<p>And the will of the California Constitution trumps both.</p>
<p>Which brings the next key point:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The judges, on a purely legal basis, ascertained that the California Constitution contained enough language pertaining to marriage and equality that gay marriage was protected. The beauty of the Constitution, razorsharp, is that it is broad enough not to have to specify exact things it protects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if the people of California want to exercise their right to amend their Constitution, they have every right and have that opportunity in November.</p>
<p>Until then, the judges’ legal reasoning, that the Constitution protects marriage equality, will hold.</p>
<p>Look, razorsharp, you’re bringing out the gamut of pseudo-relevant arguments against “judicial activism”. The bottom line is, the California Constitution has been interpreted, legally, to guarantee equality with regards to the right of marriage. You don’t like that fact because you disagree with gay marriage, and furthermore you’re riled by the fact that a law made by the people was overturned by judges. That’s fine. But as you said yourself, the people have the opportunity to change each of the things you are complaining about, by amending laws or the Constitution - so you shouldn’t be unhappy about it. If enough people agree with you, things will change as you wish them to. And otherwise, as you said yourself, the majority has spoken.</p>
<p>Nero? If the depravity of Nero somehow led to the fall of Rome then it was a pretty delayed reaction. Rome lasted another ~400 years after the reign of Nero. In fact it was in the century after Nero that Rome enjoyed the era of the “Five Good Emperors,” which was the absolute zenith of the golden age of Rome.</p>
<p>Everyone of you should look at your own state legislators. What is your opinion on their effectiveness, or even do you know something about your representive in the State legislature. Be glad that there are wiser people. </p>
<p>We have two Republicans from the State Legislature vying for the GOP’s candidate spot for an open Congressional House Seat. Both candidates are tainted, and depending of your prospective either rotten or underdeveloped.</p>
<p>Almost correct, just out-of-sequence: In the U.S., any couple goes to civil authorities to apply for a marriage license. There’s a waiting period of a few days, a cooling off period (ha!), so the religious marriage can’t occur on the same day. </p>
<p>Clergy asks couple to bring license to ceremony. </p>
<p>After the wedding, clergy mails back to the government their completed license, after filling in names, date, place, witnesses, and connection of the clergy to whatever religious institution engages him/her.</p>
<p>An interesting take on the nature and role of legislatures. Aren’t legislators elected by the people? If the people don’t like what their elected representatives did, can’t they just vote them out of office, thus expressing their will? Is razorsharp interested in government by plebiscite and by plebiscite only? Where does this leave constitutional government? Legal precedents?</p>
California has referendums which result in the enactment of laws. Legislators are to represent the will of the people. If there’s a conflict between the legislature and the voters surely the will of the people as expressed through a referendum should trump the actions of legislators subject to influence from special-interest groups, etc.</p>
<p>As recently as the 1950’s, California voters passed a law authorizing racial discrimination in real estate sales. Struck down by an “activist” state supreme court. It was 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage. More “activism.”</p>
<p>The highest court in