Ca Supreme Court Considers Same Sex Marriage [Updated:Rules in Favor Of]

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CalBoy, Mar 4, 2008.

  1. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #1
    NY Times Article

    So what do you guys think? Will the justices vote for it?

    I think it'll be close (4-3) but I think they will find in favor of same sex marriage.

    Any other thoughts/opinions?
     
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    I honestly don't know.

    I think it will be a close call too. The time has come but unfortunately, the court has some fairly conservative republicans on board. However, they have ruled in favor of a lot of gay partnership laws, so...
     
  3. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #3
    Well the court is "Republican" in the sense of California Republicans (which are a different breed for ordinary Republicans).

    Apparently during oral arguments, even the normally conservative justices were having a hard time swallowing the anti-same sex marriage arguments.

    In fact, they were framing their questions more on who should make same sex marriage a reality: them, or the legislature.

    Then again, we've been disappointed before; no sense in getting our hopes up I suppose.
     
  4. Marble macrumors 6502a

    Marble

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    #4
    :D

    Sorry, all the primary politics is making me juvenile.
     
  5. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #5
    And they haven't had to issue a gag order. ;):p

    (but seriously, let's not turn this into a round of puns):)
     
  6. fridgeymonster3 macrumors 6502

    fridgeymonster3

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #6
    Whether they will or won't rule to allow same-sex marriages, or decide that it is the job of the state legislature jurisdiction is hard to know because of an issue that is so polarizing between the two political parties. However, as a California resident, I very much hope they take it upon themselves, instead of delegating the responsibility to the legislature, and allow same-sex marriage.

    On a side note. If you are against gay marriage, that is fine because it is your opinion and maybe it is against your interpretation of your religion or your values. However, if you aren't gay than why force your values/morals on others? If you don't support gay marriage - than don't get one!
     
  7. Apemanblues macrumors regular

    Apemanblues

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Location:
    Zombieland
    #7

    You mean the argument: "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!".

    Because that's about all they've got.
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Sorry- but from what I've seen so far, this isn't going to happen. Arnie would never allow it. Trust me, he'll find a way to stop it.
     
  9. shu82 macrumors 6502a

    shu82

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Rocket City, AL
    #9
    I don't believe they should even have the ability to regulate marriage. What business of it is theirs anyway. Its a partnership contract, pure and simple. I think of it more of a man's admission of liabiliy. ;) If thats what same sex couples are looking for, more power to you.

    All and all, its really just for the tax breaks and health insurance sharing (which my company already does for same sex couples)
     
  10. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #10
    Actually, I think the court doing it is the only way Arnie would support it. The feeling I get is that he wants to support it, but also wants to appear "Republican" enough. Witness the flip flopping, as when he said several years ago he would support pro gay marriage legislation, only to turn around and veto it when it actually showed up on his desk.

    He was at a press conference recently, and was asked about this case. His response was basically that the voters have spoken on this issue, and the government is not going to overturn the will of the voters (hence the vetos). If the courts overturn that, then the government will follow the court rulings. That to me sounds like Arnie code for 'I'm all for this, but my evil masters won't let me support it in public, so instead I'll just shrug and say "The courts made me do it." '
     
  11. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #11
    Same-sex marriages... Terminated! :D
     
  12. DarkHeraldMage macrumors 6502a

    DarkHeraldMage

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #12
    Agreed. It should be anybody's business as to who is allowed to make this kind of committment to each other. My company also allows these kind of health benefits (for couples considered a domestic partnership [gay couples or straight couples that just aren't married]), but you have to meet certain requirements. You have to be in an exclusive relationship and have lived in the same home for at least 6 months, etc. There are all kinds of strictures. Always will be the way it's looking now.
     
  13. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #13
    Yeah, the justices really aren't buying into that garbage. They're not really questioning whether or not same sex marriage is appropriate; they're more concerned with who should extend the right.
    Actually Lee, this represents the perfect solution for him. By letting the Court make the decision for him, he can step back and say, "I don't like this, but the Court has made it's decision."

    Up till now, Arnold has been tied by the more conservative wings of the party, and that's why he's been vetoing these bills. Now he has the perfect alibi (albeit a very rat like way to get out of it) but at least civil rights will take one more step forward for 11% of the country. :eek:
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Sorry, but I don't have that much faith. He'll make a few phone calls, pull a few strings and that will be the end of it. I don't see him letting this happen on his watch.
     
  15. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #15
    I don't know, something tells me that this will be the perfect situation for him politically. He can pretend to object to the ruling, while promising not to mess with it. It really represents the best he can hope for himself no?
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Perhaps- but I wouldn't count on it. Call me cynical.
     
  17. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #17
    Ok cynical! :p

    But I know what you mean; there's no sense in getting one's hopes up. :eek:

    I'm honestly surprised we haven't gotten a whole bunch of "same sex marriage is immoral" spam yet. Pleasantly surprising. :)
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    Don't worry, they'll be here. They just haven't seen the thread yet.
     
  19. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #19
    I am just angry that we still live in a world where people can be questioning such a basic human right and have the power to refuse it… :(

    California, of all places.
     
  20. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #20
    There's a great sad truth to that. :(
    Isn't it deeply saddening?

    We were supposed to have learned these lessons long time ago. But, the prevailing human tendency comes to the surface: if it doesn't harm me, I don't care.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    The California Supreme Court could well decide to punt on this issue. The state has a domestic partners law, so the question could come down to whether this law accords gay domestic partners the same legal rights as straight married couples. If they believe this to be the case, then the equal protection issue essentially factors out, and we're left with a semantical question. I don't think a majority of justices will be anxious to overturn a voter initiative if they can find a way out of it.
     
  22. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #22
    That very issue was addressed in the article in today's SF Chronicle.

    However, the article also pointed out how in the past the Court hasn't hesitated to overturn voter initiatives if it stood in the way of justice (interracial marriage, housing discrimination, etc).

    The question is, does the Court view this issue as fundamental to justice?
     
  23. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #23
    Interesting commentary from nearly four years ago here.

    Prop 22 cannot be undone by an act of the legislature, so leaving it on the legislature's doorstep is just a way of avoiding the issue. Ruling on this issue would be a primary function of the judiciary. In an initiative-heavy state like California, it is beyond likely that voters will attempt to establish mutually incompatible laws, because the electorate are not legal experts. They vote their biases, not the legal consequences of those biases. That's why we have judges.

    When someone with appropriate standing rises to challenge such an incompatibility, the court's job is to bring the laws into consistency with one another. In this case the court would need to either abrogate Prop 22 or substantively cripple state Constitutional requirements for privacy and equal protection by defining exceptions that allow for Prop 22 and other similar discriminatory initiatives. As much as some people would like to, you can't just pencil "except gays" into the margin of the state Constitution and leave it at that, because the legal theory by which such things are permitted to stand will be used as precedent for future actions. Again, making us make sense is part of a judge's job.

    That's not to say it isn't incumbent on a lawyer to prove to the judge that it's his job. Overriding the will of the voters is not something to be undertaken lightly even when the "right" thing to do is obvious. Even doing the "right" thing (for any value of "right") could set a precedent for something quite a bit wronger in the future, and we really shouldn't blame judges for forcing people to jump through the hoops of proving the court is obliged to open that can of worms.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Yes, right. But I think those issues would be in much starker relief if the state didn't already have a law on the books which arguably grants gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples. If it just comes down to the word marriage, then the argument that the initiative is discriminatory is much harder to sustain.
     
  25. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #25
    i dont know why anyone voted for him .:confused:

    i dont think gay marriage is that complicated of an issue
    should gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else? YES
    that's it.
     

Share This Page