California Supreme Court approves gay marriage; is SCOTUS soon to follow?
by RickG · 05/15/2008 3:48 pmThe California Supreme Court has effectively legalized gay marriage by striking down a voter-approved law that restricted marriage to a union of one man and one woman.
The Court, by a 4-3 vote, determined the law passed by 61% of the voters in 2000 was discriminatory, and wrote, “… limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute.”
The only failsafe method of preventing social engineering by judges who repeatedly thwart the will of the voters is to pass a state constitutional amendment (which conservatives are already trying to get on the ballot). However, that appears unlikely, considering that the “Republican” California governor would not support such a move.
“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” said California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, in a statement. “As I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state supreme court ruling.”
This could actually help Senator John McCain, the soon-to-be Republican Presidential nominee. McCain, who opposes gay marriage, also has pledged to appoint strict constructionist judges to the US Supreme Court.
Given the sharp division often evident in SCOTUS rulings, the importance of voting for McCain on this issue becomes crystal clear. A few years of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, a few Supreme Court appointments, and gay marriage becomes the law of the land - along with a host of other ill-conceived and unwanted social doctrines that will be forced upon a country of 300 million people by as few as five unelected judges.
Some sour-grapes conservatives have deliberately misstated McCain’s history on judges. The evidence is clear and unequivocal: McCain has been a consistent supporter and promoter of the appointment of conservative judges and has worked hard to ensure their confirmation.
This should be a wake up call to those who say there is no difference between McCain and the Democrats.
If McCain loses, a whole generation - not just four or eight years - will be dominated by a Supreme Court more reflective of Ruth Bader Ginsberg than John Roberts.
An entire generation, subjectd to leftist “judicial legislation.”
Can we afford that?
UPDATE:
In a speech delivered this morning, before the California ruling, McCain spoke of his preference in judges:
Scores of judges have been confirmed to the federal district and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, who understand that they were not sent there to write our laws but to enforce them and make sure they are consistent with the Constitution. They are judges of exceptional character and quality, who enforce and do not make laws, and who respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
UPDATE:
For my fellow masochists, here’s the full text of the opinion.
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
65 Responses to “California Supreme Court approves gay marriage; is SCOTUS soon to follow?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
You are so right. This election is mostly about the judges. As much as I wish McCain would be more conservative overall, I do think he is vastly more likely to appoint good judges to the Supreme Court and the Federal courts.
We really need a Federal Marriage Amendment. I know the libs will call it bigotry and such, but it merely would codify the will of the people - the will that the courts are trampling on.
I feel sorry for the kids in California (what a freak state!) who will have the “normalcy” of “gay marriage” (aka oxymoron of the decade) shoved down their throats.
Although I do not think that McCain will appoint the likes of Scalia to the court, I do think that his appointments will be light years better for the country than Obama’s. I shutter to think what the courts would look like after 8 years of Obama and a large majority Democrat controlled Senate.
What did you expect in the “Land of Fruits and Nuts” (aka California)? Let it get to a Dimwit chosen Supreme Court and you can see the problems.
Everybody knows a sure way of getting what you want is thru the Supreme Court rulings. And I remind you of the bad things that could have happened if Algore or “Flip/Flop” Kerry had been President. As bad as those two are, I don’t even want to imagine either HELLary or “BO” choosing the next Supreme Count judge. So where do I mark John McCain for President.
Slip-slidin’ away.
Hello. My name is Landon. I hereby announce my candidacy for the House of Representatives in 2010. My goal: to pass a law that kicks California out of the United States of America before it’s too late.
And I approve this message!
Should I stir the pot and ask why we should care - after all these people are just exercising their beliefs, just like the FLDS, right? Should the gays say it is their “religious” belief and then it would be okay? Not that I agree with the judges - the people voted and that should be honored.
Petrhaps Bush’s legacy will be to have helped this country receive what looks like two top-notch Supreme court Judges. At this point i’ve no doubt as to how they would rule in a case like this. Nor do I doubt Thomas or Scalia. That’s four on the right side of this issue.
dcgirl # 6;
We The Peple voted and said no. The california Taco Supreme Court overturned the voice of the people. And the FLDS are breaking law in theier polygamist practice and the law should be weighed in on them. How that has been done to this point is disastrous.
Cajun # 5;
You’d have my vote if i lived in your district. I’m in Ted poe’s district and as far as I’m concerned I’d vote for him to be emperor if I that was the process.
