The California Supreme Court is announcing it's decision on the Constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10:00 AM tomorrow.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/#pub

I personally hope they pass on making a decision and instead the National Supreme Court has to make a decision. I mean, if we're talking the US Constitution and not the CA Constitution, we should really have the Judicial make a final statement on same sex marriage.

...but they ARE talking about the California constitution.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m5d25-Top-5-reasons-why-Prop-8-should-be-overturned?cid=exrss-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner

That sums up the arguments. (Well, not the legal arguments, but why it should be overturned.)

California Supreme Court can only make a lasting decision in the California Constitution, its a states rights issue, not a national one at this point because that Constitution change ONLY affects Californians and no one else outside of the state.

Oh, and I don't want the US Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage until a couple justices die/retire. Hopefully in the next 7 years.

I think that marriage itself is the issue. If 2 men or 2 women aren't allowed to get married, the "institute of marriage" is discriminatory & should be banned. If we had more social programs, such as social healthcare, we wouldn't need to worry so much about this debate. A relationship is a relationship. There doesn't need to be more than that as long as we adopt a system that doesn't require more than that.

...but maybe that's just me.

However, if the "institution of marriage" is a "religious institution", then the government has no business regulating, providing perks, etc... for marriage.

Regardless of how you view marriage, it still boils down to the government injecting itself into personal relationships which is a no no.

State courts can apply federal law, though it's true that a California Supreme Court ruling based on the U.S. Constitution would only be applicable in California.

The real reason this can't go to the U.S. Supreme Court is that I believe the pro-gay marriage side only raised state constitutional arguments. A party is limited on appeal to the arguments it raised before the trial court.

At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court with its current makeup isn't going to decide this issue. If anyone appeals a gay marriage case to the Court, they'll dismiss for lack of a substantial federal question, based on their dismissal in Baker v. Nelson.

marriage is an economic boon, nothing more.

It has no bearing whatsoever on anything else.

It's just this thing of "you can't do that" and the people that are told so rebel automatically even though marriage sucks in the first place. People should stop being so stupid and gays should live however they want to without making same sex marriage out to be this huge thing, because if they overinflate it it will just make them miserable..

and frankly if you're in it for the money I have no sympathy for your cause..

It's like fighting over who gets to play with a piece of poo.

but in the sense of the laws regarding marriage it has nothing to do with the religious aspect but the LEGAL aspect

it's more than that... it's "you can't do that but we can"

it's not about who gets to play with a piece of poo it's about an equal right to play with that piece of poo... when it comes to equal rights there is no middle ground there's equal and not equal

#3 is the most accurate of all. Although I really really really like how they worded #5.

Ballot initiatives really are destroying this state. I wish that they would be stricken from our state entirely. Ballot initiatives are direct democracy. The will of the majority is made into law and we get this ****.

The problem with ballot initiatives is most people don't really understand what they're voting on.

That said, there still needs to be a way for direct democracy to happen. Maybe require a 60% vote.

Marriage seems like a trap anyway, if they want to step into it, let them.

No. Direct democracy is a very bad thing. Direct democracy is essentially mob rule. We have representatives for a reason. We elect ONE person to represent the whole. This one person tries to convey this wishes of EVERYONE in the legislature to make sure that the law preposed doesn't screw a lot of people. Now unfortunately, laws screw people. Welcome to government. Been going on since the Code of Hammurabi. However, this representative is supposed to stay within the confines of the law and not propose any bills that violate existing laws. We are a rule of law nation.

However. Ballot initiatives go into law AS SOON as the state controller certifies the election results. There are no checks and balances. Ballot initatives doesn't have the governor/president saying that "this law sucks" or "hey this is a good idea" I mean look how long it's taking to get this law overturned...if they are successful!

If you really think democracy changes things, you're naive. So-called democracy changes nothing, or it wouldn't be allowed.

Sure, put checks and balances on it, but the people need a way to pass laws on their own. I don't know about CA, but there's been a lot of good ones in AZ... like when we told the legislature they couldn't keep giving themselves raises without our permission.

Yes, direct democracy is an awful idea. That's a huge deal that the United States dealt with in the beginning. Pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Our government was originally intended to protect the minority from having their rights infringed upon. To that I say: remove any separate legal definition from the religious institution of marriage (if that exists) because government has no business with religion. Then, allow that legal status to apply to anyone and don't meddle with peoples' personal lives.

But for that matter: none of my business. California should deal with California, and that's their business. I'll worry about Oklahoma. That's the way it should be.

A way to pass laws on your own: political office candidacy, voting for a leader that will represent you or initiating a recall election of an irresponsible and unrepresentative official.

The fact that the backwater hicks and inbred Mormons were able to get the gay marriage ban instituted is a sign that allowing direct democracy in any shape or form is a terrible idea.

Oh it was terrible. You had inbred hicks and Mormons EVERYWHERE. This was people's life mission to ensure that this propostion passed. It really is disheartening.

Yeah, screw those gays and their greedy money-wanting. If I were gay, I'd just have buttsex and not worry about tax breaks or anything realistically afforded to a married couple. If my country wanted me to feel equal, the constitution would've expressly said so, and the pursuit of buttsex isn't anywhere in our founding fathers' principles.

I hope you say this with the perspective in mind that laws preventing same sex marriage is the government injecting itself into personal relationships.

