Ca. Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

Here’s a link to the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the statewide ban on gay “marriage.” Here’s the report from the Associated Press:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s direction.

14 Responses to Ca. Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

  1. Darius May 15, 2008 at 2:07 pm #

    Well, that’s no big surprise. Bush keeps getting proved more right every day; looks like we do need a constitutional amendment when radical judges choose to ignore the will of the people.

  2. Mark Gibson May 15, 2008 at 2:18 pm #

    I think the Constitution already provides the opportunity to impeach judges. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, this is the California Supreme Court. Californians will have to do their own house cleaning.

  3. Darius May 15, 2008 at 2:27 pm #

    True enough. And they probably will, the movement is already on toward a California Constitutional Amendment.

  4. bprjam May 15, 2008 at 4:10 pm #

    Is the role of judges to do the will of the people, or to uphold the constitution and laws of the land (unless those laws are being specifically challenged as judicial review)?

    I was always taught (and believe) it is the later. Associating the will of the people in matters of judgment, justice, and law seems akin to “might makes right”.

    This judge might have made the wrong decision, but not because he didn’t follow the will of the people.

  5. bprjam May 15, 2008 at 4:11 pm #

    Hmm, since it is the CA supreme court that made this ruling, I should have said “judges” instead of “judge” in my previous comment.

  6. Kris May 15, 2008 at 4:49 pm #

    This also should pave the way if a brother and sister are living together or a grandchild and grandparent living together to be able to marry so that the grandchild or brother or sister can draw social security if the grandparent or the sibling dies.

    Professing to be wise we always end up becoming fools.

  7. Wade Cashion May 15, 2008 at 5:39 pm #

    Marriage between a man and a woman is a Christian practice following biblical guidelines. And because of this I know some who struggle with the idea of the state or federal government forcing all people to follow the biblical guidelines for marriage. That say that what is far worse than the state allowing/recognizing homosexual marriage is the churches acceptance of it.

  8. Wade Cashion May 15, 2008 at 5:40 pm #

    Corrections, the last sentence should read:

    They say that what is far worse than the state allowing/recognizing homosexual marriage is the churches acceptance of it.

  9. Darius May 15, 2008 at 8:19 pm #

    Wade, it is not a matter of the state accepting homosexual marriage… it is a matter of the state APPROVING of it. Any gay person can privately marry another person of the same sex anywhere in this country. What the gay lobby is doing is demanding that the government sanction their union.

  10. Adam Omelianchuk May 16, 2008 at 8:50 am #

    For those who have been arguing for the necessity of voting for Republicans on the basis of appointing conservative judicial take note that the opinion-writing judge of the majority was a Republican appointee as were 6 of the 7 on the bench.

  11. Darius May 16, 2008 at 8:58 am #

    Adam, in case you don’t know this, Arnold is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). So your comment is pointless.

  12. Mark Gibson May 16, 2008 at 9:01 am #

    Adam,

    We want strict constitutionalists on the Supreme Court, not just Republicans. These are the Republicans that are costing us elections.

  13. Adam Omelianchuk May 16, 2008 at 9:30 am #

    The point still stands, because the one-issue voting policy produces these kinds of consequences. The options are Republican, Democrat, or staying at home. The latter two are not options in a one-issue voting scheme and the ideology that desires strict constituionalism in justices is simply not given any weight. You get what you pay for, and it isn’t very good considering what you want.

  14. Darius May 16, 2008 at 10:06 am #

    Why isn’t staying home an option (at least in California)? Contrary to what you’re claiming, if one is truly a one-issue voter, they would stay home before voting for the pro-choice, liberal Arnold. Personally, I don’t know if I would vote for the guy, since not only is he socially liberal, he’s not particularly conservative in any other area either.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes