Gay marriage legal in California

"Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling," he said.

How can this guy be govenor?

Does he even wear a flag pin?

I jest, of course.

Arnold has consistently taken the right positions, but he's just put himself at odds with the base of his party.

This is great news for true democracy! All peopl eare created equal! And good for Arnold to agree!
I suspect a few right wingers will reply with their vicious attacks shortly..cant wait!

I can already hear the exploding heads from the rightwing lunitic fringe i.e. Rush, Fixed News Channel, Ann Coultergeist etc.

If gay people want to marry who cares? If more people were like McCain and Arnold and took common sense aproaches to issues instead of using every issue for political gains this country would be much better off. Its idiots like George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tedd Kennedy, and Hastert that have gotten us to the point where 90% of people dislike ALL politicians. Only McCain has shown the courage to stand up for what he feels is right and not just toe the party line like every other politician does.

Um Vinny, how do you even equate Kennedy and Pelosi to the right wingnuts?
If you think for one second McManiac is going to publicly agree with this decision prior to the election you are in a dream world. If he does, he will lose his core base! He was once an admarable man but since he has gotten the republican nomination all he has proven over and over again is that he will pander to any group within the republican party to win this election.

This is fantastic news!! Now maybe the country will begin to understand that marriage is a basic civil right. Being from Massachusetts this is a great anniversary gift for our 4th year of the legalization of gay marriage on May 17th. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue:) www.OUTTAKEonline.com

The best thing about this is that John E will most likely move to California resulting in a noticable rise in Illinois' average IQ.

Only McCain has shown the courage to stand up for what he feels is right and not just toe the party line like every other politician does.

Posted by: Vinny | May 15, 2008 2:58 PM

Really? I don't think so....

AP-WASHINGTON ? Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the "Straight Talk Express" who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.

Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him. His most striking turnaround has been on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent. Mr. McCain has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary.
The article points out that McCain has reversed course on several key issues as he has tried to gain the support of the Republican base. To summarize the article:
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/us/politics/03mccain.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1210878612-F8MA+Ux/6zsMjrYqgukalw

On tax cuts...

In 2001, McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts, saying "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." He also voted against additional tax cuts in 2003, later saying that "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do."
Today, McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent.

On immigration...

In 2005, McCain supported comprehensive immigration reform, which included a pathway to citizenship.
Now, he claims that "if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."

On abortion and Roe v. Wade...

In 1999, McCain said that he would not support overturning Roe v. Wafe "int he sort term, or even the long term," because that would "force X number of women in America" to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."
Today, McCain has campaigned on overturning Roe v. Wade.

On his revisionist history regarding Donald Rumsfeld...

In 2004, McCain refused to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, saying that Bush "can have the team around him that he wants around him." In 2006, retired generals called for Rumseld's resignation, but McCain did not.
Now, while running for president, McCain has claimed that "I?m the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go." The article notes that "[t]he campaign has since acknowledged that Mr. McCain was incorrect, and more recently the senator has stopped short of claiming he called for the defense secretary?s ouster."

On torture...

McCain has traditionally been against torture, citing his experience as a POW for his decision.
Now, McCain voted last month "against a bill that would require the Central Intelligence Agency to abide by the restrictions on interrogating prisoners outlined in the Army Field Manual."

In his decades in office, McCain has an average party unity score in the low 80s. Since he has campaigned for president, his party unity score has skyrocketed (link, link).

2005: 81%
2006: 76%
2007: 90%

Mr Maverick/Straight-Talker (McCain) is not a Maverick or a Straight-Talker.

Republicans are all for states rights unless the states allow gay marriage or other things they don't agree with. Such flip-flopping principles.

America is finally starting to live up to its billing: The greatest Democracy, the world has ever seen !! Now, let's further the cause for democracy and elect Senator Barack Obama, the next President of the United States !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Further proof of the decline of civilization.

As someone who is representative of the independant vote I applaud California and this is the kind of common sense non-partisan governing we independants can expect from a McCain presidency. People like Scot Blakely above just do not get it. Neither party has a lock on the hyper partisan crowds within it. People like me dislike the far right but we are also smart enough to know that those on the Moveon.org wing of the Democratic party are just as big of idiots as the Neocons if not even more. that what McCains understands and makes this former Marine even prouder of the greatest country in the world. I also would not mind if Hillary ran as a 3rd party candidate. That would make my decision between McCain and her really hard.

Oh ya here we go.. The gays are destroying mankind and the institution of marriage.. as if the 51% divorce rate has nothing to do with it right Rey? keep it coming facists I'm ready for ya!

Hmmm, if the people of California voted against gay marriage (as well as the people of Massachusetts) and the courts in both of those states overrode the wishes of the people, how is that a victory for democracy?

Frankly, as a so-called "right wingnut," I really could care less if two guys or two women want to marry. Personally, I believe marraige should be a man and a woman, and civil unions can be left for same-sex marriage. But I do think it is wrong for these courts to overrule the votes of the state legislatures as well as the votes of the people.

Rey, whoever is declining, I hope they take you with..

Good for California. I could give a RATS whether two men are married or not. Me, I'm a little busy being worried about the future my children will face with record deficits, social security bankrupt, global warming (even Bush agrees, yikes!) etc etc etc.

You boneheads worrying about what two men or women are doing together drive me to drink. Live and let live, and let he who is without sin cast their first 'religious right' stone.

Amen!

Neither the terrorist nor the falling dollar will bring America down, but I'm not sure about this one...
And probably one should stop following the crowd, stop believing that the majority ( 4 to 3, that's some "majority"...) is always right. Think about all that attitude brought to humankind...

Hooray for California!! Thanks for all those who fought for us.
Hillary, John and Barack, however, are ALL against gay marriage Don't vote for any of them!!
Unfortunately, as a lesbian member of a bi-national couple, we won't be able to return to the States and live there, although my partner owns part of our house.
Here we get residency. Too bad for all those we had to leave behind.
But anyway, congrats to California.

This was a 4-3 decision - which means the legal logic employed to legislate from the bench is far from rock tight. It looks like the California legislature will have to teach these four pandering jurists that there are certain issues where the will of the MAJORITY trumps the desires of a minority to shove acceptance of their lifestyle down everyone else's throats..

hey Vinny the problem with you is the fact that I DO GET IT. if you truly believe Mccain will be the person you say he is, all the power to you but wasn't that the same BS you indipendant guys fell for with Bush and his message of uniting the country?? Hmmm, seems he has done a pretty bad job at that. Good luck man!

Ok Wolfgang, so if the majority of the people believe abortion is a womans right to chose and your ever increasing right wingnut supreme court decides to over turn Roe vs Wade, I'm curious, will you still have the same dumb nut opinion??
As for gay people shoving their lifestyle down your throat... I suppose yo ubelieve the African Americans were shoving their rights down your throat as well back in the 60's?....
can yo uspell BIGOT?

Back before Loving vs Virginia, the majority thought inter-racial marriage was immoral also. Sometimes the courts rule ahead of changing public opinion.

Arnold Schwartzaneger is loony to be for gay marriage. He ran as a conservative replacement for Gray Davis now he's a liberal on steroids.
I surely hope the people of California will again overturn this illegal court ruling. It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve and everybody even the stupid liberals know it.
This ruling goes against natural law and the 10 commandments. Of course I'm not surprised by anything out of California where Queen Bee Nancy Pelosi and loud mouth Barbara Boxer come from. Jerry White, Springfield, IL P.S. Homosexuals can't have children our human race would be doomed!

McCains understands and makes this former Marine even prouder of the greatest country in the world. I also would not mind if Hillary ran as a 3rd party candidate. That would make my decision between McCain and her really hard.

Posted by: Vinny | May 15, 2008 3:58 PM

This kind of delusion from the Republic Party members on here (Vinny) is the same kind of delusion that we heard from W and Cheney in 2000...

Hey John D The majority of the people voted for Al Gore as well and the Supreme Court overruled the voice of the people so... whats your point?

Today is the day where all cali resident should feel prove that a law system support equal rights. The right to love and marriage should be universal for all.

California, the rest of the world is laughing at you - I recall having dinner with a Diplomat from India when this was in the news the last time - He thought it was the strangest and most foolish thing for a court to be dealing with; He honestly, thought it was a joke - very humiliating that courts are spending time on this when it has been voted on by the people.

I guess "by the people and for the people" has gone out the window - when judges rule from the bench.

There is such hypocrisy, when Leftists argue that the US has been isolated from the rest of the world under the recent administration by the go-it-alone mentality of the republicans; yet California (the nest-bed of leftists) isolates themselves repeatedly by legislation (e.g. gay marriage) and demands the rest of the nation follow their lead.

Today is the day where all cali residents should feel proud that their law system support equal rights. The right to love and marriage should be universal for all. Laws that were set hundreds of years ago should not govern today's society because we're more open now. Let's look at the future and not back track to the past. Be like other nations such as Canada, sweden and England where gay people can marry under the law.

Good, it's only what's right and fair. We've had it several years in Canada - at the national level - and it has hurt no one and made a number happy.

Half a dozen European countries allow this.

I guess the real question is why the United States is so slow in accepting advances for human rights?

At the same time, you busy yourselves telling others how they should order their affairs all over the world.

Now is the time to test the court on polygamy. The voters can be by-passed for the greater good. What do they know anyway?

in all honesty, this is a democracy and while i do believe that gay marriage should be allowed nation wide i look at thwat has just happend and have to shake my head.

Just because the court ruled that it should be allowed, does not make it right if the people voted against it.
we are not a nation that should be ruled by a strong central government and what the people vote for, should actually be what happens.
no wonder people don't vote, and of course they will feel like their vote doesnt matter

whatnow,
How has polygamy affected you and your relationships?

Hey Crazy, call me crazy but the supreme coourt overrules the will of the people all the time. This is why we have courts to determine the constitution to represent all the people. The majority of the people in Germany voted for Hitler too, are you saying they were right?
Not to mention we still rely on an electorite college to determine our President, seems to me this process does not represent the popular vote. Can you say Al Gore?

" I really could care less if two guys or two women want to marry. Personally, I believe marraige should be a man and a woman, and civil unions can be left for same-sex marriage. But I do think it is wrong for these courts to overrule the votes of the state legislatures as well as the votes of the people."

Posted by: John D | May 15, 2008 4:02 PM

I couldn't agree with you more. It's not a democracy when a small number of judges trump both the Legislature and the voters of California, inasmuch as 60% of California voters specifically approved a ballot proposition to prohibit gay marriage.

Of course, in another sense, this was hardly unpredictable. I can think of a number of times where Californians had to resort to the initiative process to amend their state constitution to undo the workings of the California Supreme Court.

There is no doubt that such an initiative will come next. Even The Governator said he would back such a proposition.

The legalization of gay marraige was passed twice in the (elected) legislative bodies of California, and twice it was vetoed. This isn't against the will of the people, it's with it. Also, it's not the judge's job to say if a law is popular or not, it's their job to say if it's constitutional or not. Thus, Democracy ruled today.

Further proof of the decline of civilization.

Now you know how I felt when GW Bush was elected president, again.

But at least with this, there's some light at the end of the tunnel. I was a proud MA resident, and now I am a proud CA resident. I just hope other states follow suite because marriage is a basic civil right.

thats totaly awesome, im gay im not in love with anyone at the time and dont think i will marry anytime soon because im 18 and i know its not the right decision at the time, but im really happy for all of those people that have been waiting for so much time, and fighting for what they believe in. I love california

At the same time, you busy yourselves telling others how they should order their affairs all over the world.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | May 15, 2008 4:57 PM

Kinda like Canada and it's own human right's record. The one that according to the UN moves glacially slow when it comes to those Aboriginals, 98 to 2006.

http://mostlywater.org/node/5785

But, they will be the first to talk about America and it's treatment of minorities.

