FNC: California law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional

Fox News | March 14, 2005

[Dont Mention the War]

Breaking...

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Pitiful. Goodbye "We the people." We have no say any longer.

[calcowgirl]

From your link:

A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Lets see, the people "vote" and the courts over-rule our votes? Hmmmmmmmmm

Can you spell T-E-A P-A-R-T-Y?

Throw them overboard!!

[Alouette]

WAAAAAHHH! AAH'M A VIIICTIIIM!!!!!

Mon Mar 14, 3:27 PM ET
Renee Mangrum, right, and Mara Williams, who wed in February, rally in support of gay marriage in San Francisco, Aug. 12, 2004. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

[Ditto]

He apparently based it on the State Constitution's equal protection clause...

This is where they artificially construct "classes" in order to abuse the concept of Equal Protection.

Marriage is by definition a legal union between a man and a woman. Nothing else. Sexual preference is none of the states business nor is it part of the state's contract. Regardless of their "sexual preference" two people of the opposite sex may not marry each other. And regardless of their sexual preference, those same people are legally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex.

It is perfectly equal unless you accept the bizarre notion that the state can define new classes of citizens based upon something as personal and legally unprovable as sexual preference.

[pfony1]

Did the Judge ALSO approve marriages of live people with dead people or marriages of human people with domestic animal people?

[mewzilla]

What about polygamists?

Or polyandry :)

[B4Ranch]

California has become an

[Modernman]

Either way, it will go to the 9th circus clowns of appeal and hopefully end up at the USSC.

This ruling seems to be based solely on the California Constitution. Federal courts would actually have no jurisdiction for hearing this case.

[Kretek]

Prop 22 in Calif was a change to the Constitution, not a law to be ruled on my the courts, it is actually the opposite. We told the government how to operate and what laws they can pass.

Yes; I'm curious how an amendment to the Constitution can be un-Constitutional. By definition, amendments are Constitutional as they are the Constitution.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

THROW "HIM" OVERBOARD. Surely more rational heads will previal in the supreme court of Californina!

[Psycho_Bunny]

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

What a moron.

[nyg4168]

Did the judge impose a remedy or is that stayed pending appeal? Will there be gay marriages in Calif. until the Ca. supremes get around to hearing the case?

[GraniteStateConservative]

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Well, he's right that tradition isn't much of a legal reason, or even a logical one. Was that the argument that was used by opponents of gay marriage?

[CharlesWayneCT]

The argument over the denial of rights based on sex is an interesting one. In federal jurisprudence we never amended the constitution to provide "equal rights" regardless of sex (the ERA). This might be the only thing preventing same-sex marriage now.

Because it is clear that if a PERSON can marry a woman, the ERA would have prohibited discrimination based on the SEX of the person that could marry a woman.

Since we didn't pass the ERA, we are still able to discriminate between sexes.

Note that the current law does not in any way discriminate against gay and lesbian people. Every person, regardless of their sexual preferences, is free to marry any person of the opposite sex.

On the other hand, the constitution does not give anybody the constitutional right to marry the person they are attracted to (otherwise we would have to allow polygamy and half the population of this board would apparently be married to Ann Coulter :->).

[Bigh4u2]

More than just a moron.

This judge just decided that the people of California are 'irrational' and should have no decision in policy making.

Someone needs to remind the Judge who 'We The People' are!

To the Judge: (Hint: It's NOT the elected officials or appointed Judges)

[nyg4168]

"Since we didn't pass the ERA, we are still able to discriminate between sexes. "

But a lot of states have state ERAs in their constitution, and those are being used to argue for gay marriage.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Just to wake you all up. Interesting comments on the thread.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some serious civil disobedience if the black robed wicked fools keep this up.

Let me and DirtyHarryY2K know if you want on/off this pinglist.

[calcowgirl]

Proposition 22 was not a Constitutional Amendment.

It only changed California's family law code to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages.

If it had been a Constitional Amendment, the issue would already be dead. See post 42--it looks like there is an effort to initiate a Constitional Amendment now.

[gridlock]

It is simply not going to be possible to limit the definition of marriage. I say it is time to get the government, at all level, out of the marriage business altogether. People got married long before the State of California started issuing licenses. Let people get married by their churches or however they want, then register a domestic partnership with the state, if they choose to. Domestic partnership would come along with a whole raft of rights and responsibilities, but would have nothing to do with marriage. The state would then dissolve the domestic partnership in divorce, but the marriage would be the business of whatever entity did it in the first place. The only thing the state can do is continually broaden the definition to include whatever group wants to sue it next.

Since the state got involved in marriage, it has done nothing but erode the sanctity of the institution. This is because the state can never create -- it can only destroy. Time to keep them as far away from the institution of marriage as possible.

I don't know why heterosexuals should be all enthusiastic about maintaining their status of being the only ones who must to knuckle under to the petty authority of the state to register who they are going to spend their time with. It is simply none of the state's business, and it never has been. It is just societal inertia that makes the state's definition of marriage into the definition of marriage.