Who wins in the fallout of the California gay-marriage ruling?

posted at 8:00 am on May 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

California became the second state in the nation to legalize gay marriage by judicial fiat yesterday, but the court ruling will only heighten the political ramifications of the issue. In an election year, the debate will bring voters to the polls, and a referendum to amend the California constitution will do so in droves. Who wins in the rather remarkable circumstance of having the court decision highlight the ballot initiative? Already we see the presidential candidates carefully plotting their positions:

Democratic Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) issued careful and nearly identical statements saying they support civil unions to protect the rights of same-sex couples. Both avoided taking a position on same-sex marriage, saying states should make such decisions.

Sen. John McCain‘s campaign said the Arizona Republican “supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman.”

McCain, who last week decried judicial activism, “doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions,” a spokesman added.

A different reaction came from California’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have allowed same-sex marriages.

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling,” he said in a statement. “. . . I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

Schwarzenegger takes an absurd position in this stance. In one breath, he has supported legislation by judicial diktat while opposing direct democracy. If the people of California want to amend their constitution to define how government recognizes marriage, then elected officials should at least support that process and uphold the will of the people. The governor should have more interest in protecting the process of representative democracy through the proper determination of policy in the legislature and through referendums, and protecting the very processes that allow him to be engaged in policy formation, than in cheerleading for judicial activism.

Government recognition of marriage is a policy decision that should remain in the purview of the people. After all, no one argues that relationships require government sanction; two people can cohabitate without permission, as long as they’re consenting, unrelated adults. They can form contractual partnerships just like any two adults can, as long as the purposes remain legal. The argument in this case is for government sanction of the relationship as marriage — and as such is a public policy decision.

Had the people of California chosen to recognize gay marriage through legislation, I’d accept it — and in truth, I’d consider that a more rational policy than civil unions, which basically reproduce marriage with a different label. Government stopped being in the sacrament business at the moment it offered no-fault divorces. A civil-union contract has more binding power than does marriage these days. States would do best to leave the term “marriage” as an exclusive province of the churches and have all couples sign civil-union contracts instead, and let the individuals determine whether they feel “married” or not.

The two Democrats can’t bring themselves to say any of this, instead offering support for civil unions while trying their best not to annoy those clinging bitterly to their Bibles. While John McCain has the same position on civil unions, at least he understands the much greater issue of judicial activism better than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Arnold Schwarzenegger. This comes at a perfect time for McCain; he just delivered a speech on that very issue and highlighted the differences between himself and Obama, and this serves as a concrete example.

Could it help him win California in the fall? It’s possible but not terribly likely. The referendum will bring conservatives out in force this November, but it will also face a huge amount of opposition throughout the state and the intelligentsia. In truth, constitutional amendments usually make for bad policy; they act as sledgehammers when scalpels do better, and they’re difficult to reverse when necessary. Unfortunately, the court forced opponents of gay marriage into this tactic, and all will depend on whether they can get enough people to the polls.

The extent to which they do will benefit McCain without a doubt, and it could force the Democrats to spend a lot more time and money on the presidential race in the Golden State. They cannot afford to lose the massive Electoral College votes if they plan on winning the presidency. The Supreme Court probably just put California in play for the first time in 20 years.

Update: The Anchoress has a thoughtful take on the issue.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Supreme Court judges are supposed to state what goes against the Constitution. Sometimes laws conflict when the Constitution. When judges strike down unconstitutional laws it is not “activism;” complaining about it is akin to not wanting a judiciary branch at all.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Marriage laws have existed in California since 1850 and they just found out now that they are unconstitutional as practiced. They’ve been wrong for over 150 years and no one noticed?

Nosferightu on May 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM

They’ve been wrong for over 150 years and no one noticed?

Nosferightu on May 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM

That’s how the court works; if you don’t like it, tough.

