Gay Marriage in CA

[SonomaCat]

The legal reasoning makes so much sense that it is almost a no-brainer, but it's still surprising to see this decision:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... ling14.TMP

The "Flowers in your hair" topic:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

[Hell's Bells]

The legal reasoning makes so much sense that it is almost a no-brainer, but it's still surprising to see this decision:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... ling14.TMP

The "Flowers in your hair" topic:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

the real question is this: is that judge elected?

no matter where you sit on gay marrage shouldnt the people get to decide if the state should allow it or not?

[SonomaCat]

The legal reasoning makes so much sense that it is almost a no-brainer, but it's still surprising to see this decision:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... ling14.TMP

The "Flowers in your hair" topic:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

the real question is this: is that judge elected?

no matter where you sit on gay marrage shouldnt the people get to decide if the state should allow it or not?

Actually, judges in our system really shouldn't be elected. It always makes me queasy when I see MT elections with judges running under political parties. They should be in the position due to their knowledge of law and ability to interpret impartially -- something that individual voters are not great at discerning about a potential judge. Their role should not to be to advance a political agenda, but rather to interpret the constitution and laws created by the legislative branch. The beauty about appointments is that they have to be approved by two branches of government, so you rarely get extremists as judges -- unlike the results of elections.

And, to head off those who assert the "activist judges" mentality, it should be noted that the people who think that judges are activist judges should take some time to see how closely their cries match those of the rednecks who opposed desegregation in the 50s.

This judge was actually appointed by a Republican governor, so he's not a stereotypical crazy liberal San Franciscan. He simply ruled in the only way that the existing constitutional case law could allow. He essentially used the same holding that was used to decriminalize interracial marriage in 1948 (and it's scary that CA was the first state to overturn those laws, and it happened that recently -- I think Georgia still had the law on its books a couple years ago).

As to the "will of the people," the courts are in place to protect the rights of the minority precisely from the will of the majority when the will of the majority has no rational basis (and it has none in this case). The will of the people in the past has given us such things as slavery, segregation, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and countless other irrational instances of discrimination. The role of the courts is to apply our constitution to all people and prevent the mob mentality from robbing the rights from those people that happen to be a minority. It's the great thing about our system of government that separates us from those countries where the majority abuses the minority at every opportunity.

The gay marriage issue is identical to the interracial marriage issue of 50 years ago. Thankfully, the courts stepped in and overruled the will of the people then (the will of the people of which we are now ashamed) and the courts must step in to overrule the will of the people now (the will of the people that we will be ashamed of in 50 years).

[bronco]

In another state....

ITHACA, N.Y. -- A state judge ruled against a group of same-sex couples seeking the right to wed, saying it was a job for lawmakers, not the courts, to extend marriage rights.

The 25 couples applied for marriage licenses early last year and were turned down by the Ithaca city clerk, who was following a state advisory not to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The so-called Ithaca 50 sued the city and the state in June, one of a series of similar suits filed around the state after gay marriage became a front-burner issue last year.

The 25 couples learned Wednesday that State Supreme Court Judge Robert C. Mulvey had rejected their arguments, upholding the state's position.

Lawmakers vs Judges...to be continued.

[SonomaCat]

In another state....

ITHACA, N.Y. -- A state judge ruled against a group of same-sex couples seeking the right to wed, saying it was a job for lawmakers, not the courts, to extend marriage rights.

The 25 couples applied for marriage licenses early last year and were turned down by the Ithaca city clerk, who was following a state advisory not to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The so-called Ithaca 50 sued the city and the state in June, one of a series of similar suits filed around the state after gay marriage became a front-burner issue last year.

The 25 couples learned Wednesday that State Supreme Court Judge Robert C. Mulvey had rejected their arguments, upholding the state's position.

Lawmakers vs Judges...to be continued.

It would be interesting to know the differences in the verbiage of the constitutions in both California and New York. I know the equal protection clause probably varies in every state.

[Hell's Bells]

In another state....

ITHACA, N.Y. -- A state judge ruled against a group of same-sex couples seeking the right to wed, saying it was a job for lawmakers, not the courts, to extend marriage rights.

The 25 couples applied for marriage licenses early last year and were turned down by the Ithaca city clerk, who was following a state advisory not to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The so-called Ithaca 50 sued the city and the state in June, one of a series of similar suits filed around the state after gay marriage became a front-burner issue last year.

The 25 couples learned Wednesday that State Supreme Court Judge Robert C. Mulvey had rejected their arguments, upholding the state's position.

Lawmakers vs Judges...to be continued.

sounds like a judge that decided not to make law himself. speaking about getting quezy i get quezy when a court decides to make public policy. here in mt the supreme court as well as other courts decided that the school system was not funded enough?? not funded enough as compaired to what?