California Gay Marriage

[Were the courts justified in overturning the popular vote against legalizing gay marriage?]

Were the courts justified in overturning the popular vote against legalizing gay marriage?

Yes

 41 (73.2%)

No

 8 (14.3%)

Maybe, but it could lead to a slippery slope

 4 (7.1%)

I want to see the results

 3 (5.4%)

Total Members Voted: 54

[jack24]

I'm not interested in reading a moral/social argument about homosexuality.
I'm more interested in the legal basis for the California court to overturn the vote of the people.

Discuss

[jack24]

Thanks a lot IrrX.  I have some free time at work today, but not that much free time.
 

(Edit) 
Reading a few pages does seem to shed a little light on that. 

"The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.
It is also important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."


That seems odd to me.

Hey whoa guys....  we're not here to tell you what gay relationships should be called, we just want to tell you whether or not you can legally call their relationship something different than a straight relationship. 

[goaliechica]

Thanks a lot IrrX.  I have some free time at work today, but not that much free time.
 

(Edit) 
Reading a few pages does seem to shed a little light on that. 

"The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.
It is also important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."


That seems odd to me.

Hey whoa guys....  we're not here to tell you what gay relationships should be called, we just want to tell you whether or not you can legally call their relationship something different than a straight relationship. 

Well... they are two different questions.

[jack24]

It's true that they are different questions, I just find it a bit hard to understand.  Maybe you can help me.

In my mind, it's coming across as this scenario.
A bunch of chiropractors want to be called doctors.  The doctors have the people decide and the people decide that chiropractors, in fact, should not be called doctors.  The chiropractors sue, and the supreme court says, "We're not telling you what to call chiropractors, we're just saying that your vote to call them something other than doctors is unconstitutional."

So society doesn't have to call them doctors?  We just can't make a law that says they aren't doctors?

[goaliechica]

It's true that they are different questions, I just find it a bit hard to understand.  Maybe you can help me.

In my mind, it's coming across as this scenario.
A bunch of chiropractors want to be called doctors.  The doctors have the people decide and the people decide that chiropractors, in fact, should not be called doctors.  The chiropractors sue, and the supreme court says, "We're not telling you what to call chiropractors, we're just saying that your vote to call them something other than doctors is unconstitutional."

So society doesn't have to call them doctors?  We just can't make a law that says they aren't doctors?

You could make a law that says that no one can be called a doctor. Then you wouldn't have to call chiropractors doctors.

[jack24]

You could make a law that says that no one can be called a doctor. Then you wouldn't have to call chiropractors doctors.

So the people can decide to change the rights of all relationships, they just can't define the rights of a Certain type of relationship without a constitutional ammendment?

[goaliechica]

You could make a law that says that no one can be called a doctor. Then you wouldn't have to call chiropractors doctors.

So the people can decide to change the rights of all relationships, they just can't define the rights of a Certain type of relationship without a constitutional ammendment?

They can't discriminate, no.

I'm at work, so I'm stopping.

[jack24]

Sometimes I just can't believe it's 2008 in the United States of America.

::shakes head::

::throws hands in the air like a Sim::

What do you mean? Time has gone by so fast and all of the sudden it's 2008, or you can't believe this discussion is taking place in 2008?

[jack24]

I can't believe this discussion is necessary. 

I suppose it's interesting as far as the legality debate goes, but...seriously.  It's 2008.  It seems we just don't learn much from our past struggles with human/civil rights. 

I completely understand the sentiment that a discussion about this topic can be "behind the times" 
Like I said, I'm not really interested in a debate about homosexuality, but I do have to say that the reason I have a problem with legalized gay marriage is that I believe all tax benefits associated with marriage should be tied to children.  Due to the fact that married people produce the huge majority of children, they are entitled to tax benefits whether they have kids or not.  IMO IF the government is going to continue this blanket tax policy, it should not apply to those who are obviously unable to produce offspring. 

Adoptions should also carry specific tax benefits.
I don't think there is anything old fashioned about my opinions.

It seems to me like the Supreme Court did in fact have the authority to make this decision, but it bothers me because I believe most judges would not be able to separate their personal feelings about homosexuality from the law. 


   

[mugatu]

That's a different matter entirely.

It also fails to consider the numerous people who do get married but fail to produce offspring (but are heterosexual) through choice or otherwise.