Prop 8 UPHELD: Same-Sex Marriage is NOT Legal in California - By the VOICE of the People Who VOTE!

ahmu 3 years ago

thanks for sharing about this this thing

In The Doghouse 3 years ago

LdsNana,

Your points are well stated, clearly expressing the REAL issue here, that of- over stepping bounds of authority. Since when did the people's vote not matter? If that is the case...what will be decided by a "few" in the future? I could not agree with you more in the statement you made warning the entire nation of a fearful future if this is left unchecked. We should all be enraged by this decision, for the basic fact that the voice of the people has been ignored! I do not care what the issue is...how would we be feeling if a "few" deemed polygamy constitutional all of a sudden? Would the opinions go in the same direction I wonder? This simply must be a point of consideration...what are we really debating here after all? Great Hub with a lot of insights to consider, Thank you.

donnaleemason 3 years ago

It seems to be those that are loudest now days that get heard.

We have many Gay right groups and activists.

We have very few who are willing to bat against it. But, then what comes next?

outraged! 3 years ago

Marriage is the union between a man and woman! If the homosexual community wants to have certain rights then fight for those rights, but let's not confuse things by calling it marriage!

Paynefull 3 years ago

I completely agree with Nana and Doghouse. It seems that the entire human race tends to sweep things “under the rug” as long as it agrees with your lifestyle. We do this in politics, sports, religion even race. As was stated earlier, this is not (or at least SHOULD not be) about gay vs. straight, but rather about the “few” deciding for the majority. If this was regarding a completely different issue, the same people that are celebrating today would be outraged.

Just my opinion.

Craig Dewe 3 years ago

With all due respect, you stated it right there: "Problems begin to arise when those who desire to have the traditional marriage, also want to consider themselves traditional families as well."

Why should same-sex couples not be able to consider themselves traditional families? So a single mother with two children becomes an nontraditional family. Should anyone that doesn't have a father, a mother, and children consider themselves inferior because they aren't part of a 'traditional' family?

Because that's what the argument comes down to. People not wanting to give the same acknowledgement to same-sex couples. Why do they not deserve your term of marriage that you hold so sacred? Because it could denote equality?

Look at history. A black person wasn't allowed to drink from the same water fountain as a white person. They still got the water, but the very nature of segregation labelled them as 'inferior.' This is the exact same issue with the term marriage. It's saying "you can do what you like, but you will never be the same as us!"

And in my humble opinion, what the court done was correct. When "the people" are denying the basic human rights and ignoring your own constitution, they deserve to be overturned. The majority is not always right.

At the time, the German people were quite happy killing Jews, so we should have let that continue? At the time, a majority of the US people were quite happy with slavery and other blatantly racist behaviors, so that should have continued?

And considering the fact that most US states don't even have "civil union" partnerships that give same-sex couples the same rights, this clearly shows that the issue is not over terminology. It's over discrimination.

Craig Dewe 3 years ago

The voice of the people can be unconstitutional when your 14th Amendment states:

"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."

The courts are simply trying to fix the earlier error.

WeClick2Travel 3 years ago

Hear, hear Maddie,

This is the point that I think has been missed in this discussion. The California Supreme Court has not “gone against the will of the people.” Nor has it “attempted to redefine marriage”. The Supreme Court in California did exactly what it was intended to do. Namely, to determine if a law contradicts the California state constitution.

What the Supreme Court said is that the constitution of California prohibits discrimination against any person based on their fundamental nature. If the law allows one group of people a certain right, the constitution guarantees that right must be extended to all people. If the majority of Californians thought that Buddhists should not be allowed to marry because Buddhism is contradictory to their idea of Christian values, the constitution would protect Buddhists’ rights as well.

WeClick2Travel 3 years ago

I understand the argument you are presenting here. Black skin can not be changed, nor can gender. You believe that being homosexual is a choice and that people who choose to be homosexual should change to avoid discrimination. For the sake of argument let's say I agree, for now, that being gay is a choice.

Christianity is the majority religion here in the US. Would we expect a Jew to change his religion to avoid discrimination, how about a Muslim? We aren’t born Jewish or Muslim or Christian. These are choices, just as easily changed as sexual orientation. Should I change my political view point from Republican to Democrat to avoid being discriminated against, my citizenship, my hair color? These choices are protected because, just like skin color and gender, they are fundamental to who each person is as an individual. Heterosexuality or homosexuality is a fundamental component of individual identity. No one should be asked to give up their core self to attain social equality.

The constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to marry, doesn’t define marriage in any way. It does say that if a right is granted to some, it must be guaranteed to all REGARDLESS of gender. It does guarantee the right to pursue happiness. So far it has never been amended to take away a right based on gender, only to guarantee them. I pray regularly that it will stay that way.