Fatal on May 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM

You’ve already shown yourself to be ignorant of how the judicial/initiative system in California works (see your post at 12:52) and now you’re asking a question you can find the answer to in the first 10 pages of the court opinion. I suggest you read the opinion and then look at the history of California Propositions (specifically 187) and how it is common practice for the Supreme Court to overrule ballot initiatives, and for good reason. The difference between this ruling and 187 is nothing, except for the fact that conservatives supported the overruling of 187 and not the overruling of 22.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM

That’s how the court works; if you don’t like it, tough.

thats right, you do what we tell ya in the people’s republic of kkkalifornia!! and if you disagree, you’ve committed a HATE CRIME and must be re-educated…know what I mean, comrade??

California Propositions (specifically 187) and how it is common practice for the Supreme Court to overrule ballot initiatives, and for good reason

they’re exactly the same. our black-robed, jack-booted judges impose their will upon the people because they know whats best for us!

voting in this country is a joke, this is a tyranny of the judiciary, democracy, republic…in your dreams.

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM

That’s how the court works; if you don’t like it, tough.

That’s just how it is? Presumably the Court relied on some sort of recent precedent to strike down the ban, while ignoring 150 years of precedent in how marriage laws have been applied. That is highly selective interpretation, which is what makes it “activism.”

In a democracy, no one should ever accept “tough” as an answer.

Nosferightu on May 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM

The Right is not going to win this fight. Pick a new battle and move on.

sdillard on May 16, 2008 at 4:23 PM

The Right?

Well then apparently, the majority of California’s voters are The Right™ because they’ve already made their their wishes on this issue quite clear.

If anyone should move on, it’s the Gay Community™

The Ugly American on May 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM

And you fit into the category I listed in my first post. You simply don’t want a judiciary branch.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM

What’s McCain going to do… pull a scam like Bush did?

TOPV on May 16, 2008 at 6:46 PM

And you fit into the category I listed in my first post. You simply don’t want a judiciary branch.

yeah I have this aversion to unelected, unaccountable dictators.

I know I don’t fit in in the USSA any more….

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Oh yes, this brings out those ‘one issue voters’ and that’s not good.
I called Nancy Pelosi’s office today and left a message that I was one among millions of Californians who are not “proud” about this historical event.
I don’t know any sane homosexuals who feel as tho getting married is necessary, or a ‘civil right’. The militant gays are after this issue for power and underneath that, acceptance. When will they learn that accepting themselves is the key. They have the non-discrimination protections, civil unions, and legions of laws and lawyers willing to defend them; all they need now is to love themselves…Too bad that won’t happen. It looks like we will have to bend to the whim of 5% of the population for an indefinite amount of time–unless We The People of California can put it right again.
The Supreme Court of California should enforce the laws of this state, not overturn the Will of The People.

Christine on May 16, 2008 at 6:54 PM

I love you, Ugly American.

Christine on May 16, 2008 at 6:56 PM

You’ve already shown yourself to be ignorant of how the judicial/initiative system in California works (see your post at 12:52) and now you’re asking a question you can find the answer to in the first 10 pages of the court opinion.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM

And you’ve shown yourself to be incapable of some simple reading and comprehension.

As to the first post I was simply defining “judicial activisim”, I offered no opinion on whether it was within the purview of the California Court to act in that manner or not, so your accusation is groundless.

In the second post you reference, I repeatedly stated that I was talking about the U.S. (that means “United States” not “California”) Consititution and the U.S. Supreme Court. If you cannot differentiate between the United States and the State of California, then its pretty clear who is “lacking” here.

P.S. I read the opinion and am fully cognizant of the court’s reasoning based on THEIR interpretation of the California Constitution, which will change the next time the social winds blow in a different direction and is no basis upon which to found a government.

Fatal on May 16, 2008 at 7:17 PM

yeah I have this aversion to unelected, unaccountable dictators.

I know I don’t fit in in the USSA any more….

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:51 PM

The higher court judges in California are elected. The Governor nominates the Justices and they are placed on a retention ballot. Only three Justices in California history were not retained.

and is no basis upon which to found a government.

Fatal on May 16, 2008 at 7:17 PM

The founders disagreed.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 7:29 PM

The founders disagreed.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Are you talking about the “founders” of California, those who wrote the California Constitution or are you talking about the founders of the U.S.?