Of course one could argue that if someone is having a personal relationship with a child the government is certainly entitled to step in.... but of course that is a completely different matter entirely.

Institution of marriage isn't simply a religious thing, hasn't been for a looong time, even though it is inarguable that religion is involved in most marriage ceremonies.
Personally I would LOVE to say I'm shocked when I hear of someone in this day and age opposing such things, but unfortunately I've seen too of humanity to be shocked by something so (comparatively) meager.

They upheld it.

OBAMA WILL FIX IT.....right?

It sucks though, it really does. You gotta wonder though for what is considered such a free-wheelin' state in terms of liberalness, guess there are still more conservatives than you think if they won yet again.

Unfortunately, yeah, it was people's life mission. Still is. Don't ask me why the Mormons give a damn about who I marry, but they certainly do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?scp=1&sq=mormon%20gay%20marriage&st=cse

The Mormons....didn't see that one coming

The Gay Scrolls : Mormonwind

This is dumb. It's like saying that the school segregation issue was only about black kids' future earning potential. It's not true, and it wouldn't matter if it was.

Anyway, it seems to me that the California court got so bound up in terminology that they neglected basic principles of constitutionalism. The whole point of a constitution is to require more than a mere majority to change certain things; equality under the law is one of those things.

That's unfortunate. So is that it, then, barring a referendum reversing the amendment? I guess a national-level ruling (on the issue, not this law) could change things, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

At least more states are starting to legalize it. That's a change from previous years where it was just a string of bans. I'm especially proud of Iowa, which caught me completely by surprise.

Well that's the thing - eventually it will be legalized everywhere. It's just that it would be nice for it to happen sooner.

i think there is a lot of misconception about why prop 8 passed. it had a lot less to do with backwater rednecks and the Mormon church than people, at least here seem to think.

in California you have a decent number of religious conservatives, all of whom are probably going to be for prop 8. you probably have a good number of just everyday moderates who are probably going to be at least a little unsure how they feel on the subject, and are going to vote for it because even though they may not be anti gay, well it kind of makes them uneasy. then your going to have a LARGE population of ethnic minorities who while largely democratic in voting practice, have strong traditional views of "family" then you can add onto that whatever affect the Mormon church actually had, and combine that with gavin newsom backlash. and you wind up with prop 8 passing.

i was hoping that the CA supreme court would overturn prop 8, but that didnt happen.
i really do believe this is a individual rights issue. the declaration of independence states that each of us are endowed with the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. prop 8 tramples that into the ground.

HOWEVER! if this is an issue that is going to be decided by the public then the pro-gay marriage side is going to have to fight to a different tune. right now both sides are decrying the other as evil and terrible. people have to realize that even though this is a rights issue, the particular issue of marriage has religious ramifications reaching beyond redneck hicks and the Mormon church. this issue will not be resolved by crazy people screeching about how "this door is wide open now!"

barring a supreme court reversal this is going to be an uphill fight but its one i think is worth fighting.

Oo-oo, can we have a second civil war in 2012?

I'm for it. Things would be a lot less boring.

The largest supporter of the "Yes on 8" campaign was the Mormon Church. Money that came from out of state. A last minute ad campaign funded by Mormons was significant in pushing the vote in favor of passing Prop 8.

There was a also a grassroots movement among African American churches that had a similar effect.

To deny that the Mormon Church was a major player is ignorant.

Right. I didn't word that carefully enough. "Personal relationships" was a little too open...

Well, pedophilia is an all too common red herring in debates about gay marriage.

It's not really a "red herring" per se. I mean, where is the line? Is two dudes getting married and having sex wrong? What about 3? What about 10 dudes all having sex and getting married? What about a 15 year old and a 20 year old? What about a 40 year old and a 13 year old?

Not that these are all equivalent or anything, but that's exactly my point: It's a valid discussion. Just because it isn't easy doesn't mean you get to brush it off and say "just because!" Morality debates never are.

That's why I thought I'd point it out and dismiss it immediately myself, trying to avoid the herring.

And yes, it's really a herring.



Is a man and a woman getting married and having sex wrong? What if there was a second woman? What about three men and seven women all having sex and getting married? What about a fifteen year old girl and a twenty year old guy? What about a forty year old woman and a thirteen year old boy?

Don't present messed up situations and pretend it's comparable. The lines are already well defined no matter what sexes the couple are.

No, no, no, depends, yes.

But that's just me.

Sorry, didn't even think about it.

What does this have to do with morality? The government has no say over morality. Children can't get married to adults because minors are, according to the state, dependents. Not because it's "wrong." Marriage has been a part of every culture since forever, so it is NOT a religious issue. It's just a legal issue regarding the machine of marriage. Currently, people's moral offense is being used as political fuel for a meaningless argument.

We should not bar the rights of homosexuals simply because you say that it suggests pedophilia or polygamy (despite the fact that there shouldn't really be any problem with polygamy either, but there would have to be an identified difference between a relationship and a congregation/orgy). We should extend the right to save money on taxes to gay partners like we do straight. That's it. The "morals" involved need to be set aside, because quite frankly, they don't matter. Equality and safety are the morals we use when deciding our laws, and are distinctly the things that separate homosexual marriage from something like acknowledging or accepting pedophilia.