The issue of polygamy is interesting in the current climate. Polygamy was originally banned as a protection for women. Because polygamist relationships are typically one male multiple females, they were seen as exploitive of women. They were also often arranged and sometimes occurred when the female participants were very young. Marriage laws are intended to provide protection against abandonment and protection for children. That protection becomes troublesome when there are multiple branches within a family unit to protect.

Marriage laws create one protected relationship at a time. If you want to divorce and marry someone else that's fine, but the legal issues from one marriage must be resolved before another can begin. Some might call this serial polygamy. From a practical standpoint the state often regulates legal relationships in a way that keeps them simple. I will say however, that I think that the political pressure which was brought upon the Mormon Church before the turn of the century to disavow polygamist practices was quite clearly religious discrimination.

Gay marriage does not create the same social policy conflicts as plural marriage. An agreement of mutual support between two people is not dependant on their gender for enforcement. Extensive study of children raised by same sex partners shows that they suffer no harm and that they have, statistically, no higher likelihood of identifying themselves as gay when they reach adulthood. Gay relationships are no more or less stable than straight ones.

The problem comes when you see homosexuality as an abomination AND as something voluntary, a simple choice, like what kind of car to buy. When seen through that lens it is understandable how you can feel that marriage and the birthright of our children need to be protected from it. In addition, your opinion is formed by your Christian religious belief. You naturally feel that your beliefs are true and correct and assume that anyone who shares Christian beliefs would agree.

Many who oppose gay marriage say that it is a religious issue which the state should not attempt to regulate. You stated that some wish to paint the issue as religious vs. non religious. Then you kindly grant that some gay people are quite religious. I would assert that the only people who would paint the conflict in that way are those who believe they are defending traditional marriage. Fortunately there are many, less conservative Christian denominations which don’t share the belief that homosexuality is an abomination.

We don’t agree either, that God ordained marriage as only between a man and a woman, but we understand marriage to be between two people who love each other and wish to pledge that love forever. Every pro gay group I’ve been associated with was church based. The Christian church I attend recognizes gay spiritual marriages regularly. When those who oppose gay marriage say they are speaking on behalf of the church, I always have to wonder whose church they mean. Personally, I feel that the state's failure to recognize these marriages amounts to religious discrimination.

You say the ideal family for the propagation of children is one man and one woman. I would have to agree. It usually takes one man and one woman to create a baby. I will leave out the issues of fertility medicine from this discussion but when I say usually I don’t mean always. In my personal situation, my children are adopted. I (male) stayed home and raised them. My wife supported us. She was the professional and I was the nurturer. In our situation the requirement to have two biological contributors to create children was moot. Further, our gender roles were totally reversed. The fact of our gender difference had no real bearing on the quality of our ability to raise children.

From the perspective of the state, there really is no reason to prohibit gay marriage. It comes back, then, to why we are afraid if it. I, like Maddie, can see no reason why allowing two people of the same gender to be married would cause harm to anyone else’s relationship or the meaning of anyone else’s marriage.

The idea that the homosexual community is a "false minority" is somewhat divisive itself. Estimates are that approximately 3-5% of the population of the US identifies itself as homosexual (not including bisexuals). As far back as The Kinsey Report, estimates were that just over 6% of sexual activity in the US was homosexual.

On average children have first awareness of sexual orientation it at 10 years old, self label as gay or straight at 15 and come out to parents at 17.This self understanding is almost always more firmly rooted than religious or even family identity. Even if it is not a genetic predisposition, homosexuality is firmly ingrained at a developmental level. Gays are also the most frequent target of hate crimes in the US. 45% of males and 20% of females report verbal or physical abuse by peers.

These aren't people who frivolously made a decision one day and want the rest of the world to accommodate them. They suffer physical abuse, stereo-typing, social rejection and isolation because of who they are. They go to work, contribute to society and don’t pose any unusual threat to anyone else. I don't believe that as a community they are seeking any kind of false status. They simply wish to be allowed to be who they are and share in the rights and privileges that the rest of us have, regardless of the X or Y chromosome of their chosen partner.

David

wbs 3 years ago

It's hard to believe that the state can over turn the vote of the people. 62% TO 38%. that a group of judges can overturn millions of voters by a 4 to 3 margain. so by 1 vote this has been overturned. This go's to show us how important it is for us to vote for people who will apoint judges, that will do the right!!!

Craig Dewe 3 years ago

Sorry, here's my comment again from just above with proper formatting...it wouldn't let me edit it to fix it...

You asked if polygamy should be considered under marriage as well, which is a valid question. At the risk of diving into a semi-related discussion, why not?

