NEWS: Gay Marriage Ban Shot Down In California

A California court has ruled that the popular gay marriage ban voted into effect recently is against the State Consitution. In 1997 a law was passed that defined marriage so as to exlcude same sex couples. In 2000 a majority of the people voted in an ammendment that clarified, only marriages between men and woemn would be recognized.
The Ruling is held for 60 days to allow for appeals.




Apparently there is also an ammendment to the State Constitution that is in the California State assemblies and if it passes then the matter is out of the purview of the state courts.
For the life of me, I cannot see why gay marriage should be banned, I cannot see how it is anything but discrimination and against the Constitution of the United States itself. Just like slavery was against the very principles of the consitution but was tolerated, so is this bigoted thinking permited.
To claim that one is defending marriage itself by removing it from same sex couples, is preposterous, without at minimum enacting related legislation revokes divorce, prevents consecutive marriages, and regulate annulments.
I also don't see how it is not an issue of the seperation of church and state. The Epsicopalians have gay preists. Its simply a matter of time before there are recognized and established churches that perform and recoognize gay marriages. How can the state override that right? Are they going to be permited to decide issues of religious dogma in order to enforce these terrible laws?

Related News Links:
www.bible-prophecy.com
www.christianpost.com

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Nygdan]

A triumph against tyrrany of state's imposing the will into people's private lives. Marriage is between two people, it's rarely other people's business

thanks,
drfunk

I saw this today as well, and it has been a HAPPY day!! YEY! GOOD NEWS!!!

Two human beings who love one another and want to join their lives SHOULD be able to if they are consenting adults.

I will NEVER understand this ANTI GAY crap. I am way to 'live & let live' for that small minded garbage.

Outside of the fact I don't think the government should NOT have anything to do with marriage, []period, how does the state get to overule to voice of the people?
Should the government be able to overturn properly held votes of the people?

Just asking.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
how does the state get to overule to voice of the people?

Because its a democracy, not a mobocracy. The Courts can overide the people, legislature, and executive, and this is necessary. Sometimes things that are popular are not constitutional.

Should the government be able to overturn properly held votes of the people?

Hopefully it will allways have that ability.

This ruling will be overturned by a higher court or a constitutional amendment.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Outside of the fact I don't think the government should NOT have anything to do with marriage, []period, how does the state get to overule to voice of the people?
Should the government be able to overturn properly held votes of the people?

Just asking.

I agree - the government should not regulate marriage at all. If private and personal property needs legal protections then civil unions should be recorded but IMO marriage is a religious institution that has no place in government.

As far as the "will of the people" - it will take a constitutional amendment. The US constitution and most state constitutions have protections that prevent discrimination against a person or group of persons. Any law, or ban in this case, that violates a person's rights can be deemed unconstitutional by the courts, as evidenced today. The only way to circumvent this is to actually amend the constitution itself thus discriminating against the person or group of persons.

I applaud today's decision but this fight hasn't even got started yet.

B.

Just curious...does anyone know what Ahhhnold's response to this was?

Thanks-

There are certain things that should never come to vote in a democracy. One point I'd like to make is that a decision should never given to people to make if it doesn't concern them. There are a few states, I'm willing to wager that could still pass laws to infringe on the rights of black people. Would that be right? I understand that John Ashcroft supported segregation right through 1979. Are we allowed to do anything we want as long as at least half of our population is for it? I'm not gay myself, but I have a girlfriend that I love dearly and I would be utterly depressed if I was told that I couldn't marry her for any reason. She's Asian. Perhaps in some people's minds, that's wrong because I'm white and have blue eyes. My children would obviously be unnatural half-breeds and I'd be doing my (superior) race a disservice by not perserving my blood line. Democracy can be so immoral sometimes.
-T

[edit on 14-3-2005 by ServoHahn]

[edit on 15-3-2005 by ServoHahn]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Just curious...does anyone know what Ahhhnold's response to this was?

Thanks-

Sluring and Gropping I beleive.

'Jah now da ladies cahn get mawied to dah otha ladies, ja dat is good'

Oh man, thats lo, I like Ahnold.

servohahn
I'm willing to wager that could still pass laws to infringe on the rights of black people

A frightening and probably completely correct thought.

i just saw this on msn news and i was gonna put it up here guess u beat me to it

o well