California Supremes Invent Right to Marriage

Thanks for that reference, Aaron. I am headed out just now. But I will look at it further when I have a little more time.

As to Wiki, I often use it. But I do not consider it the final, always absolutely credible authority. Nor do I consider it automatically incredible.

We here do not always have unlimited time and energy for exhaustive research. And so I think that it is OK for us to cite Wiki here- understanding that its authority is often reasonably suspect.

I really like wiki. I use it, but I also check their sources if I'm going to quote them. If they don't cite reliable sources, I look elsewhere.

I cite Wiki because it's easy and it's free. If Encarta or one of the others were free and easy, I'd use them. But I'm not going to pay to prove my point to you guys.

Besides I can't think of anything it screwed the pooch on in the past couple of years that I've been doing this.

One day if my law professors are correct we will one day see a gay marriage case before the SCOTUS. Most likely for the reason which Ziggy stated. Two courts have decided differently and the litigating party brings it forward that far. This court may refuse to hear it though. Which is within their rights.

I don't know if it's been brought up or not, but a few observations:

1) Due to the Domestic Partnership laws in California, gays already had many financial rights that gays do not have in other states. That is why many gays are not crazy about stirring up the hornet's nest.

2) This creates a "separate but equal" mentality in California. Newsome argued that the state constitution requires equal rights for all in the state. DOMA, passed by the voters is inconsistent with this.

3) Those of you who claim to be "libertarian" or "constitutional" in your beliefs should either praise the decision, or demand that the Government get out of the marriage business altogether. Is it "social engineering"? Doesn't marriage as a state policy give benefits to one group, "straight" and "married" over those who are gay or single? For example, rights of survivorship?


Barry Goldwater supported gay rights, and the Bushes were early proponents of abortion and Planned Parenthood. It was only when the GOP was co-opted by the Religious Right that the adopted the anti-gay bigotry.

Personally, I say let them have marriage but I know the can of worms that is going open on at least two fronts.

On the marriage end of it, polygamist are going to say that if homosexuals can marry, why can't they and with that comes a whole host of social problems. Can you say survivor benefits for multiple wives, pensions, health insurance, continuation of health benefits, disability income and claims, next of kin emergency decisions, wrongful death claims, custodial rights to kids or marital property, alimony, domestic violence, tax transfers between spouses, and on and on and on. But if the government refuses to define marriage or, as Craig states, gets out of the marriage business, this is just one of the can of worms it opens.

On the other, this is basically going to create an entire new class of protected citizens and how many more 'Elane Photography's' are going to face discrimination charges and complaints?

Like it or not, case law has been set in the US. Baker v. Nelson set it and according to constitutional law, the California court is bound to abide by that precedence. They didn't. I'm sure the state will appeal. The question will be, what will the 9th Circuit do? Will it uphold the California Supreme Courts decision and ignore existing Supreme Court law or will they abide by the precedence? It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Craig,

My problem with gay marriage is based entirely on the lawsuits homosexuals will bring against those in the wedding industry who refuse to participate in same sex marriages, particularly when their religious or personal belief systems reject homosexuality. The government should not force citizens to participate in events that they find objectionable. PERIOD.

So unless and until a law can be fashioned that allows homosexuals to "marry" (which I still say is primarily religious not governmental) but prevent them from filing litigation against those unwilling to participate in the planning, ceremony, and/or reception, I will continue to oppose it. I don't see that as ever happening.

Aaron wrote:I am simply amazed that someone who claims to be an attorney, doesn't understand the precedential value of a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question.

Who here is claiming to be an attorney?

Are you familiar with the entire Article IV or just the part that you like?

Very familiar, Sheik.

Section one says Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The rest of the Article deals with extradition and citizenry (although it does say that The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. -Section 2), the formation of new states (Section 3) and the guarantee of a republican form of government (Section 4).

Nothing in there to contradict my assertion and everything to support it. This leads me to ask if you are familiar with the whole article.

Sorry, folks, slam dunk.

DOMA is unconstitutional.

And the way I see it, if a private business doesn't want to photograph homosexuals or anyone else for that matter, why should they be forced to?

And if I don't want to serve blacks at my restaurant, why should I have to?

I also don't want to let christians on my PUBLIC GOLF course. Why? I just don't like them. After all being a christian is a LEARNED behavior, not one you are born with.

Discrimination against someone based upon legal activities they do at home is ignorant and likely illegal.

TerryRC wrote:And the way I see it, if a private business doesn't want to photograph homosexuals or anyone else for that matter, why should they be forced to?

And if I don't want to serve blacks at my restaurant, why should I have to?

I also don't want to let christians on my PUBLIC GOLF course. Why? I just don't like them. After all being a christian is a LEARNED behavior, not one you are born with.

Discrimination against someone based upon legal activities they do at home is ignorant and likely illegal.

I don't believe you should have to serve blacks in your public restaurant, nor should you have to let Christians play on your golf course. You're a private citizen. The government shouldn't be able to coerce you into providing goods or services to anyone.

In this country we are entitled to the pursuit of happiness. If being an ignorant bigot makes you happy, you're entitled to be an ignorant bigot.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I am simply amazed that someone who claims to be an attorney, doesn't understand the precedential value of a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question.

Who here is claiming to be an attorney?

Click the blue source at the bottom of the page Frank. That's from Wiki.

TerryRC wrote:

I also don't want to let christians on my PUBLIC GOLF course. Why? I just don't like them. After all being a christian is a LEARNED behavior, not one you are born with.

It wouldn't be yours if it were a PUBLIC GOLF course.

Now if it was your golf course you should be able to let whoever you want to .......

.