Rick, I am up to page 64 of the opinion. I received a wire service flash about 3 hours ago and have been reading as I could. This opinion is chock full of unbelievable garbage and is an embarassment to the judiciary.
For instance, because until 1948 interracial marriage was illegal in California, it serves to prove history offers no guidance - none. Hey, we throw out 4,000 years of Mosaic Law, Christian Ethics and Western civilization - what could they possibly have to say ? Furthermore, they declaim the only reasons for a statute requiring marriage to be between a man and woman are tradition and the will of the majority.The unmitigated stupidity of that statement is breathtaking.
I’ll have more tomorrow in a thread about why this ruling will eventually bring us to the precipice with polygamy, bigamy and polyamory. The legal gates were not just opened, the barbed wire is down and the fenceposts are uprooted.
texpat # 10;
On person I blogged against in another site said deocracy is inherently evil because it supresses the minorty. Perhaps that’s the mind set here. I remember that idea thrown out in school growing up years ago. Perhaps that’s the mindset in this liberal court in Califorina’s Taco Supreme Court. afteral who would argue against the idea that liberals grow up?
I’m moving to California. This now doubles the opportunity for me to get married.
#11 Darren
Without more context, I am not sure what that person said. I will guess they were trying to make the point that a pure democracy is nothing but mob rule - and that is true. We do not, and never have, lived in a pure democracy. Our form of government with its checks, balances and counterbalances is a unique rebublic with democratic governing principles.
Frankly, nothing as lofty as those thoughts seem to have crossed the minds of the Justices in California.
Citizens vote and are denied their voice. Judges are determining the law. It’s a sad time in this country.
#11 and #13
We obviously do not live in a Democracy. The vast majority of Americans are professing Christians and I need not say more on that.
After Lawrence v. Texas, I suspect the SCOTUS is going to have its own precedent to force it to either agree to make all states grant “full faith and credit” to California gay marriages or revisit its ruling against the State of Texas. Furthermore, I would not be the least surprised to see another Texas case with its root in the extraction of all those people from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (I believe they call it).
BTW, although I think homosexuality is at best distateful, I found through study that Sodom and Gomorrah were not overthrown specifically for gay-ness, but for pride. Of course, the gay movement has not learned a thing. What is it they call their parades again?
american woman;
Self-annointed kings in black robes. There is a check and balance against them (not exclusive but effective). It’s called impeachment. Impeachment for judges, if I’m not mistaken, was not made for serious crimes against the law a judge may have committed, like murdering someone, but for the purpose of not allowing a judge or a gropu of judges, to control the other branches of goverment. Notice the silence in the other branches in how they are going to counter this ruling. By not acting, they are continually allowing this one branch to rule them all. It’s the Lord of the Rings reality show; but it’s no acting, it’s ALL real.
semperloco;
LOl, I liked your post.
Pride is perhaps the root of all evil.
I don’t understand why people get so heated about this argument. If 2 people love each other enough to want to spend their lives together then let them get married. Who does it hurt? I know a few same-sex couples who have children. They are great kids who live in a loving household. There is absolutely no drawback other than having to deal with the bigots who have no logical reason to be against it.
Interestingly, Schwarzenegger said he will uphold the ruling and he’s against trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment to reverse it. On the other hand, there’s already a movement in place, and it’s almost certain that there will be a ballot initiative in November for that Constitutional Amendment. Will be very interesting to follow the politics of this.
It will also be interesting to see how much concern people really have for these social issues during a recession…I have to imagine it takes a back seat and people will wake up and finally vote their financial interests.
10. texpat
I look forward to reading and commenting on your analysis.
I’ve read part of the opinion and agree - there’s a lot of crap in there. But, as we’ve seen time and time again, a results-oriented political decision by a court of law almost always results in a really bad, if not incoherent, opinion.
What’s maddening is that the easiest way for a bunch of judges to undo any law they don’t like is simply to call it unconstitutional. Many times, they aren’t even specific. Remember Roe v. Wade? What a bunch of gobbeldy-gook that was. They basically said, “Well, there’s not anything in here (the Constitution) that says what we want, so, let’s take some of this amendement, some of this amendment, the science and philosophy that we agree with and, voila! A new right!” It’s called the penumbra theory, but I prefer to call it the potpourri theory.
17 houstondem
The original law, which the court just struck down, passed with 61% of the vote. If they can get it on the ballot, it will probably take some fancy footwork by the pro-gay marriage crowd to keep the amendment from passing.
