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

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

[condew]

Didn't this happen in Massechusetts before another election? Now this will lead to referendums in key states, which is supposed to get Republicans to show up at the polls and make McCain win.

[HaloGuy]

This was all done 4 years ago. There's nothing they can do now to turn the masses of terrified Christians out again to crucify the gays and secure McCain at the same time.

[Crozier]

THAT is how the Dixiecrats kept their seats in the South....but the majority of Americans understand the tyranny of the majority versus the protected minority....and most Americans understand that there are three equal branches of government.....the executive the legislative and the judicial.

[DLB]

"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."

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! There has always been restrictions as to who can and cannot marry. Brother and sister are prohibited from getting married even if they adopt instead of having children. Moreover, I thought it was the job of the Supreme Court of California to decide whether a law was constitutional or unconstitutional for the state of California, not to decide what is good law or not. And given that 61% of California's voters voted for Proposition 22 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."), what ever happend to the "will of the voters"? Wasn't the left screaming - ad nauseam - when President Bush wouldn't withdraw the troops from Iraq , especially when polls appeared to show that a majority of voters wanted them removed?

This is an absolute case of judicial activism. The legislature and the people have a legitimate right to place limits on who or who may not marry, without having to modify the State constitution. That's why Prop. 22 passed. It was understood that this issue did not need to be addressed by a State Constitutional amendment.

[Sceptic42]

That's patently absurd. By your reasoning, if Prop 22 had included a ban on interracial marriage, that would have been acceptable.

It isn't "judicial activism" for the courts to do their constitutionally appointed duty. Their job is to determine what laws conform to the state and federal constitutions, and to void those which do not. You complain that the job of the court isn't to determine whether the law is "good" or not - that's absolutely correct. Your own quote from today's ruling mentions nothing of whether the justices feel the law is "good" or not, but rather its relation to the state constitution.

"It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, *as a matter of policy*, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple *should* be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships *violates the California Constitution.*" [emphasis in original]

The above is from page 4 of today's ruling. Your quote is from page 7. Looks like you should have actually tried to pay attention to what you were reading.

[DLB]

"It isn't "judicial activism" for the courts to do their constitutionally appointed duty. Their job is to determine what laws conform to the state and federal constitutions, and to void those which do not."

And just how did the court do their duty when they clearly violated the Prop 22? Unless you disagree that the legislature and the people cannot create limits as to what marriage is. In which case, one can marry more that one and brother can marry sister.

[waltontynerross]

The key words: "...basic civil rights..." The court does, and must, have the power to protect these. And as far as the will of the voters is concerned, the only way such will becomes enshrined law is through Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise we could end up with some very unsavory laws. The thought of no judicial review on the constitutionality of the voters will sends shivers up my spine...

[klandish]

I'm a homosexual. And if i've learned anything it's that the more you are out the less reason people have to turn you into into some abstracted stereo type the media has fed them for years. The less reason co-workers or people in your neighborhood or community can divorce the flesh and blood human from the person they will vote against over marriage laws when they appear on the ballet. It's a risk to be out. But isn't being your genuine self always risky

[LorettaSingbiel]

"It's a risk to be out. But isn't being your genuine self always risky"

Being your genuine self seems to be risky for those individuals "nurtured" in homophobic households, and THREATENED to REJECT, rather than ACCEPT, their sexual orientations.

I feel sorry for those individuals who must live a lie, and lead loveless lives, to satisfy the sexual sensitivities of their "loved" ones.

Then one day we cast away our secret longing;
The raging tide we held inside would hold no more.
The silence at last was broken!
We flung wide our prison door.
Ev'ry joyous word of love was spoken...

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[SeanOcali]

This is bad. Having what will be referred to as "activist judges" overturn a ballot initiative is going to hurt the gay acceptance agenda. Because of this ruling, right-wing anti-gay fanatics will turn out in droves during the next California election in order to support the constitutional ban initiative. Had the "activist judges" not ruled on anything, the new proposal would have been much more susceptible to failure. That's also bad for everyone because more of them voting means worse election results down the ticket. We could lose Barbara Boxer's Senate seat.

