Posted on 05/15/2008 8:00:24 PM PDT by EagleUSA
WASHINGTON - A California Supreme Court decision clearing the way for gay marriages in the state injects an element of uncertainty into a presidential race in which the Iraq war and the sputtering economy have largely overshadowed social issues.
John McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting whose position on the issue rankles the Republican Party's conservative base, sought to strike a delicate balance to the Thursday ruling.
He "supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona," his campaign said in response. "John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."
McCain rejected the will of the state's high court even as he tried to maintain his long-held stance that the issue should be left to the states. He suggested that he backs an effort by California's religious conservatives to put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman on the November ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Why would this decision not eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court if it ever gets that far?
C’mon EagleUSA, GET MAD; get freakin’ mad.
Same with the hispanic community, only more so. With the changing demographics in CA I don't see gay marriage lasting very long here.....in fact it may very well go down in November.
I’m in California too. I don’t see why the h*ll we bother to vote about things in this state, when the courts just do whatever Gavin Newsome tells them to. A pox on them all. (The courts, that is. I’m sick of ‘em!)
So am I. I live in Mississippi, whose constitution was amended to ban gay marriage in 2004. The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by the voters. By the way, I voted yes.
I love that this is back on the Presidential agenda.
PA, MN, FL, MI will go red. Thank you Mayor Screwball! You lost the election for the Dems, once again!
small world
I left quincy and weymouth Massachusetts and moved to st Augustine northern Florida (not far from you depending on where in GA)and yes it felt good to get that amendment on the ballot.
I just now hope that we can get it past and the gays can now move to MA or CA to get married and stay there. After all if they really want to be in a sham marriage then they can move
be even better if that area succeeded from the union ,
let them have their liberal utopia and just watch them mess it all up in a few years while we prosper
C’mon EagleUSA, GET MAD; get freakin’ mad.
:::::::
Those of us that are FREAKIN’ MAD are not the issue. It is the ones that sit passively by and let all this crap happen. My emails to the state capital are just flaming! Every assemblyman in my area is getting smokin’ emails.
All the while, the passive, pols and voters sit by and just watch it all happen to them —— that is why California is in the dung heap.
If the constitutional amendment passes in November will not the CA. SC declare it illegal?
::::::
It is hard to say just what will happen...since the government of California IGNORES THE WILL AND THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE and they just do what they want -— Prop.22 expressed the will of the people and the state ignored it. The government basically does what it wants to and they declare it “legal”. This was a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of how the liberals operate — the whole idea being to REMOVE THE DECISION OF A CRITICAL ISSUE from the vote of the public and make it a decision of a handful of liberal judges.
We can expect to see much more of this methodology until the people finally get tired of it, and clean out the liberal socialists from our government.
Actually, 50% of Californians would vote against same sex marriage while 43% support it. Hardly a MAJORITY.
In this country, it is suppose to be about freedom - FOR ALL. No majority should have a right to remove anyone else’s rights. That’s why we have a 3 bodied system: legislative to make law, executive to enforce them, judicial to interpret.
What the SF ruling said was that there was no compelling reason that gays should be made second class citizens. Even the dissenters agree with the idea of same sex marriage but felt there may not be enough reason, at this time, to reverse the lower courts decision.
In this country, it is suppose to be about freedom - FOR ALL. No majority should have a right to remove anyone else’s rights. That’s why we have a 3 bodied system: legislative to make law, executive to enforce them, judicial to interpret.
What the SF ruling said was that there was no compelling reason that gays should be made second class citizens. Even the dissenters agree with the idea of same sex marriage but felt there may not be enough reason, at this time, to reverse the lower courts decision.
::::::
Wrong and a very liberal interpretation of the real facts.
This has nothing to do with freedom. It has to do with THE LAW AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Prop 22 became the law and expressed the will of the people and the vote was over 65% against the REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN A BOND BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Nothing in this says gays are second class citizens — more liberal spin — it is about the law, and the core values of America, but more importantly, the will of the people. Also, more liberal spin in that it IS NOT THE JOB OF THE JUDICIARY TO INTERPRET ANYTHING. It is their job to ENFORCE THE WRITTEN LAW AS CREATED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. We have way too much RE-WRITING OF LAWS AND LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH especially with the Ninth Circuit, the most OVERTURNED ILLEGAL court that should be dissolved for the betterment of everyone.
No, sorry, take your liberal spin elsewhere. We know the facts, we know VERY WELL THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and we know how liberals work. No lessons needed.
This was a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of how the liberals operate — the whole idea being to REMOVE THE DECISION OF A CRITICAL ISSUE from the vote of the public and make it a decision of a handful of liberal judges.
Well, not really. Actually, most were Republican judges, hardly liberal.
Second, why is this a CRITICAL ISSUE? If two people want to make a life for themselves, how does it affect you?
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional.
Perhaps a refresher on the BASIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES would be beneficial.
I don't see anything there about interpreting the laws of the nation or about declaring anything unconstitutional.
Welcome to FR, by the way.
Wrong--it was close to 62% voting in favor of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Definitely a majority. And do you think that the enormous # of Asians and Mexicans we've added since 2000 support same-sex "marriage"?
In this country, it is suppose to be about freedom - FOR ALL.
We all had the same rights to marriage. 1 man, 1 woman, no incest, no children, no animals...
No majority should have a right to remove anyone else’s rights.
That’s why we have a 3 bodied system: legislative to make law, executive to enforce them, judicial to interpret.
Judicial "interpretation" is strictly limited by the constitution. What we have here in CA is 4 judges deciding to impose their more "enlightened" views on the citizens of this state, destroying the centuries old understanding of marriage, the basis of every civilization. It is nothing but rule by a few elites, out of touch with, and contemptuous of, the people they supposedly serve.
I agree. Its is not mentioned explicitly in this phrase. However, if you look under
Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers
This is a further discussion, where it describes the checks and balances that have made up our country; you will see it listed there.
And thank you.
This is the language re: powers:
The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.
The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.
The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks can be found on the Checks and Balances Page.
Well, not really. Actually, most were Republican judges, hardly liberal.
Second, why is this a CRITICAL ISSUE? If two people want to make a life for themselves, how does it affect you?
::::::::
Republican does not equal conservative, which is an understatement. You should pay attention to the liberal positions of so-called Republicans such as Bush, McCain and Schwarzenkennedy. Hardly conservative.
And how does it affect me? More appropriately, how does it affect our country and its systems of values, ITS LAWS, and a generally increasing disregard by our governments for the will of the people. This is acceptable and even desired by liberals like yourself. It is not acceptable to those of us that are supportive of an America that is based in a system of laws, a government that ONCE WAS a government for and by the people. For old-balls like me (who are called pro-Constitutional patriots) we believe in the upholding of THE WRITTEN LAW, and that people should be held accountable for the breaking of laws. Something our degenerating judicial system finds “old fashioned” and more of an obstacle to a generally liberal socialist agenda.
You would probably find applause for your liberal position on DU. But certainly not here from Constitutional conservatives with a system of values based in the roots and founding principles of America.
Have fun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.