California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

[Its right]

And JUSTICE FOR ALL!

[Deeply Saddened]

This is a very un-gay time for our state. Let us weep for all of the destroyed lives that will be added to an already incalculable mass of people affected and harmed by this sad death-style.

[Danny Wilcox]

It is about time and my congratulations go out to my terrific brother, gay friends and gays all over the State of California.

[Lakewoodian]

Too bad Vegas isn't in California.

Shotgun! while you can.

[Rick in Kansas]

Deeply Saddened wrote:

This is a very un-gay time for our state. Let us weep for all of the destroyed lives that will be added to an already incalculable mass of people affected and harmed by this sad death-style.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but rest assured that no one will ever "turn" gay simply because the right to marry someone of the same sex has finally been recognized. Speaking from personal experience, it just doesn't happen that way. The only way that there will be any more homosexuals in the state of California will be those who already are homosexual moving to the state because it is a place where their equal worth as citizens is recognized. Despite what you want to believe, being homosexual is no more a destruction of life than being heterosexual, it's just a part of who we were meant to be. So be happy for the lesbian and gay people of your state, because once and for all they are your equals...

[Robert J G Jackson Sr]

Once again, liberal Justices of some court are deciding to invoke some non-existant constitutional right which has suddenly appeared some 219 years after the Constituion of the United States was written, and 157 years after the State of California entered the Union. And some people wonder why so many now decry judicial activism!!! These are matters for the elected represeentatives of the people to decide. Not some unelected judge or panel of judges. The Justices of the Supreme Court of California are required to apply existing law, existing precedent, not create new ones. New law is a matter for the elected Legislature of the people to determine. California has again been made a laughingstock by it's far left wing courts catering to special interest groups in matters which have long established legal precedent.

[Rick in Kansas]

Robert J G Jackson Sr wrote:

Once again, liberal Justices of some court are deciding to invoke some non-existant constitutional right which has suddenly appeared some 219 years after the Constituion of the United States was written, and 157 years after the State of California entered the Union. And some people wonder why so many now decry judicial activism!!! These are matters for the elected represeentatives of the people to decide. Not some unelected judge or panel of judges. The Justices of the Supreme Court of California are required to apply existing law, existing precedent, not create new ones. New law is a matter for the elected Legislature of the people to determine. California has again been made a laughingstock by it's far left wing courts catering to special interest groups in matters which have long established legal precedent.

The last thing the state supreme court in California can be described as would be left-wing. Six of the seven members were appointed by Republican governors that you all elected. As for this being an issue for the legislature to decide, if you had been paying attention the last few years, the legislature did pass laws to make this issue moot and extend the right of marriage to lesbian and gay Californians only to have it vetoed by Governor Arnold in favor of letting the courts decide. Ooops.
Sorry, but this is not an example of "judcial activism" but the simple recognition that all people of the state are entitled to equal protection and due process under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Robert J G Jackson Sr]

Let me be more clear. I don't see this as a gay issue, or one regarding whether or not gay people have the right to get married, or are restricted to Civil Unions. The really important issue here is the usurpation of the power of the people and their elected government representatives by the unelected members of the judiciary.

Some judge, acting on his/her own personal beliefs instead of following the law and it's precedents, is making law all by himself, without being an elected member of the Legislature.

Every citizen should be outraged at this assumption of power reserved to the people. Every legislator should be outraged that their prerogatives for formulating new laws in the name of their constituents are being usurped by the courts.

[Paul K]

I wish folks like "Deeply Saddened" would stop implying that being gay is a choice. Being gay is no more a choice than being straight. However, once you know which you are, you can only live your life as honorably and lovingly as you can.
As far as "marriage" vs. "domestic partnership", if you read the Supreme Court decision, and particularly the dissenting opinions, they refer to the fact that "domestic partnership" grants substatially the same legal rights in California as "marriage". Not EXACTLY the same legal rights...only "substatially" the same. Do straight married people have any idea how many legal agreements that domestic partners have to research and complete before (only) getting "substantially" equal rights?

[devons]

Robert J G Jackson Sr wrote:

Let me be more clear. I don't see this as a gay issue, or one regarding whether or not gay people have the right to get married, or are restricted to Civil Unions. The really important issue here is the usurpation of the power of the people and their elected government representatives by the unelected members of the judiciary.
Some judge, acting on his/her own personal beliefs instead of following the law and it's precedents, is making law all by himself, without being an elected member of the Legislature.
Every citizen should be outraged at this assumption of power reserved to the people. Every legislator should be outraged that their prerogatives for formulating new laws in the name of their constituents are being usurped by the courts.

The Governor of CA disagrees with you. He vetoed gay marriage twice stating it was a court issue. They are the ones that interpret the constitution for the state.

The people elected the ones that originally passed it through and up to the Governor so it appears the people had their say. They also had their say about passing a law that seems to be unconstitutional.

Are you suggesting that people should be able to vote on anything and pass laws that are unconstitutional and that is that?

[lbpd]

Who cares. I would not care if they outlaw divorce, outlaw marriage, or any combination there of. Anyone who is married for a long time knows it is all the same sex anyway (Robin Williams). Gay/lez/bi/straight. bfd. your life live it how you want (within the law that is).

[Robert J G Jackson Sr]

Justice Baxter, in the dissenting opinion, wrote that the court was overstepping it's legal authority, and that the legislature needed to decide the issue.

Very Happy should note that the legislature is the place to get those laws changed, if they need changing. Just as Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, both actions of the Congress.

It took an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the 22nd amendment, to obtain voting rights for women. All the above are actions of the people and their elected representatives.

[Gata]

Deeply Saddened wrote:

This is a very un-gay time for our state. Let us weep for all of the destroyed lives that will be added to an already incalculable mass of people affected and harmed by this sad death-style.

I'm Deeply Saddened the people such as yourself would promote denying the union of two people in love because they don't fit your "standards." In a world so full of hate, violence and selfishness, the more people are able to freely express their love for another, the better.

The Gay and Lesbian Community are not ruining the sanctitiy of marriage. The 60% divorce rate was achieved without any of their help. It was all accomplished by the hetero community. When Britney Spears is allowed to reproduce, that's scary and more detrimental to "family values." Not same sex marriage.

[Gata]

Very Happy wrote:

Mr. Robert Jackson... then you should jump into your time machine and go back 219 years into the past and live your life with those laws and traditions... that was then this is now. To say that we shouldn't update our laws to relfect the the worngs of our past (i.e. woment or Blacks not allowed to vote) etc. You are just naive and dumb to understand this. I hope your time machine is built for you soon!

Brilliant!

[Scott]

It is tryly a sad day in the state of California when the State Supreme Court decides that marriage is meaningless.

It is time to move out of the state and leave it to all the crazy people.

[Gata]

Scott wrote:

It is tryly a sad day in the state of California when the State Supreme Court decides that marriage is meaningless.
It is time to move out of the state and leave it to all the crazy people.

I'm sure you'll be missed. No, really.

[Deeply Saddened]

Paul K wrote:

I wish folks like "Deeply Saddened" would stop implying that being gay is a choice. Being gay is no more a choice than being straight....

If you are implying that being homoerotic is built into one's DNA, you should ask yourself why the overwhelming majority of identical twin siblings of homoerotic people do not engage in this death-style.

[Shakey077]

Scott wrote:

It is tryly a sad day in the state of California when the State Supreme Court decides that marriage is meaningless.
It is time to move out of the state and leave it to all the crazy people.

Let us know if need help packing or loading your truck....