It's also bad because it brings gays back into the MSM national debate. The media loves this wedge issue, and as of right now, it's a losing one for the left. All press is bad press for progressives when it comes to gays unfortunately. So it should be avoided. Gay acceptance will naturally occur over the long haul so long as the progressive movement is allowed to move forward.

All progressives must stand for equal rights and support civil unions no matter what. But calling it marriage is a serious problem, politically. Personally I don't care what it's called. But other people do. I just know that going beyond the support of equal rights is the wrong move and will hurt us politically and set the agenda backwards. It's also a bad idea to always want to "bring awareness" to this issue. This isn't the environment we're talking about.

[situationcritical]

You need to read a history book my man, and see how fights are won. Clue: not through cowardice.

[SeanOcali]

Try reading The Art of War. I don't care how a fight is won. I care how the war is won. Belligerent moves like this are how they are lost.

[huffy2001]

Same exact thing happened in 2004 as a result of the MA court's decision. The anti-gay activists were out in droves for Bush.

Could it be these judges are Republicans in disguise?

[Richcelt]

Well, yeah. 6 out of the 7 are.

[enveg01]

So how long would you have American citizens wait for equal rights? Until after the election? Until after the war is ended? Until after, until after, until after... In the words of Martin Luther King, "Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."

You say you don't care what "it's" called. Well, millions of Americans do. And they deserve to be recognized not as second-class citizens but as equals under the law. Let the right-wingers scream and yell all they want. They will go down in history with the same people who defended slavery and were against women's suffrage. Don't be one of them.

[SeanOcali]

We follow your instincts, and you'll be waiting a lot longer. This ruling will result in a constitutional ban. Enjoy waiting for that to be overruled. I'm not saying people shouldn't fight. I'm saying you need to fight intelligently and pragmatically.

[SeanOcali]

And what's this about waiting for equal rights? Quoted from an AP report: "California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. "

Those are rights. The word marriage is a religious term. To be honest, I don't really think any marriages (gay or straight) should be recognized by the government. It's a religious institution and I believe in separating the two. You get married in a church by a priest. That church or sect or whatever has the religious freedom to marry whoever they want. Some may say it's between a man and a woman only. Other churches may say the opposite and that only same-sex couples can wed. Regardless, none of it should have any legal meaning whatsoever. Any two adults, whether they were "married" by a religion or not, should have the right to form a legal partnership. Something that happens at the courthouse. Not a church.

[JackNasty]

Oh poor baby, I'm so sorry that you imagine the California high court granting gay couples equal protection under the law is somehow a political inconvenience for you..

[SeanOcali]

After next election, Californian gays will NEVER be able to wed because of this ruling. Get a clue. And I support gay marriage. You people who responded to my post are a bunch of a-holes with zero reading comprehension.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"Gay acceptance will naturally occur over the long haul so long as the progressive movement is allowed to move forward."

But you don't want it to move forward just yet?

"All progressives must stand for equal rights and support civil unions no matter what. But calling it marriage is a serious problem, politically. Personally I don't care what it's called. But other people do. I just know that going beyond the support of equal rights is the wrong move and will hurt us politically"

REFUSING to call it "marriage" is code for NOT "supporting EQUAL rights". Refusing to call it "marriage" gives them (YOU?) license to DENY EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS!!!

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[Bluesue]

While this is good news, it has no impact on a wide-range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples because they federal laws specifically prohibit gays.