* * * * *
Posted by: Meccoa | May 15, 2008 5:22 PM

I don't accuse people of lying very often, but I will do so now. The claim that the People were for this result is belied by the passage of Proposition 22 back in 2000. That proposition, approved by more than 61% of the voters, declared that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California." Thus, Meccoa, I must conclude that your are either intentionally lying, or your misrepresentations are so reckless that carry the moral equivalent of a lie.

Scot S. blakeley said: "Ok Wolfgang, so if the majority of the people believe abortion is a womans right to chose and your ever increasing right wingnut supreme court decides to over turn Roe vs Wade, I'm curious, will you still have the same dumb nut opinion??
As for gay people shoving their lifestyle down your throat... I suppose yo ubelieve the African Americans were shoving their rights down your throat as well back in the 60's?....
can yo uspell BIGOT?"

Nice try - but your "on your shirtsleeve" liberalism is showing. First, one doesn't have to be a "rightwing wingnut" or a "bigot" to hold that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, period. That is how every society in six thousand years of human history, regardless of the form of government, has defined it. There is no compelling reason to change it simply because a very vocal minority "wants" it. And to equate the civl-rights struggle of African-Americans with the current Gay rights controversy is insulting and intellectually disingenuous. There is no civil right to a lifestyle. And by the way, this right-of-center type does NOT want Roe v. Wade repealed, even though as law it has a lot of holes.

Nothing in the Ten Commmandments mentions anything about it being a sin to be gay.
I also don't believe even the most right-winged lunatic judge would listen to a "it's in the Ten Commandments" argumnent, unless they're looking to be disbarred.
But go ahead all you commuservatives. Believe that you'll be able to one day legally declare gays insane, lock them-up, force deprogramming them to become straight, etc. I believe there are some white supremists looking for your support.

Ok Wolfgang being such a bone headed straight person that you are, let me ask you this. Did you decide in 5th grade to be a straight man or was it natural to you? Do you really think that gay men and woman chose to be chastised, beaten, maimed, killed and have less equal rights than their straight counterparts? Give me a break. Whether you wingnuts want to believe it or not we were born this way, just ask my mother who knew since I was two that I was different than the other boys!
Science is closer than ever to proving its in our DNA so go back to your bible and sell your oldest daughter to your neighbor and stay out of my bedroom and allow me the dignity of the equal right to chose whether I want to get married or not!
I might also add that marriage used to be allowed between gay people way before religion and the governments took hold of it, read your history books not your fairy tales in the bible!
It is a common consensus that people who are so against gay marriage are actually closeted gays stuck in a straight world topo afraid to come out! I dont care what you do in your life why does it bother you so much? What is the real motivation behind your bigoted hatred towards gays having equal rights??

Once again the left and their judicial activist buddies show their contempt for democracy, by striking down a law passed overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

Time was, long ago, the left at least paid lip service to heeding the voice of the people.

Nowadays judicial activists and their leftist applauders show their contempt for democracy.

Again I ask you Bruce, were the Supreme Court justices showing contempt as well when they overturned the will of the people in the 2000 presidential election?

The majority of these judges were appointed by republicans and are republicans. Finally for the first time in 8 years they did something right!

O NOOOO!..This is TERRIBLE...

The best argument against the court's ruling is that media proponents of the ruling don't dare give the "other side" equal time, or indeed ANY time.

The above article quotes the ruling itself and three supporters of the ruling, but not one opponent of the ruling. Which is especially curious since the 4-3 ruling overturned a law the voters of California overwhelmingly passed. The MSM knows the ruling is so anti-democratic and illogical that their side would lose any debate, so they make sure that only one side is heard.

Giving only one side--the hallmark of propaganda, not journalism.

Scot, sweetie, in the U.S., we have something called the Electoral College. Gore lost that and hence the election. Comprehend??

