California high court reviews gay marriage ban

[*Pleasant Tomorrow*]

California high court reviews gay marriage ban
By Peter Henderson Peter Henderson
Thu Mar 5, 3:09 am ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Gay marriage advocates on Thursday will ask the California Supreme Court to overturn a second voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, in a cultural battle that has divided the United States.

Social conservatives and liberals both consider California a trend-setter that can shape the same-sex marriage agenda, even though an overwhelming majority of U.S. states have laws stopping gay couples from wedding.

The same court last year overturned a voter-approved law banning gay marriage, opening the way to gay couples wedding in the most populous state. Some 18,000 couples married.

But voters in November passed a constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, limiting marriage to a man and a woman, which sparked national protests -- and a new court fight.

Only a handful of countries, mostly European nations, allow gay marriage.

Gay marriage opponents said overturning the California ban would change the nature of state government by gutting the people's right to make law.

The court would create "a sweeping power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed," same-sex marriage opponents said.

Gay marriage proponents, led by former governor and current California Attorney General Jerry Brown, argue that the right to marry is part of the "inalienable right" to liberty, so the state Supreme Court must strike down even an amendment to the constitution limiting it.

Minority groups fearing the amendment could become a blueprint for institutionalized discrimination and conservative religious groups who see marriage between a man and a woman as "traditional" have turned the legal fight into a broad cultural question.

The court will hear three hours of arguments on Thursday and then have 90 days to issue an opinion.

(Reporting by Peter Henderson, Editing by Mary Milliken)

[Tweety]

The left has no problem accepting "the will of the people"... as long as it agrees with them. If it doesn't, they try to get some court to overturn the will of the people. Happens every time. When you can't win at the ballot box, try to win through a court.

This was just too predictable... the only question is, what took 'em so long? The election was in the first week of November!

[Faith]

Originally Posted by Tweety

The left has no problem accepting "the will of the people"... as long as it agrees with them. If it doesn't, they try to get some court to overturn the will of the people. Happens every time. When you can't win at the ballot box, try to win through a court.

This was just too predictable... the only question is, what took 'em so long? The election was in the first week of November!

I always try to stay out of the politics board because everything I read pisses me off, but I agree with you on this. The whole reason they put it to a vote was so it would be what the people wanted, yet the people voted and they still wont leave it alone.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Let's stick to facts here and not false rhetoric. The right-wing brought it to the ballot because they didn't want to accept the court overturning the first ban, the left had nothing to do with the ballot measure. This is how democracy works, there are checks and balances, because sometimes ballot measures passed by voters aren't always fair or constitutional.

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by James"Thunder"Early

Let's stick to facts here and not false rhetoric. The right-wing brought it to the ballot because they didn't want to accept the court overturning the first ban, the left had nothing to do with the ballot measure. This is how democracy works, there are checks and balances, because sometimes ballot measures passed by voters aren't always fair or constitutional.

When you say "the first ban", you mean the last time the people voted on this, right?

And what "false rhetoric" are you talking about? The left has a long, long, LONG history of trying to overturn the will of the people by going through the courts after the people have spoken at the ballot box... that IS a fact... this was just one more example...and, as I said, it was entirely too predictable.

[Dr. John Becker]

Originally Posted by Tweety

When you say "the first ban", you mean the last time the people voted on this, right?

And what "false rhetoric" are you talking about? The left has a long, long, LONG history of trying to overturn the will of the people by going through the courts after the people have spoken at the ballot box... that IS a fact... this was just one more example...and, as I said, it was entirely too predictable.

Exactly. I'm surprised it took the lefties so long to try and overturn this.

[platinumblondelife]

So what would have happened had the courts not intervened in the South and interracial marriage were left up to the people? Why did I ask, I know what would have happened.... It would probably still be illegal there!

[Dr. John Becker]

Racism racism racism. Bigot bigot bigot.


More of the same from you. Anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Originally Posted by Tweety

When you say "the first ban", you mean the last time the people voted on this, right?

And what "false rhetoric" are you talking about? The left has a long, long, LONG history of trying to overturn the will of the people by going through the courts after the people have spoken at the ballot box... that IS a fact... this was just one more example...and, as I said, it was entirely too predictable.

Obviously, I was referring to the first measure.

And you stated that the left put this on the ballot and that was simply not true. Sure it was voted on by the people, but it's unconstitutional, so it can be taken to the court. That's how the democratic process works in this country, it always has and it always will.

[platinumblondelife]

Originally Posted by Dr. John Becker

Racism racism racism. Bigot bigot bigot.


More of the same from you. Anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

I'm just stating FACT. Its a FACT that without the courts intervening, many people believed interracial marriage was wrong. Do you want to dispute that fact, or do you just want attack me?

[Dr. John Becker]

Originally Posted by platinumblondelife

I'm just stating FACT. Its a FACT that without the courts intervening, many people believed interracial marriage was wrong. Do you want to dispute that fact, or do you just want attack me?

What does gay marriage have to do with interracial marriage?

[platinumblondelife]

Originally Posted by Dr. John Becker

What does gay marriage have to do with interracial marriage?

The point is that if the same thing were allowed to happen thats happening with gay marriage to people of interracial marriages years ago, it would not have been allowed either if left up for a vote. The court had to strike down the law that forbade it, but most people weren't "there" yet on interracial marriage, just like they aren't on gay marriage (In a few years when its up to people my age, they will be). Interracial marriage was seen as a sinful act just like gay marriage.

[ABlairican Pie]

Prohibitions against gay marriage have everything to do with misreadings of Scripture. Same argument against interracial marriages decades ago.

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

Prohibitions against gay marriage have everything to do with misreadings of Scripture. Same argument against interracial marriages decades ago.

Which scriptures were misread re: gay marriage?

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally Posted by Tweety

Which scriptures were misread re: gay marriage?

Not particularly about gay marriage per se, but the fact that many Christians and conservatives read the Bible as condemning homosexuality, such as in Leviticus, the Book of Romans, and elsewhere, which were not quite so cut and dried as evangelicals and others might think about the subject.