California ruling renews debate over gay marriage in Indiana

A California Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex couples can marry in that state has renewed debate on whether Indiana should amend its constitution to ban gay marriage.

[kc from California]

The majority of the California Supreme Court Justices who decided this were REPUBLICANS appointed by Governor Arnold.... Justice Ronald George is a Republican and he wrote teh majority opinion

[John Treat]

It is time to outlaw long judicial appointments, especially lifetime appointments, when we have judges making laws based on their authority as a judge. Legalizing homosexual marraige is wrong and judges should not try to change the morality of the vast majority of the world.

[Inquisitarian]

John Treat wrote:

It is time to outlaw long judicial appointments, especially lifetime appointments, when we have judges making laws based on their authority as a judge. Legalizing homosexual marraige is wrong and judges should not try to change the morality of the vast majority of the world.

You're from Grand Rapids. Why am I not surprised.

If you want to get rid of lifetime appointments for federal judges, you'll have to amend the Constitution. As for state judges, that depends on the individual state's constitution.

Being from Michigan, I think you'd know this, since judges here are elected. Or don't you bother to vote regularly?

Judges don't make law. They interpret it. And that's exactly what the California Supreme court did. They interpreted the laws banning same-sex marriage as being incompatible with their own constitution. Just like the Michigan court recently interpreted the Michigan amendment banning same-sex marriage to be a ban on public funding of domestic partnership benefits.

When they do something you like, they're doing a wonderful job of interpreting the law. When it's something you disagree with, they're "activist judges" "legislating from the bench".

I don't disagree with the Michigan court, incidently - even though I think it's a hideous law. I think the amendment here was overly broad and its reach misrepresented by its proponents, who lied to voters about its possible (and probable effects).

The judges in California were interpreting Californian law, not "trying to change the morality of the vast majority of the world". Your hyperbole discredits you.

As for morality, keep yours to yourself. I'll practice my own, thank you very much.

[eliana]

23/6 has created a HILARIOUS wedding planning guide for anyone who might want to get gay married ASAP: http://www.236.com/news/2008/05/16/plan_your_...