It is amusing that some people fulminate about so-called activist judges, and yet when judges in California legalize gay marriage by a strict reading of the Constitution, conservatives rush to get a referendum on the ballot for November that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Food for thought: a mere forty one years ago, the marriage of Senator Obama’s parents would not have been recognized in sixteen states, because there were strict laws against a mixed race marriage…until some gosh-darned activist judges ruled that law unconstitutional.
When are those who are busy minding other peoples’ business going to tumble to the fact that any two people who wish to marry are the same race–the human race–whether they have different skin or like gender? There cannot be different grades of equality. Marriage, which once was something strictly arranged by parents, typically for financial gain, is in a constantly state of change and gay marriage is simply the next logical step in its evolution…presuming that critics of gay marriage believe in evolution.
PAD
• 
I have a funny idea that there is a strong (if not necessarily 1:1) correlation between critics of gay marriage and people who deny evolution.
Ðámņ right, Peter.
The people that balk at gay marriage today, saying it will spell doom for society, are the spiritual descendants of the kind of people that used to say racial miscigenation would spell doom for society a few decades ago.
Let’s hope that a few decades from now their homophobic views will be in the same garbage can of history as separate restaurants for black and white people.
Oh, amending the California constitution is no big thing; it’s averaged more than five amendments per year over the past century. And I’d argue that amending the constitution is the right thing to do if you think that constitutional rulings lead to bad result. There’s nothing inherently wrong with an activist populace.
The wrong thing to do? To accuse folks of being “activist judges” for choosing the constitution over sub-constitutional law. That’s most of what’s going on, and it seems to reflect a lack of understanding of what a constitution is all about.
Me, today I’m heading out to the county courthouse. I want to watch history being made. And then I’ll be throwing some money into the pot to campaign against this amendment. The California constitution does not need to enshrine discrimination. The existence of gay marriage strengthens marriage for everyone, by not making it a tool for bigotry (and by not encouraging people to get into loveless and unstable marriages in contrast to their orientation).
–Nat, in California
Let’s hope that a few decades from now their homophobic views will be in the same garbage can of history as separate restaurants for black and white people.
Unfortunately, it seems that there is always a sizable group of people that feel this way about some minority. I think the best we can hope for is that those views re: homosexuality will become completely marginalized and/or unacceptable in polite society and that the haters will then shift their focus onto some other group that they think they can get away with harassing. The best candidate at the moment looks to be people of apparent Middle-Eastern ancestry/culture/whatever. But you can be sure it will be someone
Personally, I’d think Section 1 of the 14th Amendment would pretty much settle the entire discussion:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal protection. Citizenry. No abridging privileges. Shouldn’t that pretty much end the discussion?
PAD
To accuse folks of being “activist judges” for choosing the constitution over sub-constitutional law. That’s most of what’s going on, and it seems to reflect a lack of understanding of what a constitution is all about.
More like a willful blindness. If it goes against truthiness, it’s got to be wrong.
Equal protection. Citizenry. No abridging privileges. Shouldn’t that pretty much end the discussion?
Being in the wrong is unlikely to stop a political faction from attempting to advance its position. And fortunately, we still live in a country where people can advocate for their twisted prejudices. I just wish we could get a real substantive debate of the issues without fear-mongering arguments being tossed around. I also wish I’d win the lottery. Unfortunately, I think one of the more likely places for that debate to take place is Stanhope University…
Far be it from an agnostic like me to say this, but: Hallelujah.
I’ve said it before, and I’m saying it again: how much energy needs to be wasted on ensuring that marriage is restricted to a certain type of couple? How much more would our country’s politicians accomplish if they had better things to do than fight the good fight on behalf of discrimination?
I am and have been a big proponent of equal marriage for all–after all, it’s not “gay” marriage, it’s just marriage.
However, when I read the CA Supreme Court’s decisions, I found that Justice Corrigan’s dissenting opinion provided about the only decent arguments I’ve heard from “the other side.” Her basic point is: Marriage should be for everybody, gay, straight, both, or neither, but the majority’s argument in this case is poor, and a judicial action is not the way to make this happen.
I’m not saying I agree with her, but I found the whole decision document very interesting. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in this issue.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/
Congrats to all in CA who finally get to exercise some equality today!