In your argument you refer repeatedly to what is "natural" or "nature vs nurture." If you look at nature, homosexuality between animals and humans has been going on for thousands of years. Therefore it is also, by definition, "traditional."

The same is true for polygamy, it is present in nature so it must be "natural." Polygamy becomes tricky when it is forced or corrupts children that don't know better. But if it exists between 3 or more consenting adults and they want their union recognised, who are we to judge?

By logic, simply looking to nature also shows us that God, in whatever shape or form he appears, must agree if the religion believes that God created life.

As for homosexuality being a "choice," I do not believe that debate is still raging. Ignoring nature and thousands of years of history for a moment, have you ever chosen to fall in love? Have you ever started a relationship because a person seemed to be a good provider for your family, or was there something more?

Attraction between any two creatures is a result of the biological functions of their bodies. The chemical interactions that occur and result in feelings. The scientific proof is there, it is simply being ignored to strengthen a weak argument.

You discuss the effect this may have on the children, which is also valid. However I believe you are missing a key fact. Children will adapt to the environment they are introduced into. Children are very resilient and do not come into this world asking why they don't have a mother and father. They have no preconceived notion of what a "family" consists of and all that matters is they receive love and nurturing.

What becomes a problem is when they are introduced to a social environment where their situation is deemed to be "different." This is a problem caused by societal pressure that can effect children. If this debate was over and all parents taught their children correctly that homosexuality is normal, the problem would disappear.

It is because people hold close minded views of how a "family" or "marriage" should be, that we arrive at these problems in the first place. If everyone was a lot more tolerant of differences, the world would be a better place.

And if you won't to haggle over definitions, abridged also means "to deprive; cut off," which is exactly what is happening with same-sex couples rights.

As for going against the US White House:"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into."Governor Bush on gay marriage, Larry King Live (February 15, 2000)

SweetiePie - I saddens me that the rights of people are being oppressed.

The same rights, those given under marriage or even a recognised civil union, are not being given to same-sex couples.

It has no bearing on the argument that some homosexual couples don't want to get married, the argument is that they have the right to it. After this discussion I've decided to have a civil union when the time comes, but I still have the right to marriage because I am "luckily" attracted to women.

And I assure you that someone can be openly harassed for being homosexual in the US as well. Go to YouTube and type in anti gay rally for starters.

Ok, this was meant to be shorter but so many questions to answer. But it's worth it if I can get just one person to think long and hard about what is happening here and make the right choice. Because change happens one person at a time.

sandra rinck 3 years ago

I can't see how a couples personal feelings for one another could or should have anything to do with you or me personally.

Why should you care or pretend to know what goes on in a gay marriage? I can't believe that people can or will hate people for wanting to get married.

What the hell is wrong with you people? How does a personans gayness have any effect on you or the world?

You know what I think is way worse...how about babies with out parents. Or parents who just don't want thier babies.

Worry about yourself. The only hate that comes from outsiders trying to make the world what you believe it should be like.

I love gay people, I think gay people have every right to be married. And there isn't a damn person in the world who should have the power to tell two people in love they can not be together under God.

Let God take care of it, not you. I pray that God will bless each and everyone one of them with security and love and acceptance, that no one can or will hurt them, make hate of them or try to make them feel as lesser humans.

Agro Donkey 3 years ago

I think that same sex couples should be given the same rights as a married couple but should not have it labled as marriage. God doesn't like homosexuality it says so in many diffrent places in the Bible. Corinthians II states it the best and the planest. If you don't believe me read it. I understand why they want to get married but we need something that will allow them to receive the same benefits as a married couple but is not affiliated with religion in any way shape or form.

francetales 3 years ago

By not allowing same sex couples to marry, same sex couples are denied certain rights that other people have. This violates every state constitution and the federal constitution, giving some groups rights and not all groups. That is why some states had to pass laws defining marriage, because without them, it was a clear case of discrimination. I am talking specifically about things like hospital visitation rights, access to healthcare, right of suvivorship on deeds to property.

I am not guaranteed those rights because I am not married to my partner and i cannot get married to my partner so I can never access those rights, rights which many of you have and have never even had to consider the implications of. There can be no doubt that this makes 2nd class citizens. If we cannot agree on this basic thing, then you are being disingenuous. Every gay person can tell you the laundry list of rights they are denied so if you cannot get the basic fact that this is discrimination, then you don't want to get it. Either you believe ALL people are entitled to the same rights or you endorse inequality.

Okay, I can even accept your argument that same sex marriage goes against your religious beliefs and that you believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. I think it is a bit weak but I can certainly accept it IF . . . . .

On the other hand you go out on the front lines with people fighting for Civil Unions. You don't want same sex couples to be able to call it marriage, fine, but YOU have the obligation to help fight for something else then too. Otherwise you are endorsing inequality and that is when we get to call you homophobic and a bigot. Really, it is that simple. If you say you believe people are equal then show it.