Then, the California Supreme Court’s hands would be tied (unless they found a way to claim there was some technical defect in the ballot process itself, which I wouldn’t put it past them).
By the way, your suggestion that anyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot is a typical arrogant Democrat remark.
Look, the way the Rep’s have fouled things up with their RINO deals, they won’t have enough Senate seats to support a filibuster. McCain will go through the motions but will wind up with Harry Reid’s brother-in-law on the Supremes and blame it on the Dems. McCain cannot be trusted to do what he says he will do, and with the expected losses in Congress, even if he wins the White House he will only be able to advance the liberal portion of his agenda.
As to Kalifornia, or gay marriage, who cares.
19 - I trying to figure out who it hurts. What impact it has on someone else’s life. If two men want to get married in California it has NO impact on my marriage. And sorry to say RickyG it make you a bigot.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies here.
Rastus, I care. God says homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes, and that’s good enough for me. He doesn’t change His mind on these things, you know. I think I’ll choose to be on His side of this issue.
This world is going to hell, I’m just glad I’m not going with it.
BTW, I do NOT hate gays, but I hate what they do, and their agenda. Marriage (between a man and a woman) is a vital part of the foundation of this country, and it (marriage) is being destroyed.
21 - A sound society cannot be built on unnatural behavior and/or debauchery. Ask the Romans.
Homosexuality is unnatural. It goes against how man is designed, whether you believe that God is the designer, or random evolution, is irrelevant.
That’s not bigotry.
Bigotry is when I cay that this white man has no business marrying a black woman. Just for the record, I think that’s a load of hogwash, by the way, this is just an example.
Society’s refusal to normalize unnatural behavior is not bigotry.
21. houstondumb
Your calling me a bigot doesn’t make it so. It’s like Obama’s lapdogs shouting “racist” anytime he is criticized (in an obvious attempt at intimidation). It’s moral cowardice and intellectual laziness.
Other people, believe it or not, do not agree with you that no one else is affected by gay marriage other than the gayly married. Some people believe that the traditional family is extremely important to society and promotes the general welfare. Government has always had the right to legislate in areas affecting societal welfare.
It is, of course, hard to empirically prove either your argument or mine, largely because we don’t have a long history of gay marriage - or even open homosexuality - to be able to quantify any impact.
I do remember reading a piece (and I will try to go back and find it) that dealt with homosexuality, though I don’t recall if it specifically dealt with marriage. However, the article stated that countries with higher rates of homosexuality (or homosexual marriage) tended to me more dysfunctional. It, in my mind, would still be in the realm of anecdotal evidence, but it was provocative. I will try to locate it.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
Interesting™.
Careful, RickG, remember, one way street. Suck it up! Can’t respond in kind, sensitive souls out there.
25, the link doesn’t work. However, I have been a serious student of the Bible for many years, and I read plenty of scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of Scripture.
God says homosexuality is a sin. BTW, so is bank robbery, lust and many other things. I am against those, too.
I do not condemn the homosexuals, but I do condemn what they do. I’m not guilty of that sin, but am guilty of others. I’m just thankful that I have a forgiving God. But part of the process of forgiveness is repentance, and there is none of that in the gays that want to push this onto society.
A common tool of satan is taking the truth of scripture and putting something out into the world that is very close, sounds good, but is actually a lie. If what you are linking to is saying homosexuality is ok, then it’s a lie. Satan tried this same trick on Jesus, so it’s nothing new.
26 - Blah, Blah, Blah. Rick could have said everything he said without the “houstondumb” shot.
Un-Freakin-Real, that you gotta be so sensitive about this. Suck it up.
25, Shakey, those folks are twisting scripture to fit their agenda.
26. BJ
I don’t think houstondem is that thin-skinned. We’ve tangoed before.
Still - Sorry houstondem.
Never let it be said that I am slow to offer an insincere apology.
Nonethless, you are right. I should be careful in case you know who pops in.
26. BJ
Oops.
28. jimb
I think it’s much milder than “bigot.”
And, besides, I apologized (almost).
We knew you were lurking, you devil you.
Life expectancy for a 20 year homosexual or bisexual man is 8 to 20 years less than all men. It is slightly more for lesbians. This is DISCOUNTING AIDS as a factor. The following study estimates that ” nearly half of homosexual and bisexual men currently age 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.” Source: Hogg. RS., Strathdee, SA., Craib, KJP., O’Shaughnessy, MV., Montainer, JSG., Schechter, MT., ” Modeling the impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pp. 657-61.
