-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
California legalized gay marriage
- Thread starter Misty
- Start date
From the article:Gormenghast said:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
To be honest he's probably like most politicians and doesn't care one way or the other.
meh, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage either way.
uh, the state provides various marriage benefits for a variety of social reasons.
I really thought this was inevitable (though it's interesting I'd read about it first on Smogon, of all places to read about gay marriage!).
Like it or not, gays are getting WAY more acceptance. I think that 50 years from now, people who were against gay marriage will be seen no differently from the people who opposed interracial marriages.
Like it or not, gays are getting WAY more acceptance. I think that 50 years from now, people who were against gay marriage will be seen no differently from the people who opposed interracial marriages.
pssh that goes for anything.. what that matters its finally happening.
Whether or not you agree with that (which I don't), the California Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to do that. They interpreted it as rights of citizens clause in the California Constitution. This was judicial activism to the extreme, and worries me about the power of these unelected officials.
No, I don't get this line of thinking. I don't understand why people say that one day we will look at discrimination against homosexuals as the same against African Americans and such.
Most people's disproval of homosexuality is religion based. No where in the Bible or most religious texts does it say black people are inferior. However the Bible DOES state that marriage is between a man and a woman only and such.
Most people against homosexuality view homosexuality as a CHOICE, and therefore that is the reasoning for being wrong. Being black is NOT a choice.
And I don't see this spreading far outside of typical blue states like California. My state, Texas, will NEVER allow this unless the United States Supreme Court says so, which I also don't see happening.
Um, they clearly do, judging by the fact that it just happened.Darth Meanie said:
That said, there's at least one dissenting judge on the CA Supreme Court who dissented for that very reason (feeling that it oversteps judicial bounds) while agreeing with gay marriage. Could someone with more knowledge of the CA constitution than me (which is zero) please clearly explain the issue here?
I don't want to turn this into an argument, and I'm not really qualified to argue these things, so I will just post one thing and not comment any more on it. Your basic premise ("homosexuality as a CHOICE") differs from mine, and that is why you don't "get this line of thinking." From my outlook,Ness said:
(1) I don't view homosexuality as a choice (seriously, who chooses marginalization, ostracism, gay bashing, and a measurably higher suicide rate)
(2) Even if it were a choice, I don't see how you can automatically make the conclusion "therefore that is the reasoning for being wrong"
That's just my opinion, though. Also, doesn't this: "My state, Texas, will NEVER allow this"... sound like what people said about interracial marriage, emancipation, etc. Never say never! Maybe it'll just take a really long time.
Anything that diminishes the power of our ridiculously shitty national government is OK in my book. I think judges are the least worrisome "unelected" powers when you look at people like lobbyists, etc.
It's more a question of judicial philosophy than law itself. In theory there is no limit to what judges can do as long as they have a majority and a reasonable rationale. The only balance to this is the legislature and executive passing new laws and constitutional amendments, or, in extreme cases, the impeachment of judges (we'll leave out extralegal means, although they've certainly been tried throughout history).
"Judicial bounds" are really just marked by a willingness by judges to deign to some other authority - for instance, "originalists" deign to the original intent of laws, rather than trying to re-interpret them for modern problems. In this case, the judge probably felt that gay marriage should be legal, but that it should be spelled out in an act by the legislature first.
precisely. it's not choice, just like it wasn't choice for me to be attracted to women. if you put a really hot chick in front of me and told me to choose not to be attracted to her, i don't think it'll happen. i could pretend not to be attracted to her but that's it.