If you want us to believe that you care about equality for all then fight for it. I'm not religious so I don't care if I get to call it a marriage or not. What I am interested in is getting the same rights as others get. If I have to do it with Civil Unions that's fine, but to not even help us fight for Civil Unions shows your true agenda. It's even okay for you to be against gay people, but I'd prefer you'd just say so rather than trying to hide behind a very weak argument.

Please make a Hub soon with pictures about the demonstration you are going to go to in support of civil unions.

francetales 3 years ago

Oh and the other thing, we live in France now because France has something called the PACS, a civil union. It gives almost identical rights to people who get PACSed, btw, more straight couples get PACSed then gay ones. What does that tell you about marriage as an institution? This means that churches don't have to perform a ceremony they might be against. In fact in France marriage is first a civil ceremony and then if you wnat to do it in a religious manner you go to a church after, but the civil ceremony is the binding one. If you feel the state makes your religion make too many compromises then why don't we once and for all enforce a separation of church and state? Wouldn't that solve the dilemma?

Again, either you are for all people having the same rights or you are not. It is that simple. If we put civil unions in place then what could your objection be? I mean, you could object because of your religion but you'd have to accept that our laws come from the constitution and not your religion. I could live rith next door to you and accept that you don't accept me as long as you agree to follow the Constitution. If you can't live by the constitution you should live somewhere else. I'm serious, I'm willing to live among people who have very different beliefs than I do as long as we all agree that we are all equal and deserve the same rights. I don't have to agree with your personal beliefs and you don't have to agree with mine, but we both should be bound by the constitution. You know, the document guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Sadly this was a big factor in our choosing to leave the US.

BIG Mike 3 years ago

Personally, I applaud the decision and I’ll share why.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, Gay couples in the United States have just as much right to the pursuit of happiness as do heterosexual couples. Being Gay is not a disease; to some extent, it’s a personal or biological choice; just as is choosing to be heterosexual or even bi-sexual.

The fundamental basis of the US Constitution is that we all have individual rights to do more or less anything as long as in doing so, we do not impugn the rights of others to that same happiness, which is what the majority of voters were doing anyways.

Should 2 consenting, competent adults, regardless of the sexual combination, decide to pursue marriage with all of its sacred vows, then who are the people of California to decide it’s inappropriate for them to do so? What will you do if the state of California ever has a Gay majority and decides to vote on a proposition of outlawing heterosexual marriages? Think about that…

It is ALWAYS wrong for the state to presume to interfere with individuals and to decide what the best life choices are for them. When two people decide to commit the rest of their lives to each other in a monogamous relationship, the decision is theirs and theirs alone.

francetales 3 years ago

Sweetie Pie,

Just because you are single doesn't mean you don't have those rights, you just haven't exercised them yet. I will never have those rights. This is very different. Stop trying to argue that the current laws do not discriminate, they clearly do and it just makes you sound a little ignorant. The grey area is not whether or not discrimination exists, it is what to do about it. There are 3 sides, do nothing because I'm fine with the discrimination, usually taken by religious conservatives who actually think gay people are inferior, OR allow same sex couples some version of marriage but don't call it a marriage, usually taken by religious people who on one hand recognize the discrimination but on the other are not comfortable with calling it a marriage, OR allow full and equal gay marriage, usually taken by gay people and their strong supporters. There are only 3 positions and based on the fact that you won't do anything about it you are on the far right side of this equation. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, you always have the option to change to a more comfortable belief.

So you are not into demonstrating, fine, but you asked why people who favor "traditional" marriage are considered against gay people? That is why. You say you believe everyone should have equal rights but you don't do anything about it. You go so far as trying to say that gay people aren't discriminated against. Your religious views are not the law, the law comes from the Constitution. The constitution says this kind of thing is wrong. Why don't you feel the obligation to change it? Because you like it that way or you don't care, either way, this puts you against gay people.

Anyway, you don't seem to be making a compromise. I would prefer gay marriage but in an effort to accommodate those with strong religious issues I would accept civil unions, a compromise. You are against gay marriage because you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, are you willing to compromise and allow a form of marriage without calling it marriage, a civil union? Why do I have to do all the compromising?

I think marriage is really a civil ceremony more than a religious one BTW. When you want to get married you can either do it at City Hall or in a church. When you want to get divorced, do you go to a church? No you go to City Hall to file for a divorce. The church's word is not the binding one in marriage, it is the state's. Just something to think about.

MrMarmalade 3 years ago

Apart from the religious feelings generated, which in the main I agree with Kathryn, What happened to the four /three ruling.

I though the original discussion was on the right to change the law. I must admit that I am not knowledgeable on USA laws.