Federal Law Governs Definition of "Spouse" for Most Benefit Plans
http://www.lawfirmalliance.org/assets/attachments/40.pdf

Excerpt:
---------------------------
In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. DOMA provides that, for purposes of all federal statutes, "marriage" means only a legal union between a man and a woman, and "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex. Thus, under DOMA, same-sex partners, even if legally married, won’t be considered "spouses" for purposes of any federal law. For this reason, the scope of federal laws and regulations governing Social Security Survival Benefits, Medicare, veteran’s rights, 401-k plans, taxes and immigration won’t be affected by same-sex marriages, even if it’s recognized by certain states. The federal DOMA also exempts states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
-----------------------------
For example, let’s suppose an enlightened company offers coverage for the spouse in same sex couples just as they offer such coverage to the spouse in heterosexual couples. For the heterosexual couple, the value of that coverage ia tax free to the employee. However, for the gay couple, the value of that same coverage must be reported as taxable income. So if that coverage has a value of $5,000, that $5,000 is added as taxable income on the employee’s W-2 for federal tax purposes.

[candyc]

I'm really glad for you guys. I'm sure you'll prevail. We don't have to wait for the election to begin embracing the changes that will begin to erase the stupidity of the last 8 years. And the thousand years before that.

It's too bad that so many Americans feel that someone else's freedom to pursue life ,liberty and happiness somehow detracts something from their own lives.

We are a shallow, ignorant,easily manipulated,angry herd of sheep

It seems to me that the people who get all hot and bothered ,angry and vicious over gay marriage
have serious sex-identity issues of their own. Healthy, balanced people really don't care. You want to get married? Feel free.Your spouse needs to be on your health insurance? So? It shouldn't cost any more than mine does. What's the difference?

I want everyone in America to be lifted up . We all deserve a break. Let's help each other out and change everything.

Obama 08!

[princesswarrior]

What I don't like is people comparing this issue with the racial civil rights issues that we have worked so hard to overcome in this country. People do not have a choice in the color of their skin, but they DO have a choice as to their sexual orientation and who they marry. So, please stop desecrating and insulting the history of African-Americans by trying to compare racial issues with sexual orientation issues. They aren't even CLOSE to being the same. In fact, I think this whole thing is unfair because the court has cleary overstepped its boundaries by overturning the will of the people in this state that already voted to ban same sex marriages. So, does this mean that if a few people don't like the person that is voted president, they will be able to go to the Supreme Court and get some type of exception? A severe miscarriage of justice has occurred today. What a shame.

[forpeace]

*

princesswarrior
........People do not have a choice in the color of their skin, but they DO have a choice as to their sexual orientation
================

Sexual orientation is not a choice when you have been born that way.

It's time people in this country get educated before passing on their judgment.

What a shame.

*

[dgscol]

If people can show that this is true, it would be different. Have babies been tested in some fashion to demonstrate this affinity, and that it lasts? Clearly the CA definition does not require such a birthright.

[dgscol]

Predominately people are born with a penis, or a vagina. This is nature's statement, and it is written into your every cell.

[princesswarrior]

With respect, I disagree because this has not been proven.

[Wintergreen4President]

Isn't it amazing that someone whose race has been oppressed for so long and has finally won equality under the law, could be so ignorant of other minorities? No sir, sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Deciding to accept who you are is a choice, deciding to live your own life and stop pretending to be like everyone else is a choice, but your sexual orientation is definitely not your own decision, it's the way you were born.

As far as the court overturning the will of the people is concerned: I thought it was the law that mattered, not popular opinion. Equal rights for all Americans is a constitutional guarantee, not the whim of an intolerant, small minded and homophobic sector of the populace. This was not a miscarriage of justice. It was the State Supreme Court finally deciding to follow the law and stop catering to people of prejudice.

You, sir, should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

[Nyland8]

Well ... no. Medical science has already established that, in many cases, people do NOT have a "choice" about their sexual orientation. The fact that it doesn't appear on the surface of their skin - like color does - is not a reason to exclude them from that which is no longer a criminal expression of their preference. They should have the right to be buried in family plots - just like married people. They should have the right to hospital visits - just like married people. They should have the right to job benefits - just like married people. They should have the right to custody of children in the case of death or injury of their "spouse" - just like married people.

I could go on and on. It IS a rights issue.

By the way, have you heard that the earth is spherical?

8

[Bluesue]

I don't believe people have a choice in sexual orientation. Do you actually believe people would choose to be treated the way gays are treated?