My Partner and I have 38 years together and to think that we may actually be able to become married is a gift that I never thought I would see in my life time.
He called me at work today and asked me to marry him - and I said I would. After 38 years - we are as excited as teenagers. I can only hope that this dream really comes true.

haha ok.
think about the basics of democracy, though yes we are a republic/ senate.
we vote for the people to rule the courts in order to represent the people, however sometimes it is CORRUPT. anyone who thinks that the government, especially of this country, is perfectly fair to the people, and "express" what the people want is naive. don't let the bubble you live in suffocate your eyesight. I think for the majority of people they do want gay marriage, but a lot of them are closet supporters, and conservative (sorry but your guys' time is coming to an end) are the only ones going out and being shrewd voters. It is time for people to stand up for what they believe, because if the youth of the 60's saw how high gas prices are today, they'd turn in their tye dye t-shirts.

let all the gays marry in ca. with the tetonic plates shifting underneath the earth, maybe everything will work out and the gay and lesbian lovers will be bobbing up and down in frigid san francisco bay along with their rainbow flag

Posted by: John D | May 15, 2008 4:02 PM

Posted by: John W. | May 15, 2008 5:20 PM

Matters of civil rights, where only individuals or select groups are affected, cannot be left to public opinion. That deck is always unjustly stacked against them.

This is not a bridge, or a building or a "children's museum" we are talking about. This is about individual civil rights. No different than Brown vs. BOE. Or would you rather have had the Kansas voters continue to deny those rights, too?

Proposition 22 back in 2000. That proposition, approved by more than 61% of the voters, declared that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California."

Posted by: John W. | May 15, 2008 6:15 PM

And they are probably some of the same people in the 50's-60's that thought "only marriage between white christian men and white christian women" were valid. Civil rights comes very slowly, but eventually, justice wins out.

How many states would the marriage of Tiger Woods and Ellen Nodgeren been "invalid" in back then? I don't see any difference betwen that struggle and what gays and lesbians are trying to achievw now.

Even Martin Luther King, Jr., I believe, would be in favor of allowing same sex couples to be married. One of his closest freinds and confidants was openly gay.

From Wikipedia: Bayard Rustin (March 17, 1912 – August 24, 1987) was an American civil rights activist, important largely behind the scenes in the civil rights movement of the 1960s and earlier, and principal organizer of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. He counseled Martin Luther King, Jr. on the techniques of nonviolent resistance. Rustin was openly gay [1] and advocated on behalf of gay and lesbian causes in the latter part of his career.

A year before his death in 1987, Rustin said: "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."

JOh Dear, the electorate College was created 200 years ago for reasons that are moot today. The majority of Americans don't agree with this process. There were other districts that were in question during the 2000 election and the right wing majority of the supreme court ruled to end the disput while the majority of Americans disagreed with their decision. Like the electorate college, your arguments are moot as well. Give it up. your bigotry doesnt stand anymore and neither does your republican party!

Since the DNC Swamp only prints one side of the debate, it's up to readers like me to present the other. From Justice Baxter's dissenting opinion:

"Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage —an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority....

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will....

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides.

History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.

Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.

The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice."

By the way, Chuckman, I think before you cast disgust at the U.S., take a look at your own house first like the brutal beating Canadians give to defenseless, baby seals every year. Is there anything more gruesome and disgusting as seeing a bunch of Canucks beat the crap out of defenseless babies???

Hey Bruce, once again you put your foot in your mouth.. perhaps you are expecting something else?
For centuries divorce was considered illegal and a sin..however this is no longer the case..interracial marriages were illegal as well. Funny you dont mind these types of changes but when it comes to peoples equal right to marry you disagree. Again I ask, what is the reasoning behind your bigorty?