One of my maxims when things go wrong in Government or Big rich Companies is follow the money. Did some one of the four get a birthday bonus?

Again I agree with everything kathryn has stated about religion, still those people will not hurt me. I know I must love my neighbour , as I love myself.

This is a great hub.

b opinionated 3 years ago

I am soo dissapointed. How on other does one persons life choice affect the sanctity of YOUR marriage? Who are you to judge another human being for falling in love and wanting to spend their lives together? This affects you in no way yet you complain as though they got married in your house and tore the place up. These are the types of predudices that stop of from progressing as human beings, as brothers as sisters, and as gods children. Let him be the judge, it is not up to you to judge someone or something you know little about.

MrMarmalade 3 years ago

Yes do tone your comments down, they are getting rather strident. Have your say and let it rest. One day you may make a difference in the Supreme Court of the USA

WeClick2Travel 3 years ago

I would have to say I agree with your statement. “What I would prefer to focus on, is helping everyone to understand that regardless of personal "feelings" about who is right and who is wrong - the real issues are about equal rights…”, This issue isn’t about the will of the people in creating a law by passing a proposition. It is about whether or not that law is in conflict with the will of the people as established in the California State Constitution. That is not a miss use of the Supreme Court it is the very reason for its existence, to create a check/balance when a law, whoever made it, violates the constitution.

I have more on this perspective. I find the discussion fun.

Chef Jeff 3 years ago

Any referendum is subject to the Supreme Court, either of the State or the Federal. People in a state could vote in favor of a referendum that does not allow people of an ethnic group to be allowed to live in their state, and that would rightly be struck down. It would be unconstitutional.

Whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a church ceremony is a matter for each church to decide. Equal rights, however, are for the courts to decide - it falls squarely in the realm of the courts, much as did civil rights in the past.

Whether or not one agrees that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, the law is the law. One must be very legally well prepared to argue against the entire Constitution of the United States if one wishes to abridge the civil rights of a group.

Personally, I think if people had allowed homosexuals to gain the same rights as others through civil unions, the story would have ended there. But a very vocal anti-gay movement, with willing political assistance, wanted to deny them even that basic right.

I am not homosexual and I can't even say I have many friends who are. I do, however, tread lightly when it comes to making Constitutional amendments that seem to violate the very fabric of the Constitution. The 14th amendment states very clearly what the rights of such groups are, and just as there is no going back to slavery, or denying women the right to vote, there is no going back on extending basic civil rights to all citizens.

Having said that, I support your right to speak your mind and make your views known, even if I can't fully agree with them. You have had quite a large number of comments, and it is good to see people passionately and respectfully argue over current events.

coltakashi 3 years ago

Returning to the specific issue of the California Supreme Court (CSC) decision:

As noted above, it was a 4 to 3 split. If there were an explicit provision in the US or California constitutions that provided for homosexual unions that would be classified as "marriage" and have all the legal attributes of marriage, which is the subject of dozens of laws involving subjects like inheritance, child custody and support, taxes, tort liability, contractual liability, confidentiality of inter-spousal communications in trials, authority to make decisions about terminating medical care, etc., etc., then wouldn't it be a lot more obvious than that? Three of the seven members of the court, including one who states up front in his dissenting opinion that he would personally support, as a voter in an election or referendum, expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, have told us in writing in their dissenting opinions that they do not see anything in the California or US Constitutions that alters the definition of marriage, and that their colleagues on the CSC have overstepped their authority under that Constitution by declaring that the right exists there, despite the fact that it has been invisible from the time that California became a state over a century ago until now.

The dissenters on the SCS note that the argument made by the 4 judge majority is that the acts of the California legislature, specifically the Domestic Partners Act (DPA), which grants homosexual couples virtually all the legal rights that married couples have, somehow is a declaration by the legislature that marriage under the California Constitution includes homosexual unions. The dissenters point out that the DPA, by specifically refraining from labelling these unions as "marriages", is exactly the opposite, i.e. a statement by the legislature that homosexual unions are NOT marriages. The fact that bills to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions have passed the Senate and Assembly, but been vetoed by the Governor, demonstrate that the legislature did NOT believe that the Constitution already addressed the matter, either way. If the legislature believed that the Constitution already provided for "marriage" to include homosexual unions, there would be no need for legislation. If the legislature believed that the Constitution specifically prohibited homosexual unions being recognized as marriage, then passing those bills would be a violation of the Constitution. So by passing those bills, the legislature demonstrated that there collective understanding of the Constitution is that it neither requires nor prohibits the inclusion of homosexual unions within the scope of the legal institution of marriage.