Eric
I’m proud to live in a state where gay people can now marry, and I hope the anti-marriage amendment goes down in flames, but fulminating over activist judges and amending the constitution are two totally different things. In fact, it can even (rightly) be argued that both viewpoints come from exactly the same concept–that activism should come from the public, and not the bench.
What more discourages (rather than amuses) me is that Democrats continue to revere Bill Clinton, who advocated and signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (supported, dishearteningly, by many Democrats, including such “luminaries” as Tom Dascle, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, etc.)
You’d expect that kind of closed-minded thinking from Republicans, but from Democrats, it was sheer political cowardice. I’m not entirely sure which is worse.
Peter, in fairness, you *could* take such a broad reading of that segment of the constitution that one could argue the rights of incestuous marriages.
Mr. David,
Reading my last comment, it occurred to me that it might be read as some sort of jab at your Supergirl story about the conflict over Free Speech at Stanhope. I wasn’t trying to say that a debate at Stanhope would be unfortunate. I was trying to say that it was unfortunate that it was unlikely a real substantive debate would happen outside of a fictional place like Stanhope.
That’s story is one of my favorite of your Supergirl stories, which means it’s also one of my all-time favorite comicbook stories. I don’t ever want to give you the impression that I’m dissing it.
David Hunt –
Yeah, I agree that this stuff will never disappear. The best we can hope for is that it will not be the accepted/dominant view anymore. Just like racism still lives on, but is now frowned upon by all well-meaning people.
Jed –
Simple common sense and observation of the real world suffice. LGBT couples are as well-adjusted as straight couples (or perhaps MORE well-adjusted, when I think of some straight couples I know…), so make it official already.
On the other hand, I’m yet to see functional, well-adjusted, incestous couples… the same can be said for any other bizarre behaviour that some people will usually mention to disprove gay rights (The ‘what is next? Women marrying dogs?!?!’ argument).
I hope the ballot measure succeeds. Though I live in New York, Gays marrying in California will put my marriage of almost 15 years in serious jeopardy.
And what about the children!?!
Peter, in fairness, you *could* take such a broad reading of that segment of the constitution that one could argue the rights of incestuous marriages.
I suppose it could. But my understanding is that there are health worries stemming from siblings marrying, particularly insofar as inbreeding is concerned. Besides, that Texas situation notwithstanding–the one where the couple belatedly discovered that they were brother and sister–is there an epidemic of siblings desiring to marry that’s flown under my radar?
And that’s what it comes down to: The desires of the citizenry. People wanting to live their lives, engage in the pursuit of happiness. Equal rights. Conservatives will wave the banner of, “Oh my God, this could lead to siblings marrying!” Are there that many siblings who WANT to marry? I’m thinking not, and it’s preposterous to believe that gay marriage is somehow going to flip some switch and unleash a wave of incest in the land. I mean, my God, how would you even phrase that if you were taking a poll? “Do you believe that gays should be allowed to marry? If yes, do you have a sibling of the opposite gender, and if so, should you then be allowed to marry him/her?” I’d have to think that any question which will likely be answered by, “Ewwww!” isn’t anything to worry about.
Should the 14th amendment guarantee that siblings have the equal right to marry that gays should have? I don’t know; but I suppose it guarantees that they have the equal right to desire marriage. Now: How many do? Not enough to worry about. Certainly not enough to use as a justification to formalize bias by passing laws preventing gays from marrying.
PAD
I think the incest argument doesn’t work, since a heterosexual brother and a heterosexual sister can still get heterosexually married–just not to each other. But two homosexual men or two homosexual women haven’t been allowed to get married at all, whether they’re related or not.
Using incest as a justification for denying gays the right to marry the people they love seems a considerable stretch. For one thing, there is no discrimination going on with the ban on incest; it applies equally to gays and straights. Well, let me amend that–I suppose it does discriminate against those who want to practice incest. As Rene points out, the destructive effects of incestuous relationships is pretty well established. I don’t doubt that there will be those who will attempt to mainstream incest, simply because it’s a big world and there is no idea so insane that you can’t get a good crowd of people who will espouse it but I doubt it will amount to much.
