California legalizes same sex marriage

[digidude18]

So, for those of you who don't know yet, California judges recently overruled California voters defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The first Same sex couples were married today in various counties.

 

Now let me say this first: I am not against same sex marriage. People have been waiting a long time for this right, and good for them for getting it. The reason for this post is this: Does anyone know if it was legal for the judges to override the voters decision?

 

What makes me a little irritated about the whole thing is that the vote of the people was overturned to easy, and especially in a country where the people have the voice, what gives the judges this power to just dismiss votes like this?

 

So I thought I would see what everyone's opinion was on that (on the vote being overruled not on same sex marriage), and I was also hoping that someone with legal knowledge could help me answer my questions.

 

Just to reiterate: This topic is not for posting whether you think same sex marriage is right or wrong. My concern is not the outcome but whether the judges were within their power to override the voters.

[haydawg149]

I don't see why they ever made it up to everyone else anyway. They're not the one's that have to be rejected from marriage just because someone else thinks it's wrong. I say, keep your damn opinions to yourselves, especially on something like this.

 

It doesn't seem right that someone else gets to decide if you're allowed to get married or not, it's just not right. Rights much? Don't think so. I'm glad this has happened and I hope it also becomes the same for many more states in the future.

[Wes]

Now let me say this first: I am not against same sex marriage. People have been waiting a long time for this right, and good for them for getting it. The reason for this post is this: Does anyone know if it was legal for the judges to override the voters decision?

 

Yes, it's within the powers granted by the Constitution at both state and federal level. The congress makes and passes laws, the president or governor signs them into law, the courts decide if the laws uphold the constitution. If the the courts overturn a law, the state or federal congress can try to have the law amended into the constitution. So yes, its is completely within their power. That's the entire point of the court. Basic government.

 

What makes me a little irritated about the whole thing is that the vote of the people was overturned to easy, and especially in a country where the people have the voice, what gives the judges this power to just dismiss votes like this?

 

The Constitution. If it wasn't for the court system, there might still be segregation based on race. You cannot depend on the will of the voters to correct these things in a timely fashion sometimes.

 

PREEMPTIVE MOD NOTE: This is a discussion about the power of the courts. This is not a discussion on gay people, gay marriage, religion, sexuality, morality etc. If the topic veers off track, I will lock it. Keep it on topic, no flaming, STAY POSITIVE!

[Real]

I think my biggest pet peeve with the gay marriage deal is that the people who vote against basically deny gay people the rights to better medical coverage and tax breaks. And what upsets me even more is that they cannot legally have wills for when one of them dies. There are tons more issues that, while they may seem small are huge once you are in that position.

 

Ive got a couple friends who are gay and my fiance works in a flower shop owned by two gay guys. If any one of these guys were screwed over and couldnt will property and belongings to their loved one or cant get medical insurance for a family - well that is ridiculous. Id say so far my gay friends are actually more loyal, caring and considerate than my straight ones.

 

As for the judge overturning, well there is a checks and balances system. Somewhere there is a way for the people to continue their push if they so choose. Quite frankly I think the right decision was made but remember - the people elected those judges in. So, thats where I would say that really the judge is speaking for the people. It just so happens these judges obviously have a differing view on gay marriage than the majority who voted them in.

 

^Theres gotta be "some" discussion other than just the judges ruling. This is a special topic dealing with interpretations of the constitution. Theres no one set law for this so arguments for and against will fuel your descision on whether the courts made the right call.

[Wes]

^ Every time we have one of these awesome debates on whether gay people can get married or not, it ends up becoming a gigantic flamewar. So honestly, if you want to talk about gay marriage...go into the sexual orientation thread, where there's been plenty of fairly civil discussion.

So yeah, I'm being a dick and telling everyone to stay on track. I'm not going to let another multi-page bitch fest sprout out from here. These threads never end well. To quote our most eloquent of presidents "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you...a fool me can't go fooled again"

[cfc]

As for the judge overturning, well there is a checks and balances system. Somewhere there is a way for the people to continue their push if they so choose. Quite frankly I think the right decision was made but remember - the people elected those judges in. So, thats where I would say that really the judge is speaking for the people. It just so happens these judges obviously have a differing view on gay marriage than the majority who voted them in.

