At least there is something more to talk about then sexual harassment by powerful politicians and young staffers. That’s so 1997.
Calif. Appeals Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban – CBS5.com (San Fran) (h/t – StopTheACLU)
A state appeals court upheld California’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, dealing a critical defeat to a movement hungry for a win after high courts in two other states, New York and Washington, upheld similar bans.
In reversing the March 2005 ruling of a San Francisco trial judge, the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with the state’s attorney general, who argued it is up to the Legislature, not the courts, to change the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
“We conclude California’s historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class,” the court said in a 2-1 decision. “The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.”
Well, well, well. Isn’t this what we’ve been saying here for a longgggg time?
*looking around* I don’t see any lawyers, just common-sense, logical folks ’round here!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from GPW): I may have more to say on this later. I think this is good news. Opponents of gay marriage failed to muster enough signatures to get a gay marriage-ban on the fall ballot. Had the courts imposed gay marriage here, it might have given them the impetus they needed not only to get the ban on the ballot, but to get it passed as well. What this means is that there’s going to be no backlash in the Golden State.
Now it’s time to win the hearts and minds of the citizens of California, by making the case for gay marriage to them, rather than to a handful of judges.
There is another gay marriage ruling coming any day now. New Jersey’s Supreme Court heard argument many months ago on a case filed by several gay couples who tried to obtain marriage licenses. The State, then run by Governor McGreevey, fought the lawsuit and won at the trial level and in the intermediate appellate level. (It should be noted that McGreevey even went so far as to order the Attorney General to fight the lawsuit).
The Court’s current Chief Justice, Deborah Poritz, known as the author of the James Dale/Boy Scounts case, reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70 at the end of October. The gay marriage opinion is rumored to be her swan song. Most people think that the court will allow gay marriage immediately and unconditionally and totally bypass the legislature.
There is one thing that bothers me in all this. Let’s say that gay marriage is one day adopted by the legislatures. Does this mean that at a later date it can be revoked depending upon the whim of the party in charge? I mean after all, these courts are all saying that same-sex marriage isn’t a right but something for the legislature to decide.
If/when the idea of gay marriage is acceptable enough that it can be passed by legislatures the chances of that changing back again is pretty slim. Sort of by definition, public opinion will have changed to support gay marriage.
Are laws about inter-racial marriages going to revert? I can’t even imagine it.
Rulings in court, and the prospect of rulings in court, are what have opponents of gay marriage pushing for laws to keep the courts in line, even constitutional ammendments. I think that gay people should be able to get married, but the idea of court mandated gay marriage bothers me rather a lot because it adds to other things that the court has done that people view as “activist”.
Practical concerns make me think that focusing on marriage as a “right” isn’t the best thing to do. I can think of too many people who have no right whatsoever to get married. There are too many counter-examples. And focusing on the “right” means that persuasive arguments aren’t made. Same with focusing on courts. The persuasive arguments aren’t made.
Using the legislative proccess is slower, but in the end I think it nets a more secure law than judicial fiat.
John-I think there are two things to think about-it wasn’t really until Massachussette’s and Gavin Newsome that the whole “marriage amendment” movement began. I think people, got worried that they would have gay marriage imposed on them, so they decided to innoculate their state against such decisions. In the end I think the Massachussette’s court decision backfired on the gay marriage movement.
As for your fears of it being legislatively revoked-maybe, but then the congress could seek to revoke the 14th amendment if they chose, but do you really think they will choose?
Basically, I think if gays make the case in the legislature, and win that route, then they already have the majority of the voters behind them anyway, so it is unlikely to later revoked.
You have someone (me) who agrees that the legislative process would yield more long-lasting results in gaining the right to marry; though ideally, one shouldn’t have to convince one to do the right thing.
There may be no fundamental right to marry. However, it occured to me on the treadmill this morning that by preventing a group of people who have formed relationships very much like marriage from marrying, doesn’t that actually create a suspect class the judiciary says does not exist?
Also, I understand that the passage of marriage amendments have been a knee-jerk reaction to the previous ruling in Mass. and Gavin Newsome’s actions (although I applaud anyone in politics who is brave enough to outspokenly stand up for our community). I also understand that supporters of our community must engage in civil discourse with traditional oppenents in order to win them over. My question is how can we do that when there are so many opponents who ignore us except when we ask to be treated with equality with regards to our relationships and families?
It’s a two-way street. I’ll definitely do my part, and ask the other side, regardless of political affiliation (there are plenty of fellow Democrats who oppose gay marriage), to be open to do the same.
“Does this mean that at a later date it can be revoked depending upon the whim of the party in charge?”
Isn’t it interesting that to liberals, the popular vote is “democracy” when they approve of it, and “a whim” when they don’t?
Of course, this is exactly what it means, just as legislatures may, for example, rule that you can marry your first cousin or vice versa.
Your point?