It's not surprising.

Barking

this is the 9th circut court or as we in the states call it "The 9th Circus" it is the most overturned court in our nations history

Circus and court in the same sentence. Say it ain't so.

If marriage between same sex couples is so terrible then the state should get out of the marriage business completely.

But of course, the Gramscian revolution is a conservative myth dreamed up to scare the children.

How much longer before marriage between "opposite-sex" couples is banned?

Only so long as marriage continues to suffer under the onslaught of legislation and propaganda. If it somehow, miraculously, demonstrates a revival then it will undoubtedly be the victim of an even more vicious and wicked activism.

Also no doubt, even some types who regard this as a regrettable decision will attribute it to an odd application of legal philosophy without malice. These people might realise that hateful anti-Western activists have burrowed their way through our societies when they are forced to apologise and pay a secular jizyah for being white and heterosexual.

I'm eagerly awaiting the three candidates comments on this decision - should be good political fodder!

This is the California State Supreme Court, not the 9th Circuit which is a Federal Court.

I haven't read the decision yet, but I think from the Los Angles Times report it would be fair to say that the Court did not find traditional marriage unconstitutional, but rather that banning homosexuals from marriage is unconstitutional (traditionalists need not fear anything they can marry (and divorce) as they always have).

In any event, the Governor has indicated he will abide by the California Supreme Court's ruling, and as such we have an instance in which I presume the conservative States Rights advocates of America will accept this decision without seeking Federal intervention.

I'd like to read the decision first, but my guess is that it is consistent with California's State Constitution and the Republican dominated Court here would have seen to that.

Volokh has this take on the opinion:

The opinion is entirely based on claims under the California Constitution, and does not rely on federal constitutional claims. This means that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot review this; and it also means that a state constitutional amendment -- which seems likely to be on the ballot this November -- could overturn the decision.
Here's the court's reasoning, in a nutshell:

1. The California Constitution's Due Process Clause and Privacy Clause (there's an explicit one in California) secure a right to marry, which extends to same-sex marriages as well as opposite-sex marriages. The limit of marriage to opposite-sex couples thus must be reviewed under strict scrutiny (i.e., must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest).

2. The California Constitution's Equal Protection Clause treats sexual orientation as a suspect classification. Any discrimination against gays and lesbians thus must be reviewed under strict scrutiny, and the opposite-sex-only rule is indeed such a discrimination.

3. The opposite-sex-marriage-only rule does not constitute presumptively impermissible sex discrimination, only sexual orientation discrimination.

4. The ban on same-sex marriage can't pass muster under strict scrutiny (pretty much a foregone conclusion, given how demanding strict scrutiny generally is).

What a crazy palava over marriage and what it means.

Thanks Daphne: Looks like some folks will be registering in San Fran now. Good luck to them.

The concept of marraige should be left as a private religous sacrament without the state determining it's parameters. The state should give legal recognition to adult unions as a civil concept regardless of the genders involved.

PS - Surely the US supreme court can review any legislative decision anywhere in the US ?

I'm mixed on this one. Emotionally, I find the idea of "gay marriage" repugnant & ridiculous. It feels like a mockery of societal normalcy.

On the other hand, I don't care what sort of relationships gay people have and what we're talking about anymore is a word, marriage, because legally speaking, gay couples have all of the exact same rights as straights do in California, including divorce.

The groups fighting against gay marriage are in a rear guard action at this point, since the laws of most states already accommodate and cover civil unions between all couples.

Colm, here's a part of the text of the court's decsion on their reasoning;

"Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."

Basically, they don't want anyone to have their feelings hurt.

Daphne

I tend to agree that civil unions are enough. Marraige is the name given to a solemnisation of a union between an unrelated male and female. As long as same-sex couples can recieve the same legal benefits and rights (and obligations) , then there is no need to insist on their unions being called marraige.

Michael Savage will not be happy tonight.

Phantom

I'd never heard of him but just googled his website. He needs to chill out man and go with tha flow..

sotty Mahons when you see the Words California Court and see a ridiculas ruling it is only natural to assume it was the (th Circus and you know it. But I gladly stand corrected on which court it was The decision however is stupid.

There is also a petition in the state that has enough signatures to put a ban on gay marriages as part of the California State Constitution it will be on the next vote as a referendum.

When it passes I am, sure that vote by the people will also be overturned.