[DramaQueen101]

THANK YOU!!!!! I have been saying this for years!!!

I was raised by a Catholic father and a Seventh-Day Adventist mother who, while firmly believing in their faiths allowed my siblings and I to choose our own faiths. My mom was more willing to let us find our own way, my father was willing to allow the same as long as what we believed did not go against his own beliefs. Homosexuality was one of those MORTAL SINS as far as he was concerned. All my life I knew where my orientation lay, even though I didn't know what it was called, since my father went out of his way to make sure that I was "protected" from this knowledge. When I was 24, I came out to him and he disowned me, saying that he wouldn't have me back in his life unless I got myself "right". I told him that it wasn't really a choice (my first crush was a boy when I was in first grade), and that if it was a choice there would be a lot fewer gay people in the world, because no one in their right mind would choose to live with the kind of abuse that people like him heaped on us.

It's just very nice to hear someone else say the same thing.

[JackNasty]

"I for one am glad to see Tavis go. His 15 minutes of fame have lasted far too long. His "blacker-than-thou" attitude and lack of respect for people who don't agree with him are tiring" -- princesswarrior

Scratch a homophobe, find a racist!!

Apparently this so-called warriorprincess thinks some people have the right to deny equal protection under the law to others.

[suec03]

The late Coretta Scott King, widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke out against discrimination against lesbians and gay men. Don't forget that gay Americans included the late Bayard Rustin, an African American activist who organized the march on Washington where Dr. King spoke and was a friend of Dr. King. Mrs. King respected Bayard Rustin as a person. Mrs. King didn't see sexual orientation as a choice that gay men and lesbians should get over. Mrs. King lent her voice and her credibility to the cause of justice and non-discrimination against lesbians and gay men. In doing so, she certainly did not think she was desecrating the work of so many African Americans and a lesser number of non-African American supporters who struggled for racial equality. To her the struggle of gay men and lesbians for equality under the law was a civil rights issue. I'll take my cue from Coretta Scott King, thank you very much, and not you, princesswarrior. Do you have a problem with Coretta Scott King (may she rest in peace)? I believe Mrs. King was correct on this issue.

[PatCroft]

Two hundred years late. How much of this opposition is fostered by the corporate greed not willing to provide spouse benefits and how much of this opposition is provided by religious wackos?

[Bluesue]

Actually, we need to change federal law beginning with the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Therefore, even though a state may recognize same sex couples, federal law does not. And that includes ERISA, which governs employee benefits.

IFor example, f an employer provides benefits to a same sex couple in a legal same sex marraige, the value of those benefits will be included in the employee's W-2 for federal tax purposes. These benefits are tax free to a heterosexual couple.

[PuffAndStuff]

Please peeps ... Just don't let this become a 'wedge issue' in 2008 and have a repeat of 2004.

[antaeus]

OK. What's your suggestion for moving forward?

[pennyfortheguy]

Metamucil.

[SaviourMachine]

Here's my suggestion...the the Supreme Court of California comprise of SIX Republicans and one Democrat.

Sweet huh?

[PuffAndStuff]

Not sure if I have a 'suggestion' per se ...

And since I don't have a dog in this fight -- I'm not gay -- I don't really care that much about the particular issue. That said as long as these couples are given legal rights in terms of finances, medical matter, etc -- as propsed in some state civil unions -- then it seems to me to be a fair compromise, satisfying those on both sides of this argument ....

As opposed to same sex couples demanding for the word 'marriage', which *is* asking for a right that currently does *not*, and never has, legally existed.

And I CAN say with certainty if I were gay, I'd realize that there are far more pressing world and national matters at hand: and I wouldn't allow this issue to galvanize all the attention and the change the result of the '08 election.

[situationcritical]

Please Puff - why don't you just take care of that for us since you think the power is in anyone's hands.

[PuffAndStuff]

Really bizarre statement.

It's 'the hands' of the gay community to just let the issue rest, no?

[NetWeasel]

In the late 1990s, the voters of South Carolina voted to remove from the State constitution the ban on interracial marriage. The vote came closer than expected.