Nothing gay about those numbers.
Okay let me backtrack a little here. I do not know RickG personally so I should not have called him a bigot. However your stance on gay marriage is a bigoted one in that you are not wanting someone else to have the same rights as you. This is a civil rights issue. Plain and simple.
And a little name calling does not hurt my feelings…I am a big boy. I can take it.
33 - What are the life expectancy numbers for smokers? The obese? Alcoholics? Motorcycle riders?
14, 16 - Marrige limitations have always seemed unconstitutional to me under “equal protection”. Marrige should be a civil contract, agreed to by the participating parties and filed in the county records. This is not an issue that should be voted on by the citizens.
Uh, HoustonDem, are any of those people looking for special rights? Homosexuals have the same rights as anybody else….to marry somebody of the opposite sex. And we try and cure people of smoking, obesity, and alcoholism.
So we should try and cure homosexuals of their problem.
I’d guess the average motorcycle rider had the same life expectancy or greater than a car driver. What do you find in studies regarding that HoustonDem?
34. houstondem
Ditto. I’m not that thin-skinned either. I’ve been called much worse.
Whether it is a civil rights issue in the traditional sense remains to be seen. Obviously, the California court saw it that way.
But, let’s face it: In order to make this a Constitutional civil rights issue, and make homosexuals a protected class, you have to change the definition of protected class. The Civil Rights Acts were passed with ethnic minorities (primarily blacks) and women - but not gays - specifically in mind. These groups were protected classes sharing certain conditions: (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics.
As this applies to gays, we can debate (1) and (2), but they certainly don’t qualify as a protected class under (3). Homosexuality is not immutable as are race and gender.
This is just an example of how courts must twist - or simply ignore - past jurisprudence to overcome the will of the majority, basically to accomodate the justices’ personal policy preferences. It’s ad hoc, unprincipled and, in my view, ultimately harmful in a much broader sense. We just can’t operate on judicial whim.
If you want to seek certain protections for gays, or anyone else, fine. But let’s do it with reference to some standards. Otherwise, it’s chaos.
35. houstondem
If government were to drop all regulation of marriage, that would be fine by me. I won’t hold my breath, though.
Rick, there will be a ballot initiative in Calif to change their constitution to ban it. I’d bet when that happens, SCOTUS will refuse to hear a case.
36. houstondem
I understand your point, but there are all kinds of areas where society draws lines which seem to be arbitrary. But that’s why majority rule is so important - at least you have most of the people agreeing on where to draw the line.
A guy who is 20 years, 364 days and 21 hours old can be arrested for drinking, while a guy who is three hours older can get sloshed. Arbitrary? Sure, but society decided there had to be limits, and the line had to be drawn somewhere. Does the 20 year old have an equal protection claim? No, he doesn’t (although I’m sure it’s anybody’s guess with the California Surpreme Court).
Having sex with a girl who is one day short of the age of majority can theoretically result in jail time - wait a day and it’s chandalier time, baby! Did the girl transform from irresponsible child to mature adult at the stroke of midnight? Not any I’ve ever known.
Until recently, society has been able to craft its own moral code, to regulate marriage and to discourge “immoral” behavior - as homosexuality was once largely considered to be. In fact, until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a “mental disorder.”
Society also outlaws public nudity and lewdness, excessive noise and driving 30 mph in a 25 mph zone. Are these more offensive to traditional morality than homosexuality.
And, as Big45 alluded to, gays are looking for special status in the past reserved for women and oppressed minorities. Yet, they have the same rights as any other person of their race or gender.
Oh, well, now I’ve become a blowhard. Good night.
RickG, did you just insult yourself? Wouldn’t that be the same as insulting a commenter, seeing as how your were commenting on your comments? That’s against the rules, you know. You should file a complaint against yourself.
Rick, and the laws even vary from state to state on age of consent, speed limits, and even public nudity, prostitution, and many more issues. The Uniform Commercial Code discriminates in many areas, and not all States have adopted all of the UCC.
HoustonDem, you should try practicing law in Louisiana, where they still have Napoleanic law.
As I said, homosexuals have as much right to marry a person of the opposite sex as anybody else.
But where I shall differ is that God made the color of a person. I don’t believe God made anybody homosexual, any more than I believe he made them pedophiles, bank robbers, or murderers. Homosexuality is WRONG.