Scot, sweetie, the Electoral College is not moot. It's also part of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College was created so that smaller states could still have a say in the running of the country, same principle as the Senate. That is why every state, no matter it's size, has two senators.
The majority of American people disagree with the Electoral College? The majority of Americans disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2000?
Also, Scot, sweetie, as has been noted over and over, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recounting of the recounting of the recounting in part because different standards were being employed in different counties. The decisions made by the Florida Supreme Court were overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 7-2 because the Florida Supreme Court's decisions were not based on law, hence unconstitutional.

Scot S. Blakeley - your emotionalism is showing. gee, do we have to be afraid you'll throw a hissy fit.

Your Gay rights argument centers on so-called economic rights and how to deal with assets and treatment of your partner. OK, emotional one, if you're so demanding of equality - practice it. Do what we heteros have done for decades - you go to an estate planning lawyer, get a regular will, establish living wills, establish recirpocal rights of guardianship, put your property in joint tenancy or a land trust - in short, an estate plan. eliminates every problem you Gays claim you encounter. But nooo, what you REALLY want is validation of your lifestyle - and the ability to shove it down everyone else's throat. Get a life - lifestyle isn't a civil right. And for the record, this 59-year old fudd's 29 year-old girl friend thinks your postings display an excess amount of adolescent immaturity.

David J:

You are way off in left field in suggesting the phenomenon we are witnessing has any analogy in the Civil Rights movement of the '60s, or that the result in "In re Marriage Cases" yesterday has any analogy to Brown v. Board of Education.

There is one major difference which does not come immediately to mind to those who have no appreciation for the legal history of this country. That difference consist of the fact that Congress approved, and the States ratified, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution approximately 85 years before Brown v. Board of Education. The American People, through their federal and state representatives, enacted and ratified these provisions for the explicit purpose of eradicating slavery and raising former slaves to a station of equality in civil society. Thus, there were explicit, discreet and democratic events by which the majority of the American People voted to give full civil rights to black people. Prior to that time, as we know from the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Constitution provided black people with no protection whatsoever. Then, two cases came along which largely inhibited the operation of these new constitutional provisions.

The first case, or first set of cases, known collectively as the Slaughterhouse Cases, emasculated the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. The explicit purpose of that provision was to enforce against the States the limitations on the federal government found in the Bill of Rights. That fact can be gleaned from the congressional records of the time. As a result of the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Courts have had to struggle, both linguistically and conceptually, to provide some parity of constitutional protection to citizens against State action. Now, for instance, we have the equivalent of First Amendment rights against State action because the Court's have "selectively incorporated" those rights into the Fourteenth Amendment by virtue of the oxymoronic concept of "Substantive Due Process." (I say oxymoronic because "due process" had traditionally referred only to procedural fairness, and not to substantive civil, human or political rights. This mess would never have occurred had the Court not screwed it all up in the Slaughterhouse Cases.)

The second of the two cases was, of course, the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld the notion of "separate but equal" and, thus, pronounced the federal government's benediction on the Jim Crow south. Plessy was, of course, wrongly decided for a number of reasons. First, prior to Plessy, the U.S. Supreme Court had already declared that state laws motivated by an animus against minorities, or motivated by an intent to disadvantage minorities, as well as the discriminatory application of neutral laws with the intent to disadvantage minorities, all violated the Fourteenth Amendments prohibition against denying "the equal protection of the laws." Thus, the obvious fact the railroad regulations under consideration in Plessy were motivated by an animus against black people, and operated to treat black people as second class citizens, should have ended the matter. In the second place, the concept of "separate but equal" was not only a legal fiction it was also a factual fiction that everyone could see. There never was any "equal" treatment in any of the "separate" accommodations that southern (or other) States provided to black people.

It is only by operation of these two wrongly decided cases that the full effect of the Fourteenth Amendment wasn't felt any sooner in this Country. Hence, to anyone with a bird's eye view of the problem, Brown v. Board of Education was a no-brainer. Had Plessy been decided correctly in accordance with existing judicial precedent, Brown and its companion cases would have been entirely unnecessary. It should come as no surprise then, that the Court in Brown actually relied on those earlier cases decided before Plessy to determine that separate but equal was not a valid application of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, all other applications of the Fourteenth Amendment striking down racially discriminatory laws from Brown, to Loving v. Virginia, to Shelley v. Kraemer, and so on, were fully in accordance with the letter and intent of the democratically prescribed constitutional provisions enacted and ratified by Americans in the mid 19th Century.