It is therefore clear that the 4 judge majority of the CSC was displaying wishful thinking in making its argument that the legislature actually supported its view that the Constitution endorses homosexual "marriage." There is no provision in the actual Constitution that has a clear meaning to that effect. The claim of the 4 judge majority that they found it there is simply dishonest.

Furthermore, by placing their fictional reading of the Constitution over the explicit action of the citizens of California, who voted by an almost 2/3 majority to bar homosexual marriage, the 4 judges were disregarding the explicit Constitutional rights of the citizens to govern themselves through voter initiatives. These judges acted outside their authority, since they have no authority to amend the California Constitution by any vote of the CSC, whether a bare majority fo 4 to 3 or even a unanimous decision, 7 to 0.

Constitutions in the United States of America, both Federal and State, are the ultimate, foundational laws of each government. They are explicitly created by the citizens of the States and of the Nation, and can only be amended by the same citizens. They both empower the branches of government, including both the legislature and the courts, and limit the authority of each. The Supreme Courts of the US and each State do not have any inherent authority to overrule acts of Congress or legislatures that are enacted into law. They only have authority to apply the higher law of their respective Constitutions. When they do so, they are obeying the commands of the citizens who enacted those Constitutions. The courts do not have inherent authority to revise the Constitutions, to amend them.

We have bought into a mythology of the courts as the final guardians of the rights of citizens against the legislative and executive branches. But the US and State Constitutions split power among all three branches of government. The courts can be just as despotic as any president or governor or legislature. Lawyers make up the plurality of people serving in all three branches of government. Turning a state Assemblyman into a judge does not transfigure that person and turn him or her into a divine being. The new judge is no more intelligent as a judge, nor more moral, than he or she was as a legislator. Our safety as citizens does not depend on any assumption that judges are inherently wiser or fairer than other citizens. Rather, their authority in the Common Law was always restricted in scope, and restrictions of court authority continued under the Constitutions of the US and its States.

We honor the US Supreme Court for ruling 50 years ago in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education that "separate schools segregated by race are inherently unequal." However, we should not forget that Brown was made necessary because 50 years before that, the same Supreme Court had ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that schools, trains, and other public accommodations could be "separate but equal." The notion that the white race could properly use its dominant political authority to tell members of what they defined as the "black race" (including people only 1/8 African, like Mr. Plessy) where to sit in trains, restaurants, schools, etc., and that such domination of one race by another represented "equality" under the 14th Amendment, was ridiculous on its face. But judges on the Supreme Court at the turn of the century effectively erased "equal rights" out ot eh US Constitution for 50 years.

What the CSC has done in this case is exactly the same kind of arrogant, elitist action that the US Supreme Court took a century ago when it told the nation that "equality" could be redefined to mean racial segregation. In both cases, judges decided that their respective Constitutions did not say what they wanted it to say, and so announced that they were revising it.

I have no doubt that this high-handed power grab by the CSC is going to motivate many people to support the amendment of the California Constitution to specifically bar expanding the institution of marriage to include homozexual unions. It is also going to motivate many to vote for the discharge from the CSC of the members of the CSC in this 4 person majority. By arrogating to themselves the power to overrule the vote of teh large majority of California citizens, the CSC majority has undermined the respect and moral authority of the CSC. Furthermore, as homosexual couples form other states get married in California and then bring lawsuits to force their home states to recognize those marriages, disrespect for the CSC will grow across the nation, and concern will grow also about the threat to liberty presented by judges who think they have the right to usurp the authority of the people to create the Constitutions that govern them.

I personally believe that this ruling will be a watershed in American judicial history, that will eventually see actions taken by voters, legislatures and Congress

Chef Jeff 3 years ago

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing or banning inter-racial marriages, either, but was there once? Some things are implicit, others are, for reasons that seemed best at the time, explicit. In the CSC decision, no matter what the outcome, I would have to believe these things had to take that into account.

When the California State Constitution was written, were there any sections that specified marriage could only to be defined as between a man and woman? I see why you are arguing, and while I may or may not agree on a morale level, I am not aware of any ban or endorsement of the CSC toward marriage in any sense, other than perhaps to forbid polygamy and beastiality.

I do believe that just as it was once illegal for interracial marriage, whether it was constitutional by state law in any particular state or another, and while people of conscience once found this despicable, in our times we recognize that a ban on interracial marriage is no longer legal and is known to be irrefutably unconstitutional on the Federal level.

Look: I do not care one way or another who gets married and who doesn't, just as I don't care who lives together or who doesn't. I think the basic issue for homosexuals is to put an end to the inability to get the same partner rights as married people enjoy.

If there can be some common ground in all of this, then find it and the matter will most likely go away. If it is impossible to get the civil rights issue out of the way without using the word marriage, then you will have a battle on your hands, because until and unless full rights are extended to gay couples, they will keep clamoring, rightly in my opinion, for rights to visitation to a partner's sick bed, inheritance and other things man and woman couples enjoy without question.