Because, if you are talking about the founders of the U.S., you are simply mistaken as they did NOT give the Supreme Court the authority to review legislative actions for compliance with the U.S. Consitution, that is something the U.S. Supreme Court took unto itself as I’ve repeatedly posted and which has yet to be disputed. Care to try?

Fatal on May 16, 2008 at 7:39 PM

I love you, Ugly American.

Christine on May 16, 2008 at 6:56 PM

Awesome.

Wanna get hitched? ; )

The Ugly American on May 16, 2008 at 7:51 PM

The higher court judges in California are elected. The Governor nominates the Justices and they are placed on a retention ballot.

so they’re not elected. they can be thrown out, but I’ve heard none of them face election until 2014.

The founders disagreed.

really? Jefferson said:

BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. — Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Fatal on May 16, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Great. Seeing people argue fruitlessly about why judicial review is bad…

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”

That’s Article 3. Now unless you think that when the Constitution says “Law” it doesn’t really mean “laws passed by the legislature” the principle of judicial review is very clear. And last time I checked James Madison was most definitely a “founder” — the father of the Constitution.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 7:55 PM

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”

nice try at misdirection, but it does not say that the court can decide what is constitutional or not. that was in the following case as Jefferson said:

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

it was a usurpation of power by the judiciary, its not granted in the constitution.

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 7:59 PM

so they’re not elected. they can be thrown out, but I’ve heard none of them face election until 2014.

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Kind of ruins your argument of “unelected” and “unaccountable.” If you are on a ballot, and if you show up on a ballot every 12 years you are most assuredly “elected.” If the people disapprove of the Justices they don’t have to vote for them and they don’t have to vote for any of the Governors appointees until the Gov. nominates someone they like.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 7:59 PM

If you are on a ballot, and if you show up on a ballot every 12 years you are most assuredly “elected.”

being appointed and not elected, and facing retention every 12 years is not being elected.

they don’t run on a platorm, and they are appointed for 12 years, so they have all that time to be unaccountable to anyone

nice try, but really lame.

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 8:01 PM

right4life on May 16, 2008 at 8:01 PM

There is most definitely a platform if you remember anything about California politics in the 1980s. You stated that higher court Justices were “unelected, unaccountable dictators;” this is entirely untrue — they are on a ballot, they only serve if a majority of Californians decide they should, and being that they are not on the bench for life they are certainly accountable.

Nonfactor on May 16, 2008 at 8:26 PM

The governor should have more interest in protecting the process of representative democracy through the proper determination of policy in the legislature and through referendums, and protecting the very processes that allow him to be engaged in policy formation, than in cheerleading for judicial activism.

Ahnuld didn’t read Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions, apparently. But I bet you did, Ed. :-)

baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 8:30 PM

1. So what happens if a married gay couple moves from CA to a state that doesn’t endorse gay marriage?

2. How many churches are going to marry gay couples, even though it’s against Christian doctrine?

3. How long before any other form of marriage hits the courts (e.g. polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia…)?

4. What is the proposed end state of the liberal social agenda?

Send_Me on May 16, 2008 at 8:33 PM

I heard Sean Hannity on the radio today saying that Obama approved of the judges’ decision. That means that Obama is okay with liberal judges overriding the will, and votes, of the people.

It confirms his socialist philosophy.

waterfall on May 16, 2008 at 9:43 PM

IT’S CALIFORNIA! The same terms that work somewhat, even barely, accurately in other areas of the nation are just thrown so far Left in CA as to make most there — certainly the CA State legislature — as Communist. I can’t easily distinguish between CA and China, is my point, nor CA and, say, Cuba.

S on May 16, 2008 at 5:12 PM

The difference between Cali and Cuba is that Cuba, albeit slowly and in an incremental fashion, is actually moving away from tyranny, whilst Cali is moving towards tyranny at hyper-sonic speed.

I’ll even make a bit of a bold prediction here: in the next five to ten years, Cuba will be drawing more American vacationers (and buisnesses) than California.