Others point to polygamy and polyandry, which are far more prevalent and, in some cultures, approved. One could argue on the advisability of allowing official recognition of multiple partners in legal marriages but I don’t see where legalized gay marriages have anything to do with that.
Barring any valid harm that is likely to result–and I’ve yet to see a good explanation of how allowing gays to wed harms any of us in the slightest–and given the inherent good of allowing people to marry the person the love, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a good thing, though I wish it had come from something other than just a court opinion, which is easy come easy go. Eventually this will raise no more eyebrows than an interracial couple will (And at least in this part of North Carolina–a place that has a history of frowning on such things (and by frowning I mean killing people)–that means few eyebrows at all).
” …. Gays marrying in California will put my marriage of almost 15 years in serious jeopardy.”
Ed,
That’s crap. Gays marrying in CA will do nothing to my marriage in MO to which I will be celebrating year 10 with my wife in less then 2 weeks. This kind of talk is crap and if you replace gay with interracial then you’d be talking the same crap they did 45 years ago .. “but what about the children” doesn’t cut it. The child of a black man and a white woman is close to being President, so what would those who spoke against interracial marriage say today??
PAD,
The only time a judge seems to be activist is when the person calling them that does not agree with what they’ve ruled. All judges are activists, all of Congress are activists and the White House has had an activist in it since it was built.
I think the incest argument doesn’t work, since a heterosexual brother and a heterosexual sister can still get heterosexually married–just not to each other.
Yeah but that’s the argument that anti-gay marriage folks used–“Gays can certainly marry! As long as it’s to the opposite sex!” which I always found amazingly dumb because one of the best things about allowing gays to marry each other is that it would hopefully help reduce the number of disastrous marriages that happen when a gay person feels obligated to try to make a marriage to the opposite sex work. Why would anyone want to encourage that that kind of train wreck?
I say, use the old “Oh well.” argument against the legions of incest fans. When they complain that they aren’t allowed to practice incest just shrug and say, “Oh well.” It works for other practices too. “In my culture we mutilate the genitals of girls. How dare you forbid it! You are trampling on my parental rights!” Oh well.”
See how easy it is? The only obligation you have is to justify it with some reasoned argument on why they should not be allowed to do as they please, which should not be terribly hard in the case of incestuous genital mutilators, unless you are very very bad at debating.
“[I]s there an epidemic of siblings desiring to marry that’s flown under my radar?”
This is a group that believes homosexuals are made, not born. If validating homosexual marriage can “destroy” heterosexual marriage – since the only reason to get married is because it is legal – then certainly validating incest will make everyone marry their siblings. If the government says it is OK, we have to do it, right?
“a judicial action is not the way to make this happen.”
Except that the legislature has already passed a bill supporting gay marriage, and the executive branch (the governor) chose not to approve it because he felt that it should come through the judiciary (or through a popular direct vote.) So if it were the common view that this was not the way to do things, gay marriage would be the law of the state anyway.
And actually, New York really is a state that will be hit by this – because New York couples can fly to California, get married, and have their marriage recognized in that state. It’s the only pair of states for which this is the sole option available (outside couples can’t get married in MA, and while MA couples could get married in CA, they have no need to.)
But they’ve been getting married in this county now for almost an hour and a half, and my sex-mixing marriage hasn’t fallen apart yet…
Peter,
I’m not sure which argument would best appeal to your reason: the argument from design (part A fits Slot B), the argument from procreation, or the argument from natural law. From your posts (and previous) I do not see that you are open to alternative views, which is a shame that someone as smart as you has already made their mind up. Maybe you can educate me, what does the Torah teach about the origin of marriage?
“If the government says it is OK, we have to do it, right?”
CHeck your tax forms/instruction booklet. In there I believe it mentions you can send extra money above and beyond what you owe to help the government, how many people actually do that?
Though I live in New York, Gays marrying in California will put my marriage of almost 15 years in serious jeopardy.
Ed,
That’s crap.
I’m fairly sure he was being facetious, actually.
That’s crap. Gays marrying in CA will do nothing to my marriage in MO to which I will be celebrating year 10 with my wife in less then 2 weeks.
Ben–I may be completely wrong, but I think Edhopper was being ironic.