I will add another idea here - since there is such a mess in heterosexual marriages, why not ban divorce and legal separation? Get a state referendum to that effect. Since the Constitution does not mention the right to divorce, why not eliminate that as well? It all seems like the same bucket of legal worms to me. I bet you that the U.S. Supreme Court, no matter its ideological makeup, would also strike that down as unconstitutional.

If a marriage between a man and a woman is supposed to be forever, or "until death do us part", as it is said, then no one should have the right to abrogate the vows, even by mutual consent, except by death. If promising to remain faithfully married until death does part you from your spouse, then it is a legal contract, an unabridgeable part of marriage.

That, however, would be allowing government to intrude on Church matters, and I for one would not want to add that dimension to the argument.

Sometimes the separation of Church and state is in the interest of the Church.

Again, great hub; great comments.

And as Arnold said, "gay marriage should only be between a man and a woman."

Chef Jeff 3 years ago

Yes, as free citizens we are entitled to our own opinions, and I served in the military for 5 years to keep that right, so I applaud the fact that we can have discussions that don't turn into shouting matches. Even if I disagree with another person's opinion, I do support their right to freely speak their peace.I am not an ardent supporter of "gay rights" over any other kind of rights, and I certainly understand why some people of religious conviction do not like associating the word marriage with gay unions. To me marriage is a church matter, not a state matter, and should be resolved within each denomination. I would also say that I would not welcome the state’s intrusion into church matters to force the acceptance of gay unions. Yet I can see a day when, if you succeed in making laws against gay marriage, and thus bringing the church into state matters, the pendulum may reverse and, with a precedent already in place, the state may feel perfectly comfortable forcing its will upon religious freedoms.However, the application of laws covering civil rights is not a church matter, in my humble opinion, and should never become so. As I stated earlier, the separation between church and state often protects the church more than the state. Just as I would not want any one state-mandated church denomination or religion to hold sway over my beliefs, neither would I want to decide civil rights matters by religious conviction. Both, it seems to me, speak of a theocracy, not a democracy.Also, in any state, any referendum that is found to be unconstitutional, no matter how popular it may be, no matter how "common sense" it might seem, must be struck down by the highest courts - that is the function of the judiciary branch, and any failure to do so would weaken our system of democracy. That includes any laws passed which do not support the constitution of the sate and of the United States.I know I harken back to the past, but that is what precedent is in law – using the past to justify the present. Slavery was extremely popular in some states, and was even sanctioned and supported by the churches where it existed. Biblical scripture was quoted day and night in favor of it. But, no matter how popular slavery was to those voters in those states, it was wrong, and had to be done away with.Equal rights were also unpopular in some states, and referenda and state laws prohibiting equal rights for all were popular, had voter support, yet were unconstitutional, and were done away with by judicial intervention.School segregation was popular, even supported by churches and scripture, was voted on and by popular consent it was made law, yet it, too, was unconstitutional, and was overturned by the U. S. Supreme Court.People who feel that homosexuality is wrong have a depth of feeling just as strong about the inherent immorality of allowing such things as marriage to be allowed, just as people of faith, and others as well, felt equally morally correct in forbidding interracial marriages. Biblical scripture was quoted and used to support laws against it. There were actually laws in some states that said marriage between a person of color and a white person were immoral, and churches often sanctioned these views. Marriage, in the prevailing popular opinion of the day, was between white man and a white woman only, and a black man and a black woman only.Without stating that homosexuality is good or bad, without judging it to be natural or unnatural, it is simply a fact of life, one which I do not wish to participate in, and one which, frankly, does interfere with my own sense of morals. That said, I also see that while I might personally feel compelled to campaign for or against it based upon my religious beliefs, I believe that making laws to prohibit it goes against the 14th amendment, and perhaps others as well, and in the end would weaken our Constitutional Rights by eroding the power of the constitution to protect everyone.By reducing the rights of a few, we weaken the argument to maintain the rights of us all. I know some may disagree with this statement, because they see this mostly as a moral issue, but every time a nation has eroded the rights of a few, the rights of the majority have subsequently suffered.I also believe there are many other issues much more important to the nation as a whole than this one. I know that people of religious convictions could and should work as hard as they have in the past to help rebuild American families. I see wonderful work being done by individuals and congregations of devoted, faith-filled people along these lines.To me, helping families in times of great crisis not only is a powerful witness for Christ, but also a way to bring people back to God. To that end I applaud those who work in the field, as it were, rebuilding our nation along the lines of strong families.Again, great hub, lots of passionate and powerful comments, and I again respectfully disagree that church should trump state in the matter of upholding the constitution of any state or the federal government.

shotgunbanjo 3 years ago

Thanks for this hub, i do think that marriage only belongs to the people with opposite sex, not with the same sex...and its sacred thing, not an ordinary thing to tackle with...