SuperCool on May 16, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Wow

3. How long before any other form of marriage hits the courts (e.g. polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia…)?

So two women/men living together is the same of having multiple wives, having an animal as a wife/husband, or wanting to marry a child?

People like you are pathetic and disgusting. There is no slippery slope between gays and beastiality nor pedophilia.

A Axe on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM

Schwarzenegger takes an absurd position in this stance. In one breath, he has supported legislation by judicial diktat while opposing direct democracy.

uh, no. not at all.

“The governor has twice vetoed legislation that sought to legalize gay marriage, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.”

so, the courts have now said that the government has no constitutional right to deny gay couples the same civil rights to “the pursuit of happiness” as straight ones.

what will the voters say? the same thing, hopefully.

homesickamerican on May 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM

and to all of you folks on here who are trying to argue that “sexual orientation” isn’t immutable and therefore is just a “lifestyle choice” (which you obviously think is sinful, against god’s will, etc., ad nauseum…) and shouldn’t equated with race, gender, or other differences that are protected under civil rights laws:

please go out and try having sex with the opposite gender from that which you usually prefer. then come back here and let us know how it was.

can’t wait for your reports.

and just to avoid any stupid accusations and ad hominems from the get-go: no, i am not gay.

homesickamerican on May 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM

A Axe on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM

exactly!

homesickamerican on May 16, 2008 at 11:38 PM

1. So what happens if a married gay couple moves from CA to a state that doesn’t endorse gay marriage?

ummmmm… that’s not the issue at hand. at all. it’s a california state court.

2. How many churches are going to marry gay couples, even though it’s against Christian doctrine?

also completely irrelevant.

3. How long before any other form of marriage hits the courts (e.g. polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia…)?

see A Axe’s comment above.

4. What is the proposed end state of the liberal social agenda?

a suggest you take a deep breath or 10 and calm down.

homesickamerican on May 17, 2008 at 12:05 AM

i don’t think that i have ever posted this many consecutive comments on one post before, but…

here is a reasonable “conservative” viewpoint:

“Americans have a healthy aversion to telling other people how to live. Only about 30 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why don’t we try letting people live how they want to live, and let others try to impose uniform national rules on a heterogeneous population of 300 million people?”

why, that sounds a lot like gov. arnold’s viewpoint, doesn’t it?

go figure…

homesickamerican on May 17, 2008 at 12:54 AM

“Who wins in the fallout of the California gay-marriage ruling?”

I’m guessing gay people?

Kevin M on May 17, 2008 at 1:05 AM

Oh, good, more men committing to marriage. Maybe total fertility will go up now. We’re saved!

Kralizec on May 17, 2008 at 1:29 AM

There is no slippery slope between gays and beastiality nor pedophilia.

A Axe on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM

One can accept that gays as such aren’t on a slippery slope to bestiality or pedophilia, while still worrying that the Americans have been on a slippery slope away from fertility for decades, and are still on the slippery slope.

Kralizec on May 17, 2008 at 2:02 AM

Kralizec on May 17, 2008 at 2:02 AM

totally irrelevant, again. what does this ruling have to do with fertility in america???

homesickamerican on May 17, 2008 at 2:20 AM

“One can accept that gays as such aren’t on a slippery slope to bestiality or pedophilia…”

One can also NOT accept that, my friend.

Kevin M on May 17, 2008 at 2:54 AM

Gay marriage will be the law of the land in five to six years. Eventually, thirteen of the most liberal states will legalize gay marriage and in the same time frame a serious challenge will me made to the Defense of Marriage Act which will be declared unconstitutional with the help of the new appointees nominated by Imam Obama. At that point even if it were possible to pass a constitutional amendment proposition through congress– which it would not given the huge Dhimmicrat majorities–it would be impossible to get it ratified by three-quarters of the states. Game-Set-Match.

This is a battle over trivial nonsense important only by those who think that the constitution and law code should be subservient to some ancient book of mythology. There are more important battles to wage.

