms.

Who will blink?

[NoCalDrummer]

Marriage is a religious rite. Civil Unions are a secular contract. I'm fine without a "marriage", but I should have as much right to visit my partner in the hospital, make medical decisions for him, inheritance, and any one of over a thousand other state-sanctioned "rights" that my brother enjoys with his "wife". If we change what the government calls "marriage", NOT to "one-man-o­ne-woman", but to "a religious rite that has no bearing on the action of the State" (separation of Church and State, remember?) but sets up "Civil Unions" for any adult couple who wishes the rights AND responsibilities that go with the Civil Union, then society benefits. Children see that a loving, lasting relationship is a cornerstone of EVERYONE in society. To not do so is discriminatory, and it not only demeans the committed relationships, but the people who are in them.
Upon the announcement yesterday, I didn't see God strike California with earthquakes or storms. I didn't see Satan come pouring out of fissures in the ground. I didn't see the four horsemen of the apocalypse riding through the streets, nor did the sun blink out. I DID see Hope, and Rejoicing and Pride in a Community, and in being citizens of California. And I'm happy for us all.

[hypnotoad72]

I agree - especially as you clearly understand the differences. Civil unions are up for the general public, religious rites can only be decided by the religions and those who represent them.

But having lived in the so-called "community" for a decade, before fully realizing how wrong I was despite fellow gays calling me "unevolved" for wanting a union, I disagree that it should be called a "community". Amongst other various nitpicks (is it pride to show off one's genitalia in public?)

I'm glad some out there actually want relationships, but in reality few do.

The "community" is wrong, and I regret supporting for something that isn't.

[Crozier]

My spouse is a Canadian citizen. We have been partnered for 32 years and the last five as legally married. Yes, the issue is the word. I want the SAME word for the SAME legal status. That reality is what seven countries permit their citizens. Of course, their culture is mature and not the reservoir of religious intolerance that the US represents.

Major Christian churches support their right to accept or reject sacraments or ordinances of Spiritual Rite Marriage . Simultaneously they all accept the right of all to receive the SAME LEGAL STATUS.

IF BUBBA AND BUBBETTE RETURN THEIR MARRIAGE LICENCE GIVEN TO THEM BY THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND GET A CIVIL UNION CERTIFICATE, THEN THEY COULD TAKE MY REAL PROVINCIAL MARRIAGE LICENCE OUT OF MY COLD AND DEAD HANDS.

[Crozier]

Remember this......when California won in the legislature, the governor said go to the courts.....and when the courts speak they say go to the legislatur­e.....holy hypocrisy. Besides, the far right replaced "Communism" with "Homosexism" to make millions.

Senator Obama favours civil unions. Yet, he said that if individual states like MA and CA want marriage....or NOT , it is their right to do so. I do not have to agree completely with my candidate....but I must believe that he has a willingness to give civil rights to all.

[j.gold]

yes, yes, one law for everyone! Get the government out of the marriage business. Civil unions by law, marriage by religion. Separation of Church and State now!

[dimlight]

Disenfranchised voters via the courts... prime example of why judicial appointments are so important...

After the Dem primaries and this case...why don't we just do away with voter rights and have the courts and the DNC make all decisions in the nation...u­nbelievabl­e...this nation is in real trouble......

[zenlikejen]

Sure! Sounds fantastic...why NOT let the will of the majority decide what's "right" for the minority - civil rights be damned!

/sarcasm

I can't be the only one tired of dealing with the willfully ignorant.....

[robynuva]

You are so not the only one.

[Chris]

Marriage of any sort is not a civil right.

If it was a civil right then you would have to allow incestual marriages as well as polygamy.

Civil rights should be nearly restrictionless.

[Chris]

I am a supporter of gay marriage. I do not care what consenting adults do.

But marriage, of any sort, is far from a civil right.

[robynuva]

I am very tired of this stupid argument about the "will of the people." If voters in California decided that it was now ok to sell your children into slavery, that's OK, because it is the will of the people?

The Constitution and specifically the Amendments were created in part to protect the minority from losing basic rights to the will of the majority. It was to protect folks from mob rule. You know, from the racist, xenophobic, homophobics, ignorant, and the uneducated.

[Chris]

It also is suppose to protect the people from those who beleive they know what is best for everyone.

[Spazzers]

The marjority of the judges were appointed by the Republicans not the Democrats.

[2warvet]

All though I agree with the decision that this is a states rights issue, they over turned the will of the people who voted in 2000 to define marriage as 1 man 1 woman. It is not up to the justices to legislate from the bench. If the state legislature had passed the law and the courts has struck it down is one thing, but the people spoke up by voting how they felt. It sets a dangerous precident.

[Spazzers]

If the will of the people conflicts with the constitutional rights of others it is the court's responsibility to overturn the law. The justices did not legislate. They interpreted the law to be unconstitutional. That's their job.

It isn't a precident.

[LiberalBuzz]

One of the basic principles of the Constitution was to PROTECT THE MINORITY FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY!

The will of the people at one time believed slavery was perfectly okay. I suppose you still think the will of the people in that little endeavor should still be upheld?

OR the right of women to vote.

So this crap about the will of the people is not always the way it should be. IF a law has been designed to suppress the granting of equal rights to a group of people then it is only right and fair for the courts to throw it into the dustbins of history.

[dimlight]

What would your garb be if voters approved gay marriage and the court ruled that to be unconstitu­tional?...­.hummm

[k6007]

The Justices were conservatives. I hope this isn't some right-wing shenanagens. Funny how we always end up discussing this issue during a presidential election year. Politics of distraction, perhaps?

[NoOneSpecial]

I'm curious. Back in the 60s when the US Supreme Court struck down restrictions on interracial marriage many states had exactly those kinds of laws (Virginia being the most obvious, re: Loving v Virginia).

So question: do you think the court should have deferred to the prejudices of the time because people in those states had passed laws expressly defining marriage as being between members of the same race?

If not, how would that differ from your argument that in this case the voters' will should have been respected?

[dimlight]

That case dealt with race not sexual preference...two different issues...the 15th amendment specifically forbids discrimination based on race... i

f the federal or state constitution was amended to protect gay marriage these type of cases would be valid.

Otherwise these types of decision subvert the constitution and an individual’s rights transferred to the government via their representatives…. destroys the basis of our constitution….

[HollywoodBill]

Prop 22 was an initiative statute and as such, is ruled on all the time by California courts. Writing initiatives is tricky business to begin with and since so few actually pass, the constitutionality of them occurs when they actually pass and make it through the judicial system. This is what we pay them the big bucks for, TO MAKE LEGAL DECISIONS, which they did.

Since these are definitely political positions, the Supreme Court did the next best thing. They gave all the parties time for recourse. The whacko religious right was collecting signatures and has 1.1 million of them that will put this issue on the November ballot. 760,000 are required. A stay will most likely be issued so that no same sex nuptials will take place until after the November elections.

This will be a constitutional amendment which the California Supreme Court cannot overturn. In other words the courts are doing what the courts are supposed to be doing and that is ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE THE OUTCOME. The bleating from the always whining far right is to no avail. Nor will the the usual cliches of civil rights be allowed. This is a constitutional matter and whatever the outcome, the people will decide.

[starrianna]

Tell the "religious" right to go to church and shut up.

There was an excellent show on MSNBC last night about "THE FAMILY"...

showed how nearly 1 MILLION people, from 1968-2000, had open sex with children

IN THE NAME OF JESUS!

People are lame and stupid, and gullible.
Leave other people alone, please! Thank you!