Unless, of course, you live in YFZ. Then you’re excused.
See what I mean?
You were insulted by that?
No, I was not insulted. But it was an example of distortion of the positions that some of us have taken. We have not said that the FLDS are free to break the law, in fact, we have said quite the opposite.
bigjolly, I don’t think I’ve ever said you or anyone else did. If it comes across that way I apologize. But you do seem to be unwilling to recognize that a belief system inherently based on such blatant and systematic law-breaking demonstrates that there was certainly a reason to be concerned for the welfare of those innocents who have no choice in the matter.
I don’t know, like I said the other day, I gave up trying to figure out how we can be so diametrically opposed on this issue. It still bothers me, though.
Peace.
Hamous, go drink a couple gallons of something. You’ll stop being bothered. Suggestions on the other thread.
Would it be simple enough for these people to immigrate to a country that would allow that sort of thing?
Peace out, no apology necessary. I told my wife last night that it was extremely uncomfortable being on the opposite side of some very good people.
What Idiot told Arnee that the Supreme Court ( CaliforEEa) can trump an amendment by the people. What a Dolt. Why does California require the vote of a Govanator for an Amendmant, anyway? The whole Court thing perplexes me. I don’t understand, for instance why these quasi- priesthood ( Lawyers and Judges) types, insist on using Case Law when the Constituton gets left buried under piles of other opinions which seem to trump the Constitution itself. I may have tried harder to make my point clearer, sorry.
I haven’t read all of the comments so please forgive me if this has already been stated.
Rick, just because McCain will appoint judges, doesn’t mean the ruling Democratic party will APPROVE them, or any liberal judges will step down while he is POTUS. HE WILL CAVE to the Democrats. His record clearly states the “under the bushes” dealings.
No thanks. I feel that the Republicans will lose again this election. They didn’t get the message last time around.
So, let me get this straight. RickG and others here are against homosexuality and we are bigots, eh? Guess you are calling God and Jesus bigots too.
Houstondem, You are falling into the trap that the radical Left have put forward. Namely, that to oppose Gay marriage is to Hate gays, period. The Boy Scouts are going through this ‘ad nauseum’ right now for upholding their standards… The problem that RickG is pointing out is the ‘Trumping’ of the will of the people by The Courts, followed by the gut-less and ignorant position of the Govenor. I have often wondered why it is that gay people wish to have spousal benefits, like insurance coverage by the employer. If one is gay, why would there be a reason to Stay at home, barring health issues? I think the solution there is for Companies to pay a stipend for health Inruance to employees that could be ’shared’ with Family or Partners.
“You are falling into the trap that the radical Left have put forward. Namely, that to oppose Gay marriage is to Hate gays”
When you worship at the altar, or rather, the house of cards called “diversity” you must be willing to accept any deviance. Question any piece and the whole dogma collapses, to be exposed for what it is: a hollow belief system.
TO MODERATOR
I wish to file a complaint against myself. A contributor (me) has insulted a commenter (me) by me calling me a blowhard in the last sentence of comment 41.
That this conduct is improper is supported by the observations of an independing third party, BigJolly in comment 42.
I don’t have access to Benzion’s Super Secret Book of Punishment, so I don’t know what I face. But please don’t make it anything to do outside in 96 degree temperatures.
LOL, not bad.
This could be the issue that truly salvages McCain’s campaign. If Obama takes a stand in favor of the court decision, he’s toast. A lot of folks wavering on the fence will jump with enthusiasm to McCain’s side.
HoustonDem, how about line marriages, would you support those as well — where multiple men and women can group together as a family under civil contracts?
Ghost Rider,
McCain has said that the ban on gay marriage is “un-Republican” and voted against the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Somehow, I don’t think this issue is going to tilt the election in his favor.
61.
Yes, but he was for the Defense of Marriage Act and said if it got overruled by the courts, then it would be appropriate to look at a Constituional Amendement, though he believes this is a state issue primarily. I also believe he supported Arizona’s ballot inititiave on traditional family.
I surely think he’s better positioned on this that the Dems, though.
61.
As far as tilting the election, though, I agree with you. It may help, but his best course is to continue to show what a radical Obama is.
Oh, I think he’s better positioned on it than Obama but it’s like most other issues with him: there won’t be any passion FOR him, just the hope that we can block Obama.
My take on it is McCain is like the couple down the street that goes about their business without bringing undue attention to themselves, while Obama is like the coordinator of the Folsom Street
OrgyFair.64. LOL