The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. ...Rah!
Although critics of the ruling, including the dissenters, argued the court should have waited for the voters to decide the question of same-sex marriage, "the majority is not always supposed to have its way" in constitutional democracies, said University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt, one of many legal scholars who weighed in on the case Thursday.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Gay Marriage
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban:
7 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let the voters decide? Whoever said that must have been asleep at the wheel for the past eight years, or perhaps they are the wheel.
ReplyDeleteIt's all very simple. Proposition 22 limited homosexual couples to civil unions. Civil unions are "separate but equal" institutions. "Separate but equal" is unconstitutional. Ergo yesterday's decision. This takes only a very basic working knowledge of civil rights to figure out.
ReplyDeleteWhich means, of course, that some 6 million of my fellow Californians clearly voted for Prop. 22 in 2000.
It's like Ron White says: "You can't fix stupid."
Thanks for pointing that out about the civil union angle, James. The news report I saw first didn't mention that. Civil unions are marriages, ostensibly. I guess its congrats and a toast to the liberals.
ReplyDeleteJim: I guess its congrats and a toast to the liberals.
ReplyDeleteI assume you mean "liberals" in the sense of those Americans who take the Constitution seriously.
Yeah. My brother's "enlightened" post on the subject.
ReplyDeleteYeah. If 61% of the people outlawed his religion, I'll bet he'd sing a different tune.
ReplyDeleteIf one is interested in this issue, I strongly recommend reading
ReplyDeletethe opinion. I was pleasantly surprised as to how much the court dealt with anticipated claims, such as the “slippery slope” to polygamy, or the fact “marriage” is not mentioned in the constitution, etc. Lays it out very nicely (albeit very wordy.)
And one of the things the court anticipated was the complaint about 61% of the voters on Proposition 22, and whether they were going against what people wanted. The example the court used was striking. It noted previously, in California, the legislature passed a law against discriminating regarding housing.
The California voters passed a similar initiative to ALLOW discrimination when it comes to housing.
Thankfully, the California Supreme Court struck down the voter’s initiate as unconstitutional. Are there cries to bring back discrimination in housing, since that is what the Californians want?