I’m not sure which argument would best appeal to your reason: the argument from design (part A fits Slot B), the argument from procreation, or the argument from natural law.
My “sense of reason?” Meaning that I’m being unreasonable simply because I (obviously) disagree with you? The argument from design? So you’re advocating that no use of genitalia save the one designed for procreation is acceptable? There goes oral sex. Procreation? So couples who do not choose to have children, or cannot have children, should not be allowed to marry? Natural law? Scientists routinely observe homosexual behavior in animals. They’re part of nature, last I checked. For that matter, it was not all that long ago that whites marrying blacks was considered a violation of natural law. That integration was a violation of natural law which dictated blacks were inferior and should be kept apart. Allow me to quote the judge who, in 1959, declared the marriage of a mixed Virginia couple was illegal: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”
Natural law. Don’t make me laugh.
From your posts (and previous) I do not see that you are open to alternative views, which is a shame that someone as smart as you has already made their mind up.
If I were truly “not open” to alternative views, then I would have deleted your post. What you’re saying is that, because I believe in equality versus bias, clearly I haven’t really paid attention to the forces of bias because–if I had–I would obviously be persuaded by their brilliance. I think not.
Maybe you can educate me,
Depends. Are you willing to learn?
what does the Torah teach about the origin of marriage?
Not much. Most of it is addressed in Talmud, the book of Jewish laws. Some of it talks about how, forty days before a male is born, a heavenly voice announces the name of the female whom he will marry. It also discusses the monetary transactions that was considered standard for marriages. Do you believe that celestial voices or dowries are a major component of modern day? Long story short: I have no doubt that the best minds of thousands of years ago did the best they could at the time. But they also advocated that a disobedient child should be stoned to death in the public square. Things change. Thinking changes. If thinking doesn’t change, we’re doing something wrong.
PAD
Just curious Peter, but are you going to George Takei’s Wedding?
David
If he invites me, sure. I hope he does; he came to mine.
PAD
Nat,
I’m not agreeing with Corrigan’s reasoning or her position, but I think her decision speaks for itself. My simple (and hideously oversimplified) summary does not do it justice.
Eric
You know we have had gay marriage up in Canada for years, and so far I have not heard of one heterosexual marriage breaking up because of it.
I guess Canada is just this strange place with igloos, as far as the US news is concerned. 🙂
Amusingly for a little while gay marriage was legal in Canada while gay divorce was not (just a loophole — now both gay marriage and gay divorce are legal in Canada). So arguably gay marriages were mandated by law to be more stable than heterosexual marriages. 🙂
Um, I sorta remember my wedding (almost 20 years ago) going something like, “What God hath brought together, let no man put asunder.” I.e., if God brought together two men, or two women, who am I to tell them no? There’s also a line in Fiddler on the Roof, that, protesting the lack of a matchmaker in Tzeitel and Motel’s match, it is brought up they did have a matchmaker – the same one as Adam and Eve.
Honestly, I don’t know if it’s my liberal New England upbringing, my radical beatnik father, or a missing mental link, but I just don’t understand the hoopla. If a church doesn’t want to recognize Gay Marriage, that’s the Church’s problem, but NO marriage is a marriage unless signed in civil law, so where’s the difference? It’s not this Holy Writ that drops from the sky, it’s a legal contract between two people. The rest is spiritual and up to the couple, no one else. You cannot force love or hate on anyone. Is a marriage invalid if one partner is bisexual? Is it lying under oath? I’ve never heard of a case yet, because it’s not part of the legal proceeding.
I in no way see how this “affects” my marriage, or anyone else’s, at all. The world could use a whole lot more love right now, because there sure seems to be an awful lot of blind hate. Drunk drivers kill untold people every day. Child pornographers destroy children, every day. Kids are poisoned by industrial pollution, every day, yet we aren’t breaking down doors to get signatures to make constitutional changes to block them (since laws don’t work) – so why are we attacking gay marriage?
Haven’t we got better things to worry about?
We have had it in Spain for some years too and so far earth havent split in half to swallow all us heathens…
I dislike the term “activist judge” tho. Its a label that denotes a deep misunderstanding of democracy and the separation of powers.
…unless your idea of democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting what’s for dinner (Id love to remember who said that).
