California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[Deacon]

The fleecing of the American voter, Greg. The American voter.

From Kansas.

[collegestudent22]

Har har, Martin. Very funny....

Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed that Prop 8 passed in California. Oh, well. Guess the issue goes to the federal courts.

[Martin Blank]

Nope. It goes to the state courts. There's nothing there for the feds to touch on, and the chances of getting anywhere in the federal courts is just about zero. Even if they did, those supporting gay marriage don't want to risk a US constitutional amendment on the topic.

Several arguments have been filed in state courts, suggesting that the provision violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. The argument is that an amendment is invalid if it directly conflicts with another portion of the constitution. I'm not sure that I buy it. Interpretation may get tricky, and certain rights may be deemed in some cases to hold the balance of power, but I don't know that an amendment can be found unconstitutional. However, state constitutions can get tricky, and there may be portions of California's that cover this.

[ShahinVahdat]

well my thinking is this, and Martin go ahead and jump in here and correct me, but if the original court ruling found exclusions of homosexuals to marry violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution, wouldn't defining marriage in the constitution (by essence excluding homosexuals from marrying) violate the equal protection clause. In that regard, I feel it's a slam dunk. However, as it being part of the constitution rather than a regular law on the books, I can see it getting more tricky.

[Hirschof]

Homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated as one. They don't mean to be gay they were just born that way. They're not bad people, some DNA is just in the [wrong] place. They shouldn't be persecuted. However, marriage's intent was to join a couple together as a covenant with God so they could procreate and raise a family. It's a little hard to procreate between homosexuals. Regardless what Newsweek says about a man having a baby. (More like a woman with a beard, yikes!) Live together, get all the legal rights that straight couples get. Just don't call it married.

_{-User Comment on CNN}

[adciv]

well my thinking is this, and Martin go ahead and jump in here and correct me, but if the original court ruling found exclusions of homosexuals to marry violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution, wouldn't defining marriage in the constitution (by essence excluding homosexuals from marrying) violate the equal protection clause. In that regard, I feel it's a slam dunk. However, as it being part of the constitution rather than a regular law on the books, I can see it getting more tricky.

However, why would it be ruled that the definition of marriage clause violates the equal protection clause? Couldn't it be ruled that the equal protection clause violates the definition of mariage clause? Think about it, isn't part of the purpose of the amendments to change the constitution and in some cases make something that would other wise violate it no longer violate it (or vice versa)?

[ShahinVahdat]

That's true too, however I think in most instances, when it comes to civil rights issues, the court will decide that the equal protection clause trumps amendments that potentially segregate or differentiate between members of a population

[adciv]

Then what point is there to amending the constitution when the courts can just say that it violates another part of it? Or would it be like the prohibition and amendment ending prohibition were worded?

[ShahinVahdat]

that's the reason there's the equal protection clause, to protect the minority from the majority. There are plenty of changes that can be made to the Constitution that don't have to do with civil rights/equal protections for certain groups. You can very well amend the Constitution to take the equal protection clause out, bu that would need legislative approval, as well as a popular vote, which hopefully I can say safely will NEVER happen.

[adciv]

Wait, so it takes a popular majority to amend the constitution, except certain sections also require legislative aproval?

[ShahinVahdat]

That's what I heard. You or someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Arc Orion]

The California Constitution states differently.

[StruckingFuggle]

However, why would it be ruled that the definition of marriage clause violates the equal protection clause? Couldn't it be ruled that the equal protection clause violates the definition of mariage clause? Think about it, isn't part of the purpose of the amendments to change the constitution and in some cases make something that would other wise violate it no longer violate it (or vice versa)?

I think when you have two mutually exclusive bits, you go with the old bit and judge how the new one fits into it, not vice-versa; so to truly work, this fucking shitty amendment and its bastard supporters would need to pass a new one changing the pre-standing equal-protection clause. Though I'm not a constitutional scholar, let alone one of state constitutions in specific or general, but if you've got a conflict, as you do here, that seems the best way to resolve it, and conveniently the best one, too.

Then what point is there to amending the constitution when the courts can just say that it violates another part of it? Or would it be like the prohibition and amendment ending prohibition were worded?

The point is there when you do it right, which is to change what it can do, not introduce contradictory elements. The jackasses are quite doing it wrong.

[ShahinVahdat]

Oh, my bad then. I must have misinterpreted what they said about Article 18, section 2. Sorry

[Calus]

I'm sick of all this. Why just create a new word for marriage that only applies to homosexual couples. The rest of this is a waste of tax payers money