Despite the rhetoric, the law(s) struck down here were not some version of “majoritarian tyranny”, but rather a legislative compromise - a middle ground between two camps hashing out what they can live with. Which is exactly what it should be in a policy space not otherwise pre-empted by some superior law - and the “gay marriage” issue is exactly in that space.
Amazingly, “progressives” - those that swear they are climbing a mountain of knowledge and wisdom and are “ahead” of the rest of us - keep ignoring the very important historical lessons of separation-of-powers, thus ironically taking steps backward in political thought.
The Framers warned of the dangers of doing exactly what the California Supreme Court is doing some 200 years ago - so what do you call someone who ignores wisdom over 200 years old in the name of short-term self-gratification?
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Your right. Asking them to vote on this is equivalent to asking them to vote on an interracial marriage ban a century ago.
HE IS BUTTHURT ABOUT CA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNING A BILL WE VOTED IN, NOT ABOUT WHETHER GAYS CAN GET MARRIED OR NOT. TRY READING A POST BEFORE BEING A JACKASS. SUPER ANGRY CAPSLOCK!!! CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG OP!!! DAMMIT I AM SO ANGRY!!!
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
This will not be a law for very long. Another amendment will be put onto the ballot in November banning same sex marriages. It should pass easily. The majority of Californians do not support same sex marriage. I believe it is something like 70-30% against it.
[/quote]
If the numbers are that overwhelming then the people of california should have no trouble amending their constitution. So while the judicial branch may be opposing the will of the people, the people can still have their way. The system works.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I, for one, have no problems with the tyranny of the majority.
Power to the people![/quote]
What if the tyranny of the majority wished to round up all of the muslims and suspicious people of ME descent in the US, and herd them into camps such as they did in WWII with the Japanese?
Would you support the tyranny of the majority then?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There will be an amendment to the CA Constitution put on the ballot - pretty much inevitable.[/quote]
The proposed amendment to the CA constitution will be voted on in November.
As for this ruling on Gay marriage not being fair, voters or law makers can vote in anything. The Supreme Court has the right to rule on whether it is constitutional. And BTW, just so you know, I believe that the majority of California Supreme Court are Republican nominees.
As for me, I am happy that this passed. It seems undemocratic that a certain sector of society would not have the right to get married, if that’s what they want.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gay people have always been allowed to marry. The courts logic is flawed and now they are trying to redefine marriage based on flawed logic. [/quote]
Excuse me, but I must be misunderstanding the above. I have gay friends who were married here in San Francisco when Mayor Gavin Newsome opended up that possibility. It was subsequently annulled due to the legal changes. Where, besides Mass., have gay people been able to get married?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
lixy wrote:
I, for one, have no problems with the tyranny of the majority.
Power to the people!
What if the tyranny of the majority wished to round up all of the muslims and suspicious people of ME descent in the US, and herd them into camps such as they did in WWII with the Japanese?
Would you support the tyranny of the majority then? [/quote]
If it came up in a referendum, then I’d have no problems with it. Not that I would support discrimination, but the will of the majority is supreme in my eyes.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gay people have always been allowed to marry. The courts logic is flawed and now they are trying to redefine marriage based on flawed logic.
Excuse me, but I must be misunderstanding the above. I have gay friends who were married here in San Francisco when Mayor Gavin Newsome opended up that possibility. It was subsequently annulled due to the legal changes. Where, besides Mass., have gay people been able to get married?
[/quote]
What are your friends take on Bruce Bawer’s thesis?
[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
lixy wrote:
I, for one, have no problems with the tyranny of the majority.
Power to the people!
What if the tyranny of the majority wished to round up all of the muslims and suspicious people of ME descent in the US, and herd them into camps such as they did in WWII with the Japanese?
Would you support the tyranny of the majority then?
If it came up in a referendum, then I’d have no problems with it. Not that I would support discrimination, but the will of the majority is supreme in my eyes.[/quote]
Great. That’s not how our country is set up. We have a bill of rights to ensure protection of even the smallest minority: the individual.
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gay people have always been allowed to marry. The courts logic is flawed and now they are trying to redefine marriage based on flawed logic.
entheogens wrote:
Excuse me, but I must be misunderstanding the above. I have gay friends who were married here in San Francisco when Mayor Gavin Newsome opended up that possibility. It was subsequently annulled due to the legal changes. Where, besides Mass., have gay people been able to get married?
The ceremony of marriage isn’t regulated by the government - just the legal status, and the name “marriage”, which is what this case came down to.[/quote]
I think, in reality, it boils down to the money. I could’ve cared less whether or not the government knew I was married if it didn’t have tax and benefit implications. Otherwise, Zap is right - you can just go find some Episcopal or Methodist priest anywhere who’ll do the ceremony.
Although I understand the point you fellas are trying to make, I believe that the court made a good decision.
Discrimination against a segment of the population is still discrimination, regardless of whether the people like it or not.
If 75% of Cali voted to take the right of blacks to vote away, would you agree that the judges would be wrong to overturn that? Even if it’s the “Will of the people”?
To me, you can’t fucking vote on whether something is discrimination or not- it either is or it isn’t. This clearly is.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gay people have always been allowed to marry. The courts logic is flawed and now they are trying to redefine marriage based on flawed logic.
Excuse me, but I must be misunderstanding the above. I have gay friends who were married here in San Francisco when Mayor Gavin Newsome opended up that possibility. It was subsequently annulled due to the legal changes. Where, besides Mass., have gay people been able to get married?
[/quote]
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Sexual preference has nothing to do with it. A gay man can marry a woman. The court seeks to redefine marriage, not open it to an oppressed group.
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gay people have always been allowed to marry. The courts logic is flawed and now they are trying to redefine marriage based on flawed logic.
entheogens wrote:
Excuse me, but I must be misunderstanding the above. I have gay friends who were married here in San Francisco when Mayor Gavin Newsome opended up that possibility. It was subsequently annulled due to the legal changes. Where, besides Mass., have gay people been able to get married?
The ceremony of marriage isn’t regulated by the government - just the legal status, and the name “marriage”, which is what this case came down to.[/quote]
Our constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. We live in a Constitutional Republic; the will of the people isn’t supposed to supersede individual rights. It shouldn’t be up to voters. That would be like taking a vote in Georgia the late 1800s whether slavery should be re-instituted and allowing it to continue because the voters wanted it.
Sometimes the minority has to be protected from the tyranny of the majority
[quote]Phate89 wrote:
Our constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. We live in a Constitutional Republic; the will of the people isn’t supposed to supersede individual rights. It shouldn’t be up to voters. That would be like taking a vote in Georgia the late 1800s whether slavery should be re-instituted and allowing it to continue because the voters wanted it.
Sometimes the minority has to be protected from the tyranny of the majority[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Doesn’t seem right does it?[/quote]
It seems perfect. The job of the judiciary is to overturn unconstitutional laws - that’s the whole point.
If you want to get gay marriage banned (why??), you have to change the constitution. Changing the constitution is obviously constitutional. Then no court can strike it down. The threshold for changing the constitution is higher because the constitution and BoR is SUPPOSED to represent a more durable set of fundamental human rights and the proper function of government.