Peter, do you see this issue as just a personal preference that can change depending on what the popular view is or who is in charge? or do you believe that society has a moral obligation to accept homosexual marriage? The difference being in choice 1 society can change its standards at any time and no one society is any better or worse than any other, in which case a society that rejects gay marriage is neither better or worse than one that does not, they are just different. Whereas in choice 2 there is a moral code outside of society that one would use to measure the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a society, in which case some societies would be more “right” or “wrong” than others,in which a society that accepts gay marriage is more “right” than one that does not. What do you think, societal preference or obligation?
…unless your idea of democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting what’s for dinner (Id love to remember who said that).
I’ve seen it attributed to Winston Churchill.
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is the sheep armed with a gun and objecting.”
I’m not sure I got the “liberty” part word-for-word, but it was words to that effect.
I thought the Churchill quote was Ben Franklin, actually — with “Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.” Could be either, though — it’s always the drunk statesmen who get the best lines. 🙂
Peter, in fairness, you *could* take such a broad reading of that segment of the constitution that one could argue the rights of incestuous marriages.
Yes, and? I’ve heard that argument made for incest and for polygamy. Polygamy strikes me as a “if it floats your boat, it’s not my problem” issue; incest might need some legal scrutiny because of the actual potential of physical harm to the offspring, but even then that’s not an issue of marriage, but of kids.
Others, PAD included, have already noted that this ruling is unlikely to create a wave of incest.
I’m not sure which argument would best appeal to your reason: the argument from design (part A fits Slot B), the argument from procreation, or the argument from natural law.
I refer you to John’s first post at the start of this topic:
I have a funny idea that there is a strong (if not necessarily 1:1) correlation between critics of gay marriage and people who deny evolution.
Game, set, and match to John.
As for this being some big threat, I’ve said many times here that I think it’s nonsense, so I won’t repeat the argument here. What I will repeat is my suggested solution to the whole problem: make EVERY marriage a “civil union” in a legal sense, and let those people who want recognition of a church deal with whatever religious organization they like. Then if you want to say that Person A and Person B’s marriage “doesn’t count because it wasn’t in faith X,” you can make whatever argument you like, but everyone has equal legal rights.
In the meantime … go California. I hope that one of my former colleagues when I taught in Palo Alto is getting married as we speak, or at least that he and his partner are heading towards that.
TWL
Arrrrgh!
Tim, I believe that you’re correct and that it was Franklin. The problem is that both of those dámņëd drunk statesmen such great aphorists that I occasionally confuse them. But you’re spot and got he wording closer than I did.
p.s. My favorite Churchill aphorism: “Democracy is the worst form of government…except for all the others that have been tried.
Some judge in 1959 re interracial marriage (as quoted by PAD): “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”
That judge’s statement is asinine on so many levels, not least of which is his inserting his religious beliefs into his statement (presumably made as part of his ruling). God’s “arrangement”? No one knows if God even exists; people’s views on the subject are matters of faith, not cold, hard fact. It’s not like God is said to live at the summit of Mt. Olympus, a physical place that’s difficult, but not impossible, to reach. We can’t go looking for him/her/it and see if he/she/it is home.
Even if God’s existence were indisputable, if he/she/it had a very real presence in the day-to-day affairs of humanity, that judge would still have been interpreting God’s motives for populating the Earth in the manner he/she/it did so. Who’s to say God didn’t initially separate the races to encourage them to seek each other out? Humans, as a species, have a yen to explore, after all. Otherwise, why the European colonization? Why settle the American west? Why put men on the moon? After all, if he/she/it really wanted the races kept separate, why give them the motivation and the means (via their intelligence) to eventually find each other?
Talk about your “activist” judges. But I’m sure those who complain about “activist judges” will find no fault with this guy.
This guy knowing God’s intentions (how influential he must have been to have had access to God’s thoughts. Did God call him up from time to time and say, “let me run this idea by you, see what you think.”?) is laughable. Reminds me of Mayor Kilpatrick’s statement back in February that he believes he’s on assignment from God to be (and to remain) mayor of Detroit. At least Kilpatrick said he believed he was on an assignment from God. The quoted judge made no such qualifying remarks concerning God’s plans with regard to inter-racial marriage. He more or less stated that he knew God’s intentions.
