Same-sex marriage in California

[Tonberry]

Red hit the real reason. With any unnecessary distinction, there will be room for one side--in this case, the straight community--to claim to be the superior group. While I'm sure you will agree with me that neither is superior, the simple fact that such a distinction is made will encourage this type of thinking. Separate but equal institutions, in most cases, are implemented in order to try to pacify minorities, without offending the majority. They create an "us versus them" vibe that brings nothing positive to the table.

[Timbo]

[Crimson_Angel]

Good, I'm glad for that. People take the subject of gay marriage far to seriously. If its love, its love, same sex or not. Good for California!
_________________
"Your pain shall be two-fold!"

- Auron, Final Fantasy X

"I'm a warrior, not a variety of flower!"

- Vegeta, Dragonball Z

[Amyral]

[Firefly]

Yes! I can finally get married :) We plan to get married now as soon as this is finalized.

I think the problem that some people are having with it though is that gay marriage was voted against twice recently in California by popular opinion, and now this "activist judge" can just ignore that and make it legal anyways. which I think is pretty cool, but I can see why others would call him an activist judge.
_________________

[TruePerception]

Wait, what? Why does a judge have that power?? I never heard that part! Though, in this situation, this may have been a good thing, I don't think a judge should have such power. Otherwise, we lose our democratic right.
_________________


Daily Funny Award for May 1st, 2008

[Jowy Atreides]

I think Prop 22 is a good example of "tyranny of the majority," where the majority (heterosexuals) are deciding to limit the rights of the minority (homosexuals), under the veil of "democracy." Most social issues should be decided by judges, I think, because they are looking at things from a constitutional perspective, instead of being reactionary like a lot of voters. Black people would probably still be living "on the other side of town" if everything was decided by popular vote. I'm not saying judges should decide everything for us, obviously; that would be a dictatorship.

Personally, I don't think these judges are activists for gay rights, because they decided to invalidate the same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco in 2004. If they really were judicial activists, they would've let those marriages go through.

[TruePerception]

Well, I never thought about it before, but does a city really have the right to make laws in accordance to marriage, or other joint family issues (tax dependencie, adoption, etc.)? Also, people keep mentioning that there are some differences in taxes between married and legal union, but from when I've filled out the tax exemptions from (W2, or was it W4?), I don't remember seeing any distinction between type of joined status, just that there was the option to claim more dependants due to such status', and I actually do read that form, rather than just marking it 0 or 1 (which is technically wrong, since one person financially responsible for themselves is 2). So what exactly are these tax differences?
_________________


Daily Funny Award for May 1st, 2008

[Amyral]

[Jowy Atreides]

I don't know if the people who passed the 13th and 14th amendments count as 'the majority.' I think a real majority would be a nationwide referendum, but it's just an opinion not worth arguing.

Also, keep in mind that the constitution is changed by amendments, so what's constitutional changes over time. It's a great mixture of democracy and law, so I don't think judges sit on the bench and wield absolute power. I actually agree with the Dred Scott case, because they were truly just looking at the constitution, which didn't really address slavery. I don't think they had a bias against black people, but that's another opinion not worth arguing endlessly about.

Thomas Jefferson said something that largely agrees with Lincoln, and it's a quote I agree with:

[Amyral]

Amendments have to be ratified by either 2/3 of both houses or 2/3 of all the states (which was how both were ratified), through votes or conventions (which tend to require majorities of all voters present). I fail to see how that can not be considered a majority, really, but you're free to view it how you wish.

Whether or not they were looking solely at the constitution in the Dred Scott case is debatable at best, because there was a lot of political pressure on both sides, inconsistent rulings on the same issue by the state supreme court, an belief of not having proper jurisdiction at some point (and deciding to rule on it anyways instead of throwing it out), improper correspondence between the president and the courts on the issue, etc.

For the second part, I can't say on state matters, but impeachment being an accountability tool for federal judges? Impeachment is only levied for major indiscretions (things like bribery, treason and perjury), nothing even having to do with what any decisions are. Only one judge on the US Supreme Court has ever been impeached, and none have ever been removed from office (The one that was impeached wasn't, and rightfully so, as it was a political ploy). It's been so narrowly defined that it's effectiveness as a check on the judiciary has been completely removed.

Congressmen, presidents, etc can be voted out in the next elections, or serve term limits forcing them out of office. Judges generally serve for life, are rarely removed (especially not for decisions), and don't really have to give reasoning behind it or ever defend it. That's not really the same as being accountable for your work, because an incompetent judge or an overly opinionated one is still going to be on the bench if he doesn't break any major laws.

The long and the short of it though is that I'm not so ambivalent of the power of the courts to rule on major issues. I sincerely doubt political opinions are removed once a judge is appointed and that most constitutions and laws are just vague enough that they could go either way, depending on whatever is the whim of a few of the judges on the bench. It's not that I don't think it should exist, or even that it shouldn't have ruled on this case, it's that I think the relative lack of scrutiny in the branch and the inherent nature of judges as people has given way to the possibility of a major policy influencing branch that is still subject to the same politics as any other branch, and there are far too many situations where this has happened.