My question is: If the voters of South Carolina had voted to leave the ban on interracial marriage in, should it still be illegal for people of differing races to marry, and would South Carolina then have the right to not recognize any such union from another State?

Just think of the divorce cases -- "I shouldn't have to pay alimony, your Honor; we're not even married."

[forpeace]

*

Gay and Lesbians SHOULD have the same exact equal Civil Rights as any other person.

Again Congratulations to all Gays and Lesbians and people of California.

*

[dgscol]

They have the same civil rights, but they are redefining marriage. That is not their right.

[forpeace]

*

dgscol
..........That is not their right.
============

It all depends on what your definition of marriage is?

If you really believe they have the same civil rights, then you shouldn't deny their right to marriage.

Who are we to make it right or wrong?

*

[greenwriter]

Obviously you didn't even read the decision, or you wouldn't post such nonsense. And what a pathetic, disingenious effort at trying to mask your petty hatred and intolerance. When do you YOU get that you don't have the right do deny other people's civil rights?

[situationcritical]

The right to redefine marriage is anyone's right.

[jalapeno]

Traditional marriage can be called Holy Marriage and gay marriage can be called just Marriage, that way traditional sounds (and is) more Biblish.

[Indubio]

Gays earned the right to define marriage when the ceremony became a civil not just a religious act. There is no rational justification why two consenting adults irrespective of their sexua should not be permitted to marry in a civil ceremony but this does not man that a church should be compelled to consumate their arrangement.

[dgscol]

I agree that marriage is very important, and there rights thereunto a couple, willing to undertake raising a family. Claiming that a gay marriage is the same is an affront to all good decent people. There should be a federal statement making the common sense affirmation that gay relationships are different than a marriage between a man and woman.

[klmebane]

why are gay relationships different than straight ones?? are two gay people in a committed relationship not in love like two straight people are?? i'm really confused by your comment.

[forpeace]

*

Congratulations to all Gays and Lesbians.

You have achieved something that should have been your right in the first place.

*

[bevi8230]

  So let me get this right, California voters reject gay marriage by over 60%, The Governor veto's at least 2 gays bills that come before him over the years (not including Gov Gray Davis veto's)  and Bill Clinton signs the Marriage Act back in 1996 but the gays can't leave it alone. So much for democracy and having your vote count and mean something. I guess democracy has a different meaning for liberals, like to hell with what the majority wants. The will of the people means nothing to liberals. Homosexuality is a perversion not a alternate lifestyle. Let's have general election vote on gay marriage and see what happens. Every state that voted on gay marriage in past elections defeated the  gay agenda.

[wsder28]

Replace "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage" and your ridiculous diatribe could have appeared in an op-ed piece in Alabama in the 1950's. Just because they're different than you doesn't mean they're perverts...

[torrrep]

Once again. Gay is not a race. It is a preference and a choice.

[mabinog]

Sorry dude, democracy does not mean tyranny of majority. If you don't like gay people just say so.

There is no gay agenda. The gay agenda is propagandist tool of the religious right who wish to stick there noses in other people's bedroom and impose their morals on others.

[torrrep]

That is not true. I know MANY schools where gays are allowed to have after school clubs but Christians are NOT. I know of schools where Christian groups had material removed by school personnel while gay students were allowed to post what ever they wanted. If you don't want people putting their noses in your business then stop ADVERTISING your business.

[antaeus]

In a society organized, legally at least, around a constitution, then constitutional principles trump any kind of electoral choice, however large or representative of a majority.

I grew up in an area where Catholics were the "majority." In the public schools meat was never served on Fridays during lent. I believe that a "majority" of the voters in that community would have voted to legalize that practice. But just because any given "majority" can be gotten together to agree on a topic, it doesn't mean the decision would pass constitutional muster.

A "majority" could be found to support lots of wacky ideas.

Sorry, but your only recourse is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Good luck with that.

[torrrep]

Actually no it is not our only course. Other states have constitutional amendments. California can do the same.