As to all those (especially the lawmakers in Washington and the various state houses) who oppose gay marriage (or inter-racial marriage or inter-religious marriage or marriage between a fan of an American League team and a National League Team or marriage between a Marvel fan and a DC fan or any other ludicrous objection) because it isn’t how you do things or it isn’t approved by your religion, here’s a thought:
Mind your own dámņ business.
And while you’re at it, get a life.
And get lost and stay there.
Who cares whether Jack marries Jill or John? Or whether Jill marries Jack or Judy? And who cares about their respective skin color or nationality or religion, or any such thing? Like PAD said, these people, regardless of other categories are all human.
Rick
P.S. and to all you busybodies, if we ever meet any aliens, it’s none of your business whether any humans decide to marry any of them, either.
What I will repeat is my suggested solution to the whole problem: make EVERY marriage a “civil union” in a legal sense, and let those people who want recognition of a church deal with whatever religious organization they like.
Actually, in a legal sense, every marriage is a “civil union”; you don’t have to get your marriage solemnized by any religious organization at all. (My first marriage was in a courthouse, and ended only because she turned out to be a pathological liar who finally realized I was a lousy meal ticket; when I married Hillary, we were given the option of walking into the back room of the office we bought the license in and having someone perform the ceremony then and there). It’s just that in most states, current law enshrines the prejudices of the preachers who once haunted legislatures.
I am looking forward to the first time someone gets married in California or Massachusetts, then goes to their home in Nebraska or Oklahoma and sues to overturn the “Defense” of Marriage Act as being in violation of Article IV of the Constitution (a contract executed in any state must be recognized in all states).
“I do not see that you are open to alternative views, which is a shame that someone as smart as you has already made their mind up.”
Is it the assumption that, being smart, he should never make his mind up about anything? Or is the assumption that he must’ve made his mind up before hearing alternative views? Because Peter grew up in a country where no-gay-marriage was the law of the land, and unless he has been running around with his fingers stuck in his ears, he has likely been exposed to many arguments against it before now.
I just got back from my little trip. Went to the courthouse, where various same-sex couples were getting married (and a throng of Unitarians stood around watching and cheering – no protesters at this location, but it isn’t one of the big press locations). Then I had lunch with my opposite-sex spouse… and the marriage seems to have survived those marriages. Phew.
The CA Supreame Court is set up to be an activist court. They are elected and subject to recall procedures if they offend the electorate. As far as I can remember, the recall option was only used once, back in the ’80s. The court was out of step with the voters on the death penalty. The entire court (except maybe one) was recalled and replaced by the electorate. All that being said, this was not an activist rulling. Based on our state constitution’s protection of equal rights and privacey, it was the only way the court could honestly go.
I’m a huge supporter of gay marriage, and I’m amazed at most of the arguments against it. First, they’re almost the same as the arguments against every expansion of marriage (such as interfaith marriages or interracial marriages): It’ll cheapen the meaning for everyone else, the institution will survive, yadda yadda yadda. Second, they almost always set up straw men to argue against, mainly that then we’ll have to allow for incestous marriages and bëšŧìál marriages (when, since most people seeking gay marriage want the same rights as straight marriages, it’s not a universal and doesn’t encompass them). Third is the idea that marriage can’t ever change — when it’s changed significantly, from the introduction of divorce (which, while painful, can let two people avoid a lifetime of misery shackled to each other) to the idea that women could select their partners (as opposed to the political marriages a few centuries ago) to even the adjustment of laws that prevented a man from being accused of raping his wife because he was assumed to have “full access” to her. Marriage changes, it evolves, it works great for some and poorly for others — and expanding it to include all people who want to commit to each other’s lives can only strengthen the institution, not weaken it.
The CA Supreame Court is set up to be an activist court. They are elected and subject to recall procedures if they offend the electorate.
That isn’t my what I’ve heard or read, so I went to wikipedea and this what I found:
“The justices are appointed to twelve year terms by the Governor of California.”
And: “After justices are appointed, they are subject to a retention vote at the next general election, and thereafter each twelve years.
“The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices; because Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin opposed capital punishment they were removed in 1986.”
