California Supreme Court Judges Shifting On Gay Marriage

Time:

The prospects of same-sex marriage in California grew dimmer Thursday, when two Supreme Court justices who helped create the right for gays to marry in last year's historic decision expressed deep reservations about attempts to strike down a statewide referendum passed last fall to ban the practice. "You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution," said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. "You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California."

Read the whole story: Time

Comments

[Catothemuchyounger]

Once again the headline does not match the text. The CA court is not changing its position on gay marriage. It is merely recognizing that the People have ovverruled it.

[cylindar]

The court will reject the idea of homosexual marriage because there are no violations of rights involved. Marriage has traditionally been defined as betwee a male and female. You would have to change the definition of marriage first, before any violation of rights be considered.

[rikkirighteous]

There is no inherent right to marriage.

Therefore, the people have the right to decide what they wish the standard to be. And what they don't want it to be.

[SD Indy]

Cool. Then I guess you would have no problem entering into a civil union then.

[4 Real]

These ballot initiatives should not be allowed to give or deny someone's rights. Today it's gay marriage, tomorrow, as someone said before, sharia law. With such a close vote you basically have divided the state into 2 parts with half saying it's ok, the other half saying it's not. Give it a few more years and it will swing more towards favor of gay marriage and this will continue to come up over and over again. It should be decided in the courts.
Remember, if the mormon church had not put so much money into passing this, it may not have passed. Which is another scary thought: if a religious entity sees something they don't like and can rally their people to go to another state and influence laws in the state which directly affect individual rights, is that not a form of sharia law?

[Steamboater]

If this story is a bad omen then the only way Gay marriage is to come about is at the federal level with a president who stands behind his commitment to equal rights for Gays and Lesbians. Forget about Obama. We got lip service from him and he gave many of those who voted for him an excuse to vote for Prop H-8 by his refusal to favor marriage for Gays and Lesbians. It makes you furious.

[MagisterLudi]

Oh, so gays is now capitalized? Like Americans? The next frontier in privileges.

[SJBrown]

The President can't dictate laws. Who needs an excuse from President Obama to vote on a Proposition? Marriage is not a federal concern and I don't want it to be.

Be careful what you ask for.

[Kanamachirover]

"'You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution,'said Justice Joyce L. Kennard"

Our Declaration of Independence states that; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“ This is true as long as you are a straight American. These rights are not subject to the majority ganging up on minorities and for those who think that states rights should be able to take away the rights of minorities and that the bible is some guide of civic guide to our rights should study the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you think you are right, I am going to start a bill in the House to outlaw your rights. Justice Joyce L. Kennard should know that when it comes to “these two rights” the minority rights should always be upheld. I can not believe that these people are judges.

[LWkcma]

I thought that constitutions were established to help protect the rights of the individual or minorities from oppresions by the majority. These justices seem to say that if the majority were to vote a constitutional amendment that California should be ruled by Sharia [sp] law then they would have to adopt Islam theocratic rule. They have assumed pretzel logic to support their own agenda.

[adamsmith3]

If it weren't for il.legal immigration, California would be losing population. There has been a quiet exodus out of the dysfunctional state (dysfunctional government, not people) that is handing back I.O.U.s for tax returns. They have some of the highest sales and income taxes in the nation, with an incredibly wealthy tax base, and the state government can't save anything away during the good times for times like these? They should let gays pay for marriage licenses and get married. Might as well, it will only help the state deficit.

[JHCowboy]

"'You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution,'said Justice Joyce L. Kennard"

This is an incredibly narrow view of the choices before the justices. These justices need to wake up out of their bookish, narrow little world and see the reality before them. The choice before them in this case is between an inalienable right of a minority (still unpopular among too many); and the right of the people to change their constitution in order to take away those rights. That's simply not right. The damned initiative (prop 8) should never have been allowed to be placed on the ballot in the first place. This sets an awful precedent for California and for our nation. I hope that the Supreme Court of the United States sets this whole thing right once and for all and enacts a Federal Law allowing Same Sex Marriage Nationally. At that point California's Supreme Court Justices law regarding same sex marriage vs. the tyranny of the majority of the people will be null and void.

[SJBrown]

The damned initiative (prop 8) should never have been allowed to be placed on the ballot in the first place.

I'm curious, was there a fight to take it off the ballot?

[petphotos]

I spent 2 wonderful years in Northern California, with the Air Force, in the 70's. It is really sad to see the economic and political decline since then. I don't see any good answers.

[weatherwaxx]

So the obvious thing to do -- quickly, before the amendment process is revised -- is to start an initiative to REPEAL PROP 8.

People were too complacent at the beginning of this -- no one really believed California could be so bass-ackwards, and I suspect no one realized how much money the religious wingnuts would throw at it.

If an amendment can be added, it can be repealed.

[slaxx]

i think they're waiting to see what the court says before pouring money and resources into another proposition.

and then if it does pass, that one will be fought as well.

[special muppet]

What are these judges going on about...? The people should have the right to change the constitution... but not to change it with mindless stuff that is contrary to people's rights of equality and freedom of expression. Those rights should come first, above all others.

[weatherwaxx]

Judges have to rule on how to apply the law. The law allows for amendments. The argument is that this does not merely amend, but by creating a class of second-class citizens, it is a revision.

Seems obvious to me, but don't forget the majority of judges on CA's Supreme Court are Republican appointees and probably have been told to kiss up to the rich boys and religious extremists who lied to get it passed.

A repeal initiative is the next logical step -- and then an initiative to revise the amendment process... in that order.

[JHCowboy]

weatherwaxx you're right on the mark with that one. I hope they do it even if Prop 8 does fail the initiative process should still be changed.

[totaldisbelief]

Hey California...Which way is the wind blowing today?

[slaxx]

if only "civil unions" actually did give the same rights as"marriage."

[ScandalousCandice7]

If only all marriages were made illegal.

[ScandalousCandice7]

Then again everyone should be made to suffer equally. Marriage for all.

[TimmySlagle]

A victory for Democracy!

[TheBaffler]

So say the hateful wingnuts with nothing but contempt for democracy.

[TimmySlagle]

Actually, we love the rule of law.

And the Constitution of California was amended lawfully.

[LiberalChrisFromEurope]

No, that'S called ochlocracy or mob rule. But this should be known about California since 1972 as the court pointed out.

[SD Indy]

Hey D*PSH*T, we do NOT live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic!!!!

[TimmySlagle]

You live in California, Indy?

[slipthalo]

And where does the 'all Americans' 'inalienable right' 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' fit into your style of democracy?

[TimmySlagle]

And how does a State Privilege like marriage, fit into Life, Liberty or Happiness?

Marriage has nothing to do with Happiness.