In stark contrast, no similar, democratically enacted constitutional provision has ever been enacted to protect the rights of homosexuals. To the contrary, sexual behavior favored by gays and lesbians was a crime throughout the history of the United States. Even in forward-looking California, anything other than heterosexual sex, even between consenting adults, was considered a crime until 1975. (See People v. Rossi, 18 Cal.3d 295 (1976).) To this day, 39 out of the 50 have laws or provisions in their State Constitutions which explicitly prohibit same sex marriages. Only two states, Massachusetts and California, now permit same sex marriage by virtue of novel interpretations of their own State Constitutions. It is, therefore, no surprise that in 1986, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy laws against a Due Process challenge. No one, according to the Court, had a due process right to practice homosexual sex. That very premise was never challenged or overruled when the Court later declared, in Lawrence v. Texas that State laws which criminalize sodomy were unconstitutional because they infringed on the rights of personal autonomy of any and all consenting adults. Not only was the case not specific to homosexual relationships, the Court explicitly stated that it wasn't paving the way to give same sex marriages any constitutional footing.

The latter is significant because, in the absence of the application of some democratically enacted amendment to the Constitution, one must normally look to the history and traditions of a nation to divine whether there are any rights or privileges guaranteed by the Constitution. Or, as stated by the United States Supreme Court in Washington v. Glucksberg, "Fundamental rights entitled to the Constitution's protection are those 'which are, objectively, 'deeply rooted in this [society's] history and tradition,' . . . and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' such that 'neither liberty nor justice could exist if they were sacrificed . . . " Not only is there no tradition of affording same sex couples the right to marry, the history of toleration toward homosexual sexual behavior is very recent. The law of California, I might add, has never been much different.

Needless to say, the decision the California Supreme Court handed down yesterday was made from whole cloth. In none of its approximately 156 years of existence had California afforded constitutional protection to any homosexual behavior, much less to the right of same sex couples to marry. This fact was never disputed by any member of the court. Indeed even the majority conceded that the State Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was an institution consisting of partners of the opposite sex. Had any of this been different, those penal laws prohibiting same-sex sex would have been found unconstitutional, on State constitutional grounds, eons ago. Instead, the Court looked toward the trend of laws passed by the Legislature (a body incapable of amending the Constitution), and, discarding the obvious distinction between legislative and constitutional provisions, determined that the will of Californians was to afford same sex marriage some protection. This is a first. No court has ever previously employed such perverse and flimsy reasoning to come to such an obviously wrong decision. Employing the Court's logic, there is hardly a proposition of law that could not be justified by judicial fiat. Even the dissent in the case went as far as calling the majority's reasoning "legal jujitsu." Moreover, the concept of constitutionalizing legislation - which the court approved - is going to be the albatros that hangs about its neck for years. The California Legislature now knows that, for the first time in its history, it can indirectly amend the California Constitution by passing a pattern of laws, even though it is prohibited from amending the Constitution directly.

But, if you can gloss right over all of the foregoing, and insist that the rights of gays to marry is just as valid as the rights fought for in the civil rights movement, there's nothing I can do to stop you. Then again, if that's the case, then history and logic won't stop you either.

[This one didn't make it past the censors yesterday, so I thought I would edit and re-submit it.]

* * * * *

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 15, 2008 6:41 PM

Scott:

1 You say, "[s]cience is closer than ever to proving its in our DNA . . ." This little statement is pregnant, uh (oops, wrong metaphor), . . . full of the admission that science hasn't proven it yet. Trying to rationalize behavior based on what science hasn't yet proven is irrational. It�s like a man accused of murder claiming self defense because his sleeping victim was about to stand up and launch into a deadly attack against him.