Annar on May 17, 2008 at 7:40 AM

and just to avoid any stupid accusations and ad hominems from the get-go: no, i am not gay.

homesickamerican on May 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM

You may not be gay, but you do appear to be a man. Many women do find sexual orientation to be a lifestyle choice. The now heterosexual matron/former undergrad lesbian is a common social phenomenon. It may only be for men that sexual orientation is in any practical sense immutable.

thuja on May 17, 2008 at 8:32 AM

This is a battle over trivial nonsense important only by those who think that the constitution and law code should be subservient to some ancient book of mythology. There are more important battles to wage.

Annar on May 17, 2008 at 7:40 AM

But if we allow gay marriage, then we’ll have to allow fetal bestiality and half the nation will be having sex with feline fetuses. Our great nation will be clawed apart.

thuja on May 17, 2008 at 8:35 AM

You stated that higher court Justices were “unelected, unaccountable dictators;” this is entirely untrue — they are on a ballot

and its absolutely true. they are appointed not elected, how hard is this?

they have retention elections, but they are not directly elected.

right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM

which it would not given the huge Dhimmicrat majorities–it would be impossible to get it ratified by three-quarters of the states. Game-Set-Match.

bet it would pass. look at the the states that have done their own constitutional amendments against gay ‘marriage’ and even liberal CA passed an anti-gay ‘marriage’ law by 61% in 2000, watch it get a bigger majority this time.

right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM

and to all of you folks on here who are trying to argue that “sexual orientation” isn’t immutable and therefore is just a “lifestyle choice” (which you obviously think is sinful, against god’s will, etc., ad nauseum…) and shouldn’t equated with race, gender, or other differences that are protected under civil rights laws:

why don’t you go ahead and identiy the ‘gay gene’??

until you do your arguments is irrelevent.

right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM

I love humiliating trolls.

Ron Cracker (or was it Dawn Smacker?) belched:

conservatives supported the overruling of 187

Uh, guess again.
Proposition 187 was written and backed by California conservatives. I know. I was there.

It denied government benefits to illegal aliens.

corona on May 17, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Gay marriage? Who cares? The only people I see with an advantage with this are divorce attorneys, they’ll pick up a lot of business. As for the sanctity of marriage, the wheels fell off that train with a 40% divorce rate. Divorcees killed the sanctity of marriage long before any queers did. Don’t mess with the Constitution. The Founders would not have done so………..

adamsmith on May 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM

But if we allow gay marriage, then we’ll have to allow fetal bestiality and half the nation will be having sex with feline fetuses. Our great nation will be clawed apart.

thuja on May 17, 2008 at 8:35 AM

I’m really for keeping the government out of our bedroomas AND barns.
/sarc

It is true, however, that if monosexual marriage is “legal” then it will be hard to refuse multi-partner marriages as well. For example, if two men marry and then a woman acts as surrogate to carry a baby of which one of the males is the natural father and then all three think they should be a “married family” why would one exclude the birth mother?

The long term solution is to get the government out of the marriage business; let people make the social contracts they desire and engage in cultish ceremonies if they wish. The government does have an obligation to protect the innocent, the children, but they can do this without sanctioning marriage.

Annar on May 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM

McCain, who last week decried judicial activism, “doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions,” a spokesman added.

Decisions about unconstitutional laws? Um, yeah, they should decide.

States would do best to leave the term “marriage” as an exclusive province of the churches and have all couples sign civil-union contracts instead, and let the individuals determine whether they feel “married” or not.

Bingo. That’s my solution. The crazy socialists (CRC, Focus on the Family) who think the government has a duty to promote monogamous Christian heterosexual unions won’t be happy, but I think it’s the right decision. Would any married readers be horrified if they found out that their marriage paperwork didn’t go through? Would they consider themselves to not be married? Of course not. Marriage is a personal commitment. It’s not any of the government’s business.