 

 

Just for everyone's information, the justices of the California Supreme Court aren't "elected" by the people. They're nominated by the governor and approved by a judicial confirmation commission (after an investigation of their backgrounds and qualifications). Justices do stand for "retention"; that is, the voters get to say whether or not the justices have done a good job and should stay on the bench after they've served for 11 years (I think that's their term). Often, the retention election is just a formality, but California voters have rejected justices in the past (the most famous example is former Chief Justice Rose Bird for her stance against the death penalty).

[krazekiddd]

I guess I can only look at other legal rulings. While I am in no way studying law or planning on going into law, I remember having these discussions in my current courses.

 

The ruling that was specifically brought up in our discussions was "Loving v Virginia" in which the supreme court struck down the ban on interracial marriages in the USA. Some proponents of the gay marriage ban are using the same arguements used before on why interracial marriage should not be legal. I know this is a different scenario than gay marriage ruling, but the similarities are there.

 

I for one commend the courts on this matter. The voters will have their voice this November on whether they should keep it legal or go ahead and amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.

 

Again, I'm not studying law or anything to that effect, so if anyone else wants to correct me on anything I've said, please feel free to.

[digidude18]

First off, thanks Wes for keeping this thread on track, I was really nervous when I started this thing and I didn't want to be responsible for any negativity.

 

Ok, so the judges do have the power to overturn voters, got it. I knew about the whole checks and balances thing but I never knew to what level they were able to go. And I'm glad for the extra examples of similar cases. As you can clearly see, I don't really study law, well not past what I learned in High School anyway. Being able to see the other kinds of cases that are similar puts me at ease with the situation. Because of my limited knowledge of our judicial system I didn't know it was possible to overrule a voters decision. Although if I really think about it, not being able to do that would make ours a broken system I guess. I was thinking that the only time voters could be overruled was if whatever it was that was being voted on was unconstitutional.

[christianscoasters]

I think the judges did the right thing. I'm not saying this because I am gay myself, but because they realized it was discriminate not to let same-sex couples wed. Why can't the rest of the country follow them? I'm surprised more states aren't jumping in on it. However, New York is I believe.

[Wes]

^^ Yeah, you are somewhat correct. It was deemed by the court that the law against gay marriage was unconstitutional because it didn't provide equal protection under the law. So it is a matter of the state supreme court ruling in regards to the constitutionality of that law.

[digidude18]

Ok, so if the courts decided that it was unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, then why are they allowing voters to vote to make an amendment to ban same sex marriage? Or is not allowing them to put that on a ballot unconstitutional in itself?

[christianscoasters]

^I've been wondering the same thing. They make it legal because it is unconstitutional to ban it, yet they are going to have a vote? WTF?!?! Maybe it's just so they can shut everyone up about it

[RCFreak]

Becuase the law that passed (and was struck down) violated what is currently in the California State Constitution. What people are going to vote on this November is to actually change the Constitution itself to ban same-sex marriage.

[digidude18]

^ That seems like so much more of a hassle than just trying to pass a bill. But lets speculate and say that it does pass in November, could that decision also be reversed?

[generaleclectic]

To answer the question: Was what the California judges did, in fact, legal?

After reading the the amendment, I have to say yes. It was legal.

 

Proposition 22, Section 300 and 308 directly contradict a rule passed in 1977 via the California Civil Code, Section 4100 because of gender ambiguity in the 1977 measure. SO, what is going to have to happen now, if the legislature in California decides to pursue this, is the bill is considered dead and will have to start over in the California State Senate. Since the sponsoring senator, William "Pete" Knight, died in 2004, it will likely not be tackled again until after the 2008 general election. Incidentally, it should be noted for edification that Pete Knight had a gay son, David, whose civil union to his partner was struck down in 2004. Steve night, the older son, is running for his father's former seat in the 2008 General Election.