However, I will note that a retension vote is not the same as having to stand for election. If I read this correctly, the Justices would be running unopposed, so it is simply a referendum. I expect you’d have to be really ticked off a Justice to vote him out. I would appreciate a correction from any resident of California if I’m off-base.
Based on our state constitution’s protection of equal rights and privacey, it was the only way the court could honestly go.
Based on what I’ve read about the case, I absolutely agree with this. Six of the seven Justices were appointed by Republican governors and they went out of their way to signal to people reading the decision that they didn’t necessarily agree with gay marriage as a policy issue, but their hands were tied. Everything I’ve read where someone actually gets into the constitutional law of the issue (as opposed to spouting talking points) indicates that the ruling was one of the more straight forward apply-the-constitution/law rulings to ever come out of any court. It’s just another piece of evidence that the “Activist Judge” is simply cypher for “Judge who made a ruling I don’t like.”
DavidHunt is right and Doug Abramson is wrong. Moreover, the idea that *any* court is “set up to be an activist court” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary in our legal system.
Most people have no idea of what “judicial activism” actually means — it’s simply become shorthand for “I don’t agree with what that judge decided.” If you actually *read* the decision, it’s very clearly based in precedent, specifically the interracial marriage precedents.
The idea that this court — almost all of whom were appointed by Republican governors — are “liberal” or “activists” is so far from the truth as to be totally laughable.
Well said, Peter. Well said! I am in Michigan, where just such a law was passed in 04. I am ashamed my state made bigotry a law. America! Land of the Free! (well, as long as you are like the majority, otherwise, not so much.)
Bill Mulligan –
Using incest as a justification for denying gays the right to marry the people they love seems a considerable stretch.
It is indeed a stretch, but it’s far too common an argument used by those opposed to gay marriage. Along with other straw men such as bëšŧìálìŧÿ, polygamy, and of course, “think of the children!”.
I’m fully in support of gay marriage, as I see no reason to allow this inequality to continue. I’ve never bought the whole ‘marriage is religious’ argument, seeing as how a church had nothing to do with my marriage. Nor do I buy any of the other arguments about how it will lead to this or that, or that it will hurt children, not when so many hetero marriages already end in divorce.
Who knows, maybe gays will treat the concept and sanctity of marriage better than straight people have?
I’m going to go with the “Activist Judge” label on this one. I have not read the decision, but I’ll go along with what is said here that it’s based on precedent. That said, the people of California had previously passed a referendum/law on restricting marriage. So, they are overturning the electorate based on constitutional interpretation. Fine, if the California Constitution supports it. However, when the Court was asked to stay the ruling to allow the November Constitutional Election to proceed, they said no.
Knowing that the previous referendum had passed, but was now considered unconstitutional, and knowing that an amendment – with the same wording as the previous law – was being put on the ballot, a stay would have made the most sense to determine the final disposition of the issue. So, while the first decision may not have been activist, the second almost certainly was.
Actually, in a legal sense, every marriage is a “civil union”; you don’t have to get your marriage solemnized by any religious organization at all.
Very true, and I knew that — our marriage had no religious affiliation and we wanted it that way.
I guess what I meant is that any legal definition of “spousehood” should encompass civil unions only, gay or straight — and that any statement beyond that should be entirely up to the purview of the religious affiliation the couple might want.
Clearer?
TWL
What happens if the amendment passes? Do the marriages performed today suddenly become invalid?
I hope George Takei and Brad are willing to be a public face for this–yeah, it stinks that they can’t just be a private couple like everyone else but I think it would really make it harder for people to vote for an amendment against them. Who can hate George Takei?
Ooh boy, PAD, you opened up a big can of worms here. Reminds me of the gay marriage paper I wrote back in high school six years ago. Teachers and students were debating for hours!
Just one quick question, though.
When is Rictor going to run off with Shatterstar to California?
I hope George Takei and Brad are willing to be a public face for this
Looks pretty likely. According to the AP, they’ve already gotten a marriage license and set a date for September 14. Huzzah to them!
TWL
I hope George Takei and Brad are willing to be a public face for this
Looks pretty likely. According to the AP, they’ve already gotten a marriage license and set a date for September 14. Huzzah to them!
TWL
Whoops! Sorry about the double-post hiccup.
TWL