This issue really tweaks me, because I come from a Conservative background, but the arguments against gay marriage are socialist in nature. They’re about how “one man, one woman” is best for “society.” About how gay marriage would “ruin” marriage — not in the individual sense of “gay marriage ruined this heterosexual marriage” but in the sense of heterosexual marriage as some sort of “it takes a village” community pool that the gays would be “contaminating.” What’s worse, I’ve called Conservatives on this, telling them that they’re essentially arguing that the Government has a job to promote general social welfare, and they sort of shrug and accept it. If I’m not fighting socialists on the Left, I’m fighting them on the Right, it would seem.

In truth, constitutional amendments usually make for bad policy; they act as sledgehammers when scalpels do better, and they’re difficult to reverse when necessary.

And they should never, ever be used to take freedoms away. Constitutions are meant to shackle the government, not the people! Sanctioning governmental discrimination in the constitution is a travesty.

Mark Jaquith on May 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Decisions about unconstitutional laws? Um, yeah, they should decide.

oh yes all wisdom and knowledge resides in those who don black robes, and jack-boots. so they should tell us po dumb folks how to live.

Of course not. Marriage is a personal commitment. It’s not any of the government’s business.

we’ve had it wrong for thousands of year, I’m so glad wise (huh?) people like you have come along to set us straight!!

they’re essentially arguing that the Government has a job to promote general social welfare,

I wonder where ANYONE would get an idea about that at???

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

since the constitution means whatever judges say it means, then we can throw the ‘general welfare’ part out!!

right4life on May 17, 2008 at 10:25 AM

JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN CALIFORNIA!!!

DfDeportation on May 17, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Actually, California is now the third state to enact gay marriage by judicial fiat. The first such state was Hawaii, whose voters promptly ratified a “no, you dummies” amendment to reverse that result. As will California, I suspect, and was would even Massachusetts have done if their legislature had made the mistake of allowing the unwashed masses to vote on the issue at all.

As for this helping Republicans in California, I wouldn’t bet on it. It may give them a slight edge, but in a state so overwhelmingly Democrat, a few free percentage points aren’t going to be all that much help.

Xrlq on May 17, 2008 at 5:27 PM

So two women/men living together is the same of having multiple wives, having an animal as a wife/husband, or wanting to marry a child?

If all parties involved in a polygamous relationship are consenting, why not? If, based upon age of consent laws/parental discretion laws, an old person wishes to marry a young person, then why not? If someone wishes to marry their pet, why not? If marriage is nothing more than a contract between consenting parties, then why can’t people “marry” whomever or whatever they want? That is my point.

People like you are pathetic and disgusting. There is no slippery slope between gays and beastiality nor pedophilia.

Please refrain from using ad hominem fallicies. They serve no point. The “slippery slope,” as I stated above, is this: if marriage is nothing more than a contract between people to guarantee certain financial and medical rights, then why can one not marry whomever or whatever you want? Or am I not understanding what it is that gay couples are seeking?

Send_Me on May 17, 2008 at 5:53 PM

1. So what happens if a married gay couple moves from CA to a state that doesn’t endorse gay marriage?

ummmmm… that’s not the issue at hand. at all. it’s a california state court.

How is this issue not of immediate importance? If a gay couple marries in CA and moves to MO, then this issue is quite pressing since MO would not recognize their marriage as legal. None of the businesses, insurance companies, nor the state itself would honor any of their marriage rights.

2. How many churches are going to marry gay couples, even though it’s against Christian doctrine?
also completely irrelevant.

To you, maybe this is irrelevant. To the Church, this has serious ramifications. Institutionalizing sin and deleting central messages of the Bible to fit human desires is completely counter to whom God is.

4. What is the proposed end state of the liberal social agenda?
a suggest you take a deep breath or 10 and calm down.

Please refrain from using ad hominem fallacies. They serve no constructive purpose. As a citizen of the United States, I demand to know what the proposed end state of any socially liberal (or conservative, for that matter) politician is for this this country. In light of this ruling, I’d like to know what else they’d like to change.

Send_Me on May 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM

we’ve had it wrong for thousands of year, I’m so glad wise (huh?) people like you have come along to set us straight!!