[Nyland8]

If the majority of voters in West Virginia decided that all blacks should be lynched, or enslaved, or even just expatriated from the state, or maybe all Muslims, would you defend that decision as being "democratic" or "the will of the people" ??

Or might you look at state and federal constitutions, and perhaps legal precedent, to draw conclusions about what their rights should be?

Just curious.

8

[helonias]

Thats sounds like a states rights issue.

Eh?

[JackNasty]

What a wonder person you must be bevi8230, denigrating gay folks and demanding they be denied the same protection under the law everyone else has.

Does it make you feel important?.

[SaviourMachine]

Yay !

I couldn't be more pleased with my adopted state.

[MuchMadness]

This sort of judicial activism is nothing more than making law based on personal preference. It is every bit as misguided as President Bush's arguments condoning waterboarding or the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. It is a philosophy that shows contempt for representative democracy.

[wsder28]

Civil rights bestowed upon us by the constitution need to be protected from the majority, not governed by them. If we let the "majority" decide issues of civil rights, it would still be illegal to marry someone outside of your race in most of the south today. Its called CHECKS AND BALANCES.... look in to it!

[Indubio]

Here, here!!!

[BrianZ]

That's so cute that you believe that extending the same rights to every person is judicial activism. It was judicial activism when we ended slavery, gave women the right to vote ... those things weren't voted in by the masses either. No, it came from the government.

The majority would never use its power to force substandard conditions upon the minority, would it? No, we don't see that at all in our society do we?

The fact that you willfully condone such ignorance by making posts such as this should forfeit your right to speak. Beware! If you can erode the protections of the constituion then the rest of us can erode the rights of ignorant people like you . How's that sit with ya?

[useyourbrain]

At a certain point the Courts said people could not own people, man could not rape their wives and go unpunished, people could buy contraceptives....and a whole bunch of other things that small minded repressive and reactionary people have put on the books for years. This is how our government works. That's the Constitution. Read it some time. They are supposed to overturn the will of the people (Legislature) when they violate the Constitution.

I guess you didn't mind when an activist court gave GWB the Presidency? Gore won Florida and he won the majority of the votes cast nationally. Now just who is it that is contemptuous of democracy?

[Indubio]

The courts also have a responsible to ensure that the rights of the minority are not stifled by the will of the majority. This is memorialized in the US Constitution and is one of the purposes of the separation of powers. Courts quite frankly are supposed to be activist. The whole notion of strict constructionist courts is ludicrous; justified and used primarily by hyperconservatives to legitimize their form of tyranny.

[antaeus]

"Activist courts" are not suddenly expressing preference for gay marriage. As if in, say, 1846 the courts didn't like it, but now they do.

Rather what's happening is that the courts are coming to grips with the fact--and yes, it is a fact--that we now recognize there are such things as long-term same-sex couples.

The courts aren't being arbitrary or whimsical. They're responding soberly to a weighty social change.

[Crozier]

Is thirty two years long enough for you. I am looking at pictures of us at home and at the studio in 1976 and throughout the years.... I am typing this looking at my spouse and five year old toddler " rastling" in the den.

Thank God that there is Nova Scotia and all Canada and the State of Massachusetts and now California in this hemisphere......and other nations in South America and Europe and Africa mature enough to do what the USA is unable to accomplish without political fodder for the extreme right minority.,

[HaloGuy]

This is a regurgitated argument. Do you have any other rationale?

[kellygrrrl]

when I look at West VA and realize how completely disconnected from those people I am
it reminds me how completely disconnected others are from CA.

seriously, the avg. Repub here is not exactly what you would think

and the Progressive Populist here is not exactly that populist group we've seen elsewhere.

we are completely unique. We're not asking everyone to be like us or follow our lead,
but we certainly don't want to be dissed and blasted for who we are

so in that respect -- we are just like West VA and NY and PA and FLA and MI and Maine and Montana and Arkansas and Oregon and Alaska and Hawaii and .....

we are all unique. but we are ONE PEOPLE - ONE NATION