"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

You put this part of Article IV in your cite, but did you forget it's relevance?

TerryRC wrote:Are you familiar with the entire Article IV or just the part that you like?

Very familiar, Sheik.

Section one says Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The rest of the Article deals with extradition and citizenry (although it does say that The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. -Section 2), the formation of new states (Section 3) and the guarantee of a republican form of government (Section 4).

Nothing in there to contradict my assertion and everything to support it. This leads me to ask if you are familiar with the whole article.

Sorry, folks, slam dunk.

DOMA is unconstitutional.

Doma IS unconstitutional. And Stephanie shouldn't let a little thing like lawsuits derail her "love" of all things constitutional.


Problem in California is we have direct democracy AND a constitution.

Stephanie disagrees with you, Craig.

The Supreme Court has so far refused to review DOMA. Their failure to act certainly indicates Justices disagree with you as well.

Is SCOTUS always correct? I certainly don't think so. Roe v Wade and Kelo v City of New London are two examples of their fallibility. However, unless and until the Court decides to strike down DOMA (or some miracle occurs and an amendment to COTUS passes stating otherwise) DOMA stands.

I noticed that there has been a great deal of discussion on this thread about accomodations and what is allowed under the law. I thought this might help. (Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II) "If the facility is covered by the Title II, the owner is required to admit and serve all orderly persons without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Slower service, specially assigned sections for different races or ethnic groups, discrimination against white persons in the company of minority group members, and other types of discourteous treatment are forbidden. The Act does not, however deprive owners of the right to exclude drunken or otherwise disorderly persons, or to maintain reasonable standards of dress or appearance so long as they are applied equally to all persons. The public accomodations provisions affect all persons and not just the management or employees of the covered establishment. Minority groups may not be intimidated, threatened, coerced, or punished by any person for attempting to exercise their rights under the new statute. Outsiders who heckle, abuse, or harass individuals seeking to obtain service in places of public accommodation are subject to federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. & 241 which provides up to ten years imprisonment for conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate citizens in the free exercise of their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. (Criminal Justice Text Series- Constitutional Law for Police.) Good night everyone. Time to eat. When someone yells food in student housing you run or it will be gone before you get to the end of the hall.

SFCraig wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Are you familiar with the entire Article IV or just the part that you like?

Very familiar, Sheik.

Section one says Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The rest of the Article deals with extradition and citizenry (although it does say that The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. -Section 2), the formation of new states (Section 3) and the guarantee of a republican form of government (Section 4).

Nothing in there to contradict my assertion and everything to support it. This leads me to ask if you are familiar with the whole article.

Sorry, folks, slam dunk.

DOMA is unconstitutional.

Doma IS unconstitutional. And Stephanie shouldn't let a little thing like lawsuits derail her "love" of all things constitutional.


Problem in California is we have direct democracy AND a constitution.

It doesn't matter if DOMA is unconstitutional or not. Baker v. Nelson has set precedance so the 9th must overturn California's decision. The only way DOMA or same sex marriage could then be reviewed is if California then appealed to the Supreme Court and then the Roberts led Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

It wouldn't be yours if it were a PUBLIC GOLF course.

Now if it was your golf course you should be able to let whoever you want to .......

Many privately owned country clubs have a public golf course, Sam. It means their course is open to the general public.

Now back to the scheduled discussion...

The course is open to the general public but the public doesn't own the golf course. Don't some of the state parks here have golf courses, or perhaps some of the counties?

The course is open to the general public but the public doesn't own the golf course. Don't some of the state parks here have golf courses, or perhaps some of the counties?

Yes and yes. Some cities even own courses. Charleston has a little gem in Cato Park.

I suppose that you could argue that the public does own the state, county and municipal courses.

Many privately owned country clubs have a course open to the general public. Scarlet Oaks is an example.

It is legal to deny someone service if they are breaking a law or posted rule. It is not legal to deny someone service on any other basis.

It is legal to deny someone service if they are breaking a law or posted rule. It is not legal to deny someone service on any other basis.

That is precisely the reason I am opposed to gay marriage. You hit the nail on the head. Private citizens who refuse to provide products and services for gay weddings because they object to homosexuality for religious or moral reasons will be sued. This should not occur.

Unless the company is publically owned or financed, the government has no business dictating who they must serve. If John Smith Photography objects to same sex marriage, or interracial marriage, or interfaith marriage, or marriages of older women to younger men like mine, the government has no business in compelling John Smith Photography to take pictures at those weddings, nor does the government have any business in penalizing JSP for failing to do so. There are mulititudes of photographers out there who don't care about race, religion, sexuality or age who are more than willing to take our money and take the damn pictures. And guess what? Even if there aren't you can always get a friend to snap some photos for you on the cheap.

Just as I believe the government has no business telling me what I can or cannot smoke, I don't believe the government should tell me who I must provide services for. All kinds of laws exist, some of them aren't very good. In fact, many of them are intrusions on our privacy and personal liberty.

Elane Photography in New Mexico and gay marriage doesn't have to exist for it to happen. Homosexuals are being protected under anti-discrimination laws. This company was fined $6K plus court cost and attorney fees for failing to take to women's picture based pon religious beliefs. Sad but true.

West Virginia narrowly defeated a similar law this year. The supporters promise to bring it back next year. Sooner or later it will pass and sexual orientation will be given the same credeance as skin color.

Aaron,

That was one isolated case in NM. If gay marriage becomes some sort of Constitutional right (federal or state) the numbers will explode and the awards will be much higher.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step just as each government intervention into our lives started with 'one isolated case'.

As I said, West Virginia narrowly defeated a similar law this year. Will the next 'isolated case' be right here in West Virginia next year?