BIG Mike 3 years ago

I wanted to touch base with you on this statement you made:“Also - I am in complete agreement with you in regard to what 2 consenting adults choose - but when that choice then affects those without choice or even the choices already made by others... well then, I think we need to consider the bigger picture. Of course, this is where it becomes more complicated.”

How would the choice in terms of same-sex marriages affect others more or less so than the choice of heterosexual couples to marry? Aside from the couples themselves, there is no choice to be made by others.

I’m confused about the bigger picture – enlighten me; I triple dare you! J

wellness5 3 years ago

Well, God created homosexuality so there is nothing wrong with people who have that sexual orientation in tying a bond , call it marriage or whatever but we have to protect these people's rights. What are homosexuals to do - live in a closet for the rest of their lives? There is room for everybody and no homosexual couple , married or not, is going to damage heterosexual marriages. Frankly they have their own problems- looking at the divorce rates !

bettiegurrl 3 years ago

Id like to think that most people these days have an open mind. Obviously not everyone does. Especially about this issue. Im straight, always have been, always will be but I have never had a problem with gay people. I do not think it is a choice like a few people have said that they positively know it IS. Who would purposely CHOOSE to be discriminated against? A lot of things are wrong in this world, gay people getting married is at the bottom of my list.

If you think it is a choice to be gay, is it also a choice to be straight? That just doesnt make any sense to me. I didnt choose to be straight, Im just attracted to men.

I say let them have whatever we as straight couples have. It's certainly not hurting you unless you allow it to. And as for it hurting the children, what children is it hurting? Id like to know the answer to that. I feel that is just a cop-out. Something for a homophobic person to hide behind. I feel marriage is for anyone who is in love, black, white, yellow, gay, straight or crooked.

If youre really worried about the children, maybe you should be concerned about the crazy mothers out there murdering their offspring. And theyre straight women. Gay people dont warp their kids anymore than straight people do.

bettiegurrl 3 years ago

I know your topic wasnt about that but it was brought up and I wanted to say something about it.

I honestly feel that Freedom of Speech is not going to be around much longer in this country. There are many reasons I feel this way but will not point out any one just now. It's a scary thought, isnt it?

shiraleh 3 years ago

I understand your personal conflict from a religious standpoint, but since you base much of your argument here on the Court's overruling the will of the people, you might want to take a look at the numbers involved with Prop 22, because the publicity around its passage has been very misleading (as was Prop 22, for that matter).

Although many people don't realize it, by no means did a majority of CA voters actually vote in favor of Proposition 22. It's touted as having passed by a "landslide," and people seem to think that all Californians had their say - but in fact less than half of all registered voters (only about a third of all eligible voters) cast their vote on the proposition, and only 29% of registered voters (a little over 20% of eligible voters) actually voted in favor. Because of the circumstances of that particular election (March primary, 2000 - major Republican contest, with an open primary and no real Democratic competition), the voters who came out (whether they be Republican or Democrat) tended to be more conservative than the average Californian.

Bottom line: We've got 30,000,000 people in our state. Roughly 4.5 million people voted for Prop 22 - but nearly 3 million voted against it. Neither figure gives us much insight as to the will of the people. What does tell us a lot is that the legislature, a body full of elected officials, passed the Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act *twice* - once before an election, and once after an election. We elect our legislatures and entrust them to enact laws for our state. The fact that the Legislature was able to pass the bill *twice,* once on either side of an election, ought to speak toward the will of the people at least as much as Prop 22 does, don't you think?

In any event, the CA Supreme Court (and federal courts) overturned voter initiatives on numerous occasions, largely because CA has a history of passing discriminatory propositions. So it's not so shocking that the CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop 22 was unconstitutional, which is what actually happened. It wasn't a "backdoor" effort; it was the same legal process that has undermined countless other unconstitutional ballot initiatives.

Want hospitals to be able to turn away sick children just because they're not citizens? CA did. Or try searching for Reitman v. Mulkey, in which the CA Supreme Court even overturned a voter-approved constitutional amendment. Sound overreaching? Maybe, until you realize that the amendment sought to overturn a recently-passed law banning housing discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status.

clint 3 years ago

I for one, think to often the higher Courts step in and hear cases that they shouldn`t. Just to make statments of law! In this instance it has more to do with the justifing an immoral life style,for the few and at the cost of traditional marriage ! Since when can one just demand the change to the meaning of a WORD to justifie their own needs . Marriage has For ever Ment ONE man and ONE woman!