Phantom,

"Michael Savage will not be happy tonight."

I don't think Michael Savage was happy last night or the night before that either.

Colm, Savage is wonderfully funny to listen to! He actually screams!

Troll, this battle was lost years ago when non-married couples acquired the same status and legal protections as marrieds. It was only a matter of time before it was expanded to include gays. The alternative sex folks are out of the closet and they're going to fight until they get the word "marriage" to include them too. They think this will make them normal.

Michael Savage is a wackjob, but like the post on Mark Styne he has a good battle in the courts going where CAIR is trying to get him banned from radio for hate speech.

I don't like his show but I support his fight.

LOL - so true Frank! He is one outraged man.

Colm

He's actually brilliant, in a very manic-depressive way. He can go from 0 to 100 mph in an eighth of a second. He's a conservative who hates the Republican Party, someone who despises San Francisco in many ways but is a long time resident of the city by the bay.

You may find it interesting to listen to his program on
one of these stations.

No one like him in Europe I think. No one else like him in America either!

--

Troll

Whenever I'm home early, I tend to listen to him. ( The live broadcast in NY is WOR at 6pm ) The guy is an insane genius.

Troll -I actually agree with you that the 9th Circuit is the worst (by the way the 9th Circuit ruled in 2006 that gays didn't have standing to challenge the marriage laws).

The decision is legally correct imo and not the work of stupid people. I can't believe Californians would want to actually amend their state Constitution on this issue, but we'll see. I think amendments to a Constitution should be few and far between.

Troll,

"sotty Mahons when you see the Words California Court and see a ridiculas ruling it is only natural to assume it was the (th Circus and you know it."

I know he's fond of a beer or six but sotty? However, I believe Mahons has it about right. Marriage between peeps of opposite sexes has not been declared unconstitutional "but rather that banning homosexuals from marriage is unconstitutional."

Hellfire, I've just seen footage of a flying frog! Sorry, a French* airline pilot who's invented a personal jet, steered by the body. My SF (no, not Sinn Féin) dreams come true!

Meanwhile down on the farm we still have the dinosaurs grouching about two gay chaps tying the knot, instead of minding their own goddamned business. Some aspects of the 21st century didn't turn out quite as I imagined they would.

* Correction, he's Swiss!

--I think amendments to a Constitution should be few and far between.--

True, but it all depends on what one thinks is important.

And as the court ruling was 4-3, even that court did not think the matter a slam dunk.

If one judge had voted the other way, would the ruling have been legally incorrect?

If the people think the ruling is fundamentally wrong, an intrusion of an activist judiciary, then let them be heard.

Phantom - I didn't say the ruling was legally correct based on the numbers, just as the Dred Scott decision was wrong in spite of the numbers. I think the California Court interpreted their state's law fairly. I alos find people label a judiciary activist when they disagree with it.

Anyway, Arnold said he'd enforce the law.

Colm: The foes of gay marriage will seek to amend their state's Constitution which will then serve to bind the State Court. They may have to have a referendum to require the legislature to act, I am not sure how that State's Constitution is amended.

But Phantom, even the people in a state wide referendum can't override a law that judges deem to be unconstitutional.

They can Colm, if that state's constitution allows for changes by referendum, which California's does. The polling on this issue is near 50/50, if the voters are able to change the constitution, it's a done deal from what I've read.

I agree with you too tonight Mahons!

I don't know. I know they can strike down state laws, but I don't know if that's treated the same as the state constitutions. We need a lawyer.

Did you revise Colm or is squarepants going weird again?

But Daphne, surely a state constitutional amendment could still be overturned if the US Supreme Court rules it is in breach of the US Constitution.

Daphne

It's squarepants again. My comments are displaying a time about 5 minutes out , sometimes earlier or later than I am posting them. Nothing to do with revisions .

Does this ruling mean that a brother and sister (or two brothers or two sisters) can be 'married' in California?

Eagle: No. I can't speak for West Virginia of course.

Look Look you guys don't get it Mahons your a lawyer you should know better.

The issue has nothing to do with gays or marriage what it has to do with is the courts violating the constitution whether that's a state constitution or the federal one they are making law and that is NOT what they are empowered to do.

What you have in this ruling is four lawyers pushing their beliefs on the rest of the people.

A courts job is to interprit the law. What exists in the state and fedearal constitutions can be ruled on what is NOT written there can't be placed there by a court.