I completely agree with your Jefferson quote as to the dangers of the judiciary. He even took it a step further on what would happen were the courts to get too powerful.

[Jowy Atreides]

I know that constitutional amendments require majorities, but they don't necessarily represent the will of the American people; only a national referendum can show how the American people feel. It's just a matter of opinion. I don't want to bother counting all the federal Congressman plus all of the elected members of the state legislatures, but there's probably only a few thousand of them, out of the millions of people that lived in the United States at that time. Although they are elected, they may not vote the way their constituents would want them do (it probably wouldn't even come up while campaigning, so it would probably not cost them another term).

In the first paragraph, "or" should be "and." Two-thirds of both houses must pass the amendment, and then two-thirds of the state legislatures must also pass the amendment (within each legislature, I believe it is also two-thirds). There is the national convention method, but it usually doesn't work, and even then it still requires the federal Congress and the state legislatures to work together, so it's still "and." I think this is just something you overlooked, and not a mistake of ignorance.

I don't really have anything to say on the second paragraph. It's just how I feel.

I think that, if a court were to overstep its bounds to a degree that cannot be tolerated, this method would be used. I don't think impeachment should be used just because a judge ruled differently than you would've liked, but only if he/she's clearly reading their own agendas into whatever document it may be. But, again, it's just an opinion.

Personally, I think the exact definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" has yet to be established, so I don't think it's narrow or broad.

Justices always write opinions, unless it's a very low court that doesn't need an explanation.

I think the fact that the Senate must confirm federal judges prevents incompetent or opinionated ones from becoming federal judges. Perhaps I disagree with some federal judges, especially the Supreme ones, but they are certainly smart, and have their reasons.

The fifth part is another matter of opinion. Normally I'd debate all of these opinions, and would vigorously defend my own, but I'd like to keep the topic around same-sex marriage.

[Amyral]

For the first point, we'll just have to agree to disagree, because all of these people are elected officials, and the entire point of elected officials is that they represent the will of the people. Thus, I think the fact that so many must ratify it means the people's will is being represented (because politicians care primarily about being re-elected, they'll do what makes their constituents happy).

The judge confirmation process for district judges is entirely political, there's little real interest in congress for different district judges than their own, and confirmation votes are as subject to being traded for every as every other measure.

For impeachment, the fact that fewer than 20 officials in 200 years have ever been seriously impeached would indicate that it's not been used as a true matter of checks. Also of note is that judges used to be impeached a lot more commonly than they are now, despite transgressions. There's been like, one judge in the past decade that been recommended for impeachment, but thousands of complaints against them. There's been far more than 18 cases of federal officials committing acts that would qualify for impeachment, but the sparse nature of actual impeachment cases shows that it alone isn't an adequate check for abuse, and it's the only method in the judiciary. I'm not saying impeachment should be for disagreement of opinions, but there have been plenty of cases throughout the years of justices abusing their powers, even going against the constitution without a sniff of impeachment.

However, delving into this any further would surely distract too much from the topic, as it's not a topic about judicial abuse or impeachment. I never intended this to take away from the topic of same-sex marriages, nor do I want to make it seem like I'm against the judiciary ruling in the way it did. It was only stating that the judiciary is as prone to abuse as any other branch, and they lack real accountability once they're in office.

[Timbo]

[Admiral Ackbar]

I want to move to California now.

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but...all of the Californian judges that made this decision were Republican, except for one Democrat. Three Republicans and one Democrat voted in favor of this decision. You can't tell me (or anyone) that "activist judges" were used here, because they weren't. Moderate conservative judges made this decision.

In November the people will be able to vote this down. All it takes is 50% +1 to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling. You can expect conservative activists to be out in droves to vote it down. It's going to take every equality-minded supporter in the state to defend it.

Also, I remember reading that California does not require Californian citizenship in order to obtain a marriage liscence. I guess this means that anyone from any state can have a gay marriage in California, they'll just have to make sure their home state recognizes it.

Personally, I don't think civil rights issues should ever be put on a ballot. They wouldn't even be civil rights issues if the majority already supported them. In November this ruling may be completely reversed and thousands of gay couples will have their marriage liscences taken away.

As for the whole true equality and seperate but equal issue, I can say for damn sure that in my state of Florida, there is no true equality. It was only a month or so ago that a law was passed making discrimination against LGBTs in the workplace and housing industries into actual legal discrimination. Prior to this, a landlord could tell you he didn't have any available living space for you to move into because you were gay, and there wasn't much you could do about it legally-speaking. And we still can't adopt children. And we still can't give blood at blood banks, but I beleive this is also a nation-wide thing.
_________________