 

Discussion:

Georgia had a similar mishap in 2004 when a constitutional amendment was passed by an over-whelming, 76%. The rules for passing an amendment in Georgia CLEARLY STATE that only one subject/question may be proposed in an amendment proposition. If one reads Georgia's amendment, it clearly addresses ALL of the following:

 

* definition of marriage,

* prohibition of the recognition of other types of unions between same-sex couples,

* an attempt to limit the jurisdiction of Georgia courts,

* an attempt to limit the full faith and credit given to judgments and other proceedings from other states.

 

Illegal Ballot Much?

 

IMHO, I think it's really somewhat about how the court stacked politically as to why other states have done what they have done though other states HAVE ATTEMPTED to jump on this issue and the result was similar to what happened in Georgia in 2006. Now please understand... This is about the political process and how it works. I'll flame on about other topics in the appropriate thread.

 

Personally, while I believe our justice system to be one of the most sophisticated in the world. At the same time, it also can be something of a circle-cluster. For the definition of circle-cluster, message me privately.

For an example of this circle cluster, read the below article from a popular blogspot political analyst:

 

Georgia judge strikes down gay marriage ban

 

Via CNN:

 

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A judge has struck down Georgia's ban on same-sex marriages, saying a measure approved by voters in 2004 violated a provision of the state constitution that limits ballot questions to a single subject.

 

The ruling by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell had been eagerly awaited by gay-rights supporters who filed the court challenge in November 2004, soon after the constitutional ban was approved.

 

Russell said the state's voters must first decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can be asked to decide whether same-sex marriages should be banned.

 

"People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place -- although not marriage," she wrote. "The single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote."

 

Russell said "procedural safeguards such as the single-subject rule rarely enjoy public support."

 

"But ultimately it is those safeguards that preserve our liberties, because they ensure that the actions of government are constrained by the rule of law," the judge wrote.

 

Gov. Sonny Perdue decried the ruling stating that 76% of voters supported the amendment and, "It is sad that a single judge has chosen to reverse this decision."

 

Southern Voice published an article, good background, from May 5, 2006, and the old "activist judge" routine was performed by the regular characters. Details on the legal "single-subject rule" in Georgia courtesy Lambda Legal:

 

Unlike other states, Georgia’s ballot question does not reflect the entirety of the amendment’s language. The ballot question asks only about limiting marriage to a man and a woman and does not address civil unions or the jurisdiction of Georgia courts, which are part of the proposed amendment to the constitution. Lawsuit: The lawsuit was filed by Lambda Legal, the ACLU of Georgia and the Atlanta law firm Alston and Bird, who argued that the proposed amendment violates the single-subject rule of the state’s constitution because it has multiple objectives (a definition of marriage, a ban on civil unions and a restriction of court jurisdiction, among others). In addition, the suit argued that the language on the ballot misleads the voters and disguises the various consequences of a ratification vote. The single-subject rule requires that on a constitutional ballot question, only one issue at a time be posed to the voters. The Georgia Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter until after election day. The justices did not answer the constitutional issue and instead preserved that option for a potential legal challenge after the vote if the measure passes on November 2.

 

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in favor of of the anti-gay marriage ballot before the November 2004 election:

 

"The ruling, written by Justice George Carley, said that while the amendment 'can be challenged in the event it is 'enacted' by virtue of approval of the voters,' the judiciary cannot block the amendment until it is enacted by the Legislature and then approved by the voters." While polling shows a majority of Georgia voters support the amendment, opponents remain optimistic. Jack Senterfitt, a Lambda Legal attorney working on the case, said "The majority did not reject our arguments on the merits. No court has ruled that this proposed amendment would pass constitutional muster. No court has ruled that it does not violate the single-subject rule, and no court has ruled that the ballot language is not misleading."

 

Now: Here's how this LONG article all ties in with the political process. Just as was the case with racial segregation measures in the 1960s, this issue is passing through MANY MANY different levels of politically stacked justice establishments. It's going to boil down to the political stances of judges that get faced with this. As one can see by reading the above article, the judges in Georgia decided to dispense with what was legal and vote their agenda. Personally, I think that the country has become so embroiled with "keeping up with the Jones'" and not necessarily with what is legal. This is a divisive issue. It will be a divisive issue so long as politicians pick judges that have an agenda and write ballot question that are designed to cloud the questions upon which the people are voting.