The concept of “government marriage” in the United States is less than 100 years old. It was introduced in the 1920′s as a way of preventing interracial marriages.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nowhere in there does it say that the government has the power to promote the general welfare. It’s merely listed of one of the potential benefits of having a Constitution. The powers of the government are specifically enumerated later on. And “promoting the general welfare” is not one of them. If it were, what would be the point of listing any powers? “General welfare” authorizes socialism in all its health-care-providing, anti-Capitalist marriage-regulating forms.

Mark Jaquith on May 18, 2008 at 1:31 AM

The concept of “government marriage” in the United States is less than 100 years old. It was introduced in the 1920’s as a way of preventing interracial marriages.

are you sure about that???

DESCRIPTION: Chapter 7, Laws of 1640: An ACT touching marriages
CREATED/PUBLISHED: 1640
NOTES: Marriage was allowed only after publication of banns three times; or oath was made at the county court that neither part was an apprentice, etc., related, or under government of parents and a certificate was issued by the County Court of such oath.
SOURCE: Archives of Maryland Online
REPOSITORY: Maryland State Archives

http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000099/html/t99.html

Ancient Rome had laws governing marriage, but somehow america did not? come on.

Nowhere in there does it say that the government has the power to promote the general welfare

obviously it does. ‘provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare’ thats what the government was established for.

“General welfare” authorizes socialism in all its health-care-providing, anti-Capitalist marriage-regulating forms

you really need to take history 101, and english comprehension 101

right4life on May 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

are you sure about that???

Yes.

obviously it does. ‘provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare’ thats what the government was established for.

False. The government was established to protect man’s inalienable rights. “Welfare” is not a right. The government has no duty and no power to promote general welfare. That’s a Socialist idea, and all who advocate it are de facto Socialists and enemies of freedom.

Mark Jaquith on May 18, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Marriage laws have existed in California since 1850 and they just found out now that they are unconstitutional as practiced. They’ve been wrong for over 150 years and no one noticed?

Nosferightu on May 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM

are you serious? There were slavery laws and anti-black laws on the books for over 75 and 100 years respectively before someone ‘noticed’ that they were wrong. So are you saying that civil rights guarantees were unwarranted because it took a long time for people to recognize that black people are, in fact, just as human as white people?

Your argument is silly.

MannyT-vA on May 19, 2008 at 4:51 AM

right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM

is that supposed to be an argument? i hope not.

homesickamerican on May 20, 2008 at 5:15 AM

1. So what happens if a married gay couple moves from CA to a state that doesn’t endorse gay marriage?

ummmmm… that’s not the issue at hand. at all. it’s a california state court.

How is this issue not of immediate importance? If a gay couple marries in CA and moves to MO, then this issue is quite pressing since MO would not recognize their marriage as legal. None of the businesses, insurance companies, nor the state itself would honor any of their marriage rights.

nevertheless, this is a california state court ruling that interprets the california state constitution. therefore, what other states endorse or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.

2. How many churches are going to marry gay couples, even though it’s against Christian doctrine?
also completely irrelevant.

To you, maybe this is irrelevant. To the Church, this has serious ramifications. Institutionalizing sin and deleting central messages of the Bible to fit human desires is completely counter to whom God is.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION. IT IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS. PERIOD. you are entitled to believe what you believe, but the court has no responsibility to agree with you or to uphold your religious views.

4. What is the proposed end state of the liberal social agenda?
a suggest you take a deep breath or 10 and calm down.

Please refrain from using ad hominem fallacies. They serve no constructive purpose. As a citizen of the United States, I demand to know what the proposed end state of any socially liberal (or conservative, for that matter) politician is for this this country. In light of this ruling, I’d like to know what else they’d like to change.

“ad hominem fallacies”? no no, this is ad hominem:”you’re a paranoid bigot”. how’s that?

no fallacy there, either. :-)

Send_Me on May 17, 2008 at 6:18 PM

homesickamerican on May 20, 2008 at 5:45 AM

There is no slippery slope between gays and beastiality nor pedophilia.

A Axe on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I don’t know…this looks pretty slippery to me.

Jaibones on May 20, 2008 at 8:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2