Looks like CA is a good place to run your wedding business!

Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

By Lisa Leff
The Associated Press
Monday, March 14, 2005; 3:18 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

Woot for Cali!

Yay....

Unfortunately, our state supreme court isn't nearly as liberal as some of our trial judges. There is a good chance this ruling will not survive through appeal.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a bunch of fruitcakes.

They will rule that it is unConstitutional.

And if not, Supreme Court will have to. Someone just needs to get it up there, is all.

My understanding is that marriages (legal or not) fall under the jurisdiction of the state, not the feds. The Federal Supreme Court will have no bearing on the case, I don't think. It also shouldn't end up in 9th circuit, which is federal. I think the highest a gay marriage related law suit can go is to the State Supreme Court.

I could be totally wrong, but that's my understanding of it. It's the same reason the supreme court refused to hear any arguments about Oregon's Death with Dignity Act the first 2 times Ashcroft went after it: that was a state issue, not a federal one.

This is why judges should be elected and not appointed. Im not for it or opposed to it cause I could litterally care less. But what I know is these laws (not just cali) are being voted for by the people, and no one person should have the right to strike down the peoples decision without reprecausion by the people.

I think the 14th Amendment would be a good place to start.

But I am not a Constitutional lawyer.

My understanding is that marriages (legal or not) fall under the jurisdiction of the state, not the feds. The Federal Supreme Court will have no bearing on the case, I don't think. It also shouldn't end up in 9th circuit, which is federal. I think the highest a gay marriage related law suit can go is to the State Supreme Court.

I could be totally wrong, but that's my understanding of it. It's the same reason the supreme court refused to hear any arguments about Oregon's Death with Dignity Act the first 2 times Ashcroft went after it: that was a state issue, not a federal one.

This is so...for the most part.

However, the first time a state refuses to recognize the legal marriage of a gay couple from a state which permits it...then it become a federal matter.

Further, there could be a case made for Federal involvement based on the Federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, but that leaves the door open for the US Supreme Court to take the easy way out and deem it a state issue.

This is why judges should be elected and not appointed. Im not for it or opposed to it cause I could litterally care less. But what I know is these laws (not just cali) are being voted for by the people, and no one person should have the right to strike down the peoples decision without reprecausion by the people.

On the state and local level judges generally are elected. Perhaps California is an oddity, but I doubt it.

On the federal level, all judges are appointed. It means that judges can rule based on the law...and not on some desire for re-election. It also eliminates re-election lobby groups from influencing a judges decision.

And regardless if the laws are being voted for by the people...the people do not have the right to pass unconstitutional laws. That is why the Bill of Rights was emplaced. To protect people from the unreasoning will of the majority mob. Saying that a certain class of consenting adults cannot marry, simply for moral reasons, is patently unconstitutional and, further, goes against everything this nation is supposed to stand for.

But what I know is these laws (not just cali) are being voted for by the people, and no one person should have the right to strike down the peoples decision without reprecausion by the people.

The whole point of judges is that they are outside popular influence and do not issue judgements based on mob rule, media manipulation, or other outside factors. It is up to the legislature to pass laws with little ambiguity so that the judges are not asked to rule on social and political issues, such as marraige.

This is why judges should be elected and not appointed. Im not for it or opposed to it cause I could litterally care less. But what I know is these laws (not just cali) are being voted for by the people, and no one person should have the right to strike down the peoples decision without reprecausion by the people.

Well, what happens is people pass laws that violate the consititution of the state (or the country). If we didn't have these guiding documents framing up people's basic rights we would have most likely done horrible things (worse than we did) to blacks and jews and others simply because at one time, bigoted white folks were in the majority. Pass a law to hang everyone with a different skin color. Pass a law that women can't own property... or vote! Fortunately the courts are there to intrepret the laws and make sure they don't violate the basic charter of the state, or federal.

One of the basic tenets of most free governments is that everyone has to be treated the same under the law, whether your a woman, a black person or a gay. Sometimes it takes awhile, women didn't get the vote until 1920-something, and look how long blacks were repressed by law and by custom.

Whether or not you like the judicial review of laws just depends on whether or not you're being discriminated against or you're the discriminator, IMHO.