California Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Legal

[Theophylact]

By a 4-3 vote, the Court ruled that if the state constitution allows opposite-sex couples to marry, it must also allow same-sex couples to do so. Six of the seven justices are Republican appointees, for what it's worth.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a moderate Republican who has vetoed past bills aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, issued a brief statement saying he would not support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the court’s ruling.

His vetoes were because he felt the court should decide the issue; now that it's done so, he's standing aside.

[diode]

Good, about time.

[jokostel]

Since when is it the states business who you should be able to marry?
Religions can do what they please as far as that goes... it's their charter, and if you don't meet the requirements.... adios.

[pickel]

O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts And men have lost their reason!

[Toadman]

Morality aside, it is against the voted Will of The People of the State of California. Just like Propostion 228 immigration overwhelmingly for immigration reform and motor-voter laws. Both legislated by the bench as "wrong".

[Chuckiechan]

This was ruled on quickly to beat the anti gay marriage proposal on heading for the November ballot. It is expected to qualify, and if it does it will energize the conservative base. The justices are hoping to take the wind out of the sails of the opponets of gay marriage.

California has voted against gay marriage time and time again, and the courts just tell the voters "up yours"!

I remember when California recalled, and sent packing, the Chief Justice - Rose Bird - for her stance against the death penalty.

I don't think Californians are going to take this lying down. They can throw the rest of the idiots out, too. This is too much to swallow.

This is the difference between legislating from the bench, and interpreting the constitution, and why the Democrats want liberal judges to make societal changes the voters do not want.

[Toadman]

This is the difference between legislating from the bench and interpreting the constitution, and why the Democrats want liberal judges to make societal changes the voters do not want.

Exactly and exalts.

Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why the F is that old archaic Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Monroe irrelevant fish-wrap being considered valid?
--
Judges are to enforce existing laws, not interpret them and rule accordingly to statutes.The infestation made it pass congressional payoffs into under-robe judiciary BJ's now. Arnold made it to his escape pod instead of publically standing up for HIS voters with a raised-finger "F-you, we already voted against it!"

"To hell with thee!" say robed judges deciding at the Cali Star Chamber. So who's the real fascist?

Oh and those shrugging it off as a freak fruits-and-nuts-state initiative, it's coming to a theater near you at full steam. It always does in some iteration. Chugga chugga comes the train.

Being in California, if you ever even get close to this topic in conversation, gay people will crow loudly about their 'right' to marry. They have no legal justification for it, they just want to on principle. The Principle of what?

So let's step back and I'll say hey fine. Go "get married".

Yet another line from the ineffable Chris Rock - "Gay people got a right to be as miserable as everybody else!"

[Theophylact]

I should point out that the decision grants gay couples no new substantive rights that they didn't have under California's civil union legislation. The single new feature is being allowed to call such unions "marriage":

Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples* to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.

*Civil unions are marriage. A church wedding without the piece of government-issued paper recognizing it has no legal status; a marriage obtained by getting a state-issued license and having a former city councilman take the couple's oaths in font of two unrelated witnesses does have legal status. Marcia and I are married, thanks to the late Nicholas A. Colasanto.

[Theophylact]

In case you were interested, here's the operative clause of the California State Constitution, Article I, Section 7(b):

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

[Pexster]

I don't think Californians are going to take this lying down.

Is this harming you in some secret way?