Limited powers all 3 branches have limited power. The courts have overstepped that Time and Time again, The creation of law belongs to the legislature NOT the courts.

Thats why this is a bad rulling. Jesus I might expect that kind of misunderstanding from Europeans, but any American who doesn't know that is ignorant of the rules and foundations that our country was built on.

Troll - return to the cave. Ask Monica to make you a nice cup of coffee. Read Civics 101, don't just use it to hide Soldier of Fortune magazine. Repeat.

ok Mahons whats wrong with my post above?

tell me who creats laws?
Show me where in the constitution the power to create law is given to the courts?

Name the Article I have a copy sitting right next to my computer.

The problem is your a liberal and as a liberal you depend on activist courts to advance your agenda.

The masses vote in legislators that won't create laws that advance a lot of your agenda and they vote them out when they do. So what happens the agenda is moved to the courts.

Except when an activist court creats law it violates the constitution. If you weren't taught civics by marxist you would understand that.

So teach me show me where in the constitution the power to create law is given to the court.

We live in a Democratic Republic, not a system of where 4 politburo judges dictate to the masses what shall be.

Troll

Surely wether you agree with the decision or not, the judges are simply interpreting the Constitution which is what they are supposed to do. I can't see they they are making a new law here.

thats the problem Colm in this case they did NOT do that, they cited no casses or precidents to support their decision. They provided no examples to support or bolster their stance.

Troll

Surey they don't need to. After all there alwasy has to be a first precedent for any case. The role of the judges is to interpret the relevent part of the Constitution and make a judgment on wether the law being disputed falls foul of it or not. Surely if they had reached the conclusion that a same-sex marraige ban was constitutional then that would also have been an activist decision.

Yes they do need to, here we have 4 lawyers who are trying to take this decision away from the people of california. There is nothing in the california constitution for them to base this decision on.

This is not about the gay marriage issue this is about the American system of government, it is about Republicanism as a system (not the party).The courts are seizing power that they do not have.

When a constitution is silent on anything it is the people through ELECTED represntative to decide not the courts.

This decisian was written by Cheif Justice Robert George, (a republican appointee)

The court overstepped it's powers by overturning existing marriage laws.

There is no deeply seated tradition of same sex marriage in the nation or the state. They overturned law. Marriage is defined in the law as the right of a woman and a unrelated man to marry each other.

They said the constitution implied that the institution of marriage etablished a right of individuals encompassed the core set of basic legal rights and attribute traditionally associated with marriage that are so entittled to an individuals liberty and autonomy that he may not be elliminated or abrogated and that These rights include the right to establish an officialy recognized family.

Except they name no citations to support that opinion. In other words they just made it up, they aren't basing it on any citation or precident.

They are creating law as they go along.

Troll

I agree with you that the judicial decision is dubious to say the least, but I can't agree that they weren't entitled to make it. The whole point of having a sovereign state based on judicial interpretation of a Constitution which outlines broad principles is that it does lie with the judiciary to interpret those principles as new laws and old practises are challenged in accordance with changing attitudes. . The laws against racial segregation were not deemed to be unconstitutional until the middle of the 20th Century , yet the constitution hadn't changed and , so why weren't they succesfully challenged in the 19th ? Because the issue of Civil Rights and equality based on race wasn't at the top of the political tree.

Similarly the rights of Homosexuals simply weren't an issue 50 years ago, they are now and the decisions being made in the courts now and in recent years concerning that issue are the citations and precedents that are being set to establish the degree with which that issue will be legally dealt with.

Colm

"Similarly the rights of Homosexuals simply weren't an issue 50 years ago, they are now and the decisions being made in the courts now and in recent years concerning that issue are the citations and precedents that are being set to establish the degree with which that issue will be legally dealt with."

Thats my whole point doing that is a violation of the constitution. The court does NOT have that power.

If the citizenry wishes to confer the right to call a union between same sex people marriage you HAVE TO DO IT WITH LEGISLATION. Then a court can rule whether or not its constitutional by citing precident.

A court has NO POWER to grant rights or change laws it can only strike a law down.

Using gay marriage as an example the court can rule that a law written saying gay marriage is denied is unconstitutional, but that can't say that no people can be joined in a marriage unless you include same sex couples.

To do that they have to redifine the legal description of what a marriage is and only the legislature can do that. and the legislature has already defined a same sex joining as a civil union.