2. You also claim, "marriage used to be allowed between gay people way before religion and the governments took hold of it . . ." I�ve read a lot of history books and have yet to see one that supports this claim. Care to tell me which history book demonstrates that gay marriage was allowed in the before-time long ago? I find that an especially intriguing claim, given that homosexuality, as a phenomenon based on Same Sex Attraction, is of recent historical vintage.

3. Finally, you claim, "It is a common consensus that people who are so against gay marriage are actually closeted gays stuck in a straight world topo afraid to come out! (sic)" Really, Scott, I don�t know whether to laugh or puke. I know a lot of people who are tolerant of homosexuality, who still don�t see the point of granting the right to marry to gays. And they aren�t in the closet, and they don�t live their lives constantly obsessed with body functions. What I find most ironic is that you would actually accuse them of homosexuality as a means of demonstrating they have some personal defect. You are a very confused person.

Is this one going to get censored too?

*****
Posted by: John D | May 16, 2008 11:18 AM

The legal principle underlying the case was that there was a denial of Equal Protection caused by the disparate treatment of votes throughout in the counties of Florida - as you mentioned. The absence of a uniform standard by which all votes would be treated equally meant that some votes would count, while others wouldn't, because no uniform criteria were used to judge all ballots. That one was a no brainer.

In truth, although 7 of the U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed that the vote-recount procedures violated the "one-man-one-vote" rule laid down in earlier voting rights cases, two of those were unwilling to apply the obvious constitutional remedy. Thus, two justices dissented (Breyer and, I believe, Souter) while agreeing the voting procedure was unconstitutional. They simply decided it was better not to intervene at all for their own reasons. Hence, the actual vote was 5 to 4.

I'm soooo tired of the prejudice against republincans. Just because you're a republican, doesn't mean you are against gay marriage and I hate how they've labeled republicans as "the evil party." I find it funny how the people doing this are the peace loving democrats (who at "peace" rallies vandalize buildings, cars, etc) ... hypocrites. This is why I'm independent. I hate the party system.

Anyway, back on subject... YAY!! finally!! That's pretty much all I have to say haha.

as a lesbian, why shouldnt I have the same rights as a straight person. I pay the same taxes, I serve my community. I take my position in society seriously. I never got to vote if heterosexuals could marry, why should the common people have a right to say who I can love and marry. Its hog wash. Someone tell me how my marriage to a woman threatens your marriage? your world? How? Why are people so obsessed with this issue. All I can say is people get a life, stop sticking you nose into others business. Equal rights should be for all. It is Justice for all!!! How would all you straight people out there like it if we told you you couldnt marry the person you loved, or you couldnt drive a car cause you were straight, or you couldnt have children because it had to be voted on by the people first, ridiculous? Not to us. Again, get a real life, and leave ours alone, if you are truely threatened by this, maybe you should look deep inside to see why???? hmmmm, I doth think you protest to much!!!!

Would it ultimately be in the best interests of gays to vote for Prop. 22? Don't get me wrong, it discriminates. But, I think the result of its passage could change marriage laws throughout the United States.

Would I be correct in assuming that if California voters passed a referendum defining a drivers license as only valid for white men that drivers license issuance and recognition would discriminate? Wouldn't this make all drivers licenses invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution?

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that issuing marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples is discriminatory, then it seems to me that if Prop. 22 passed, the State would be required to stop issuing and stop recognizing all marriage licenses. Taking it a step further, would the State be required to invalidate all marriage licenses that have been issued by the State of California? The State could probably convert them to domestic partnerships to comply with the Equal Protection Clause.

If all marriages were invalidated in the State of California, where would that put us at the Federal level? Government employees who were married in California would no long have benefits for their spouses. Pensions for married survivors would be invalidated. Opposite-sex couples would no longer be able to file their tax returns jointly. Any inheritance benefits would be eliminated.

I think Prop. 22 could develop into a good cause and send Republicans into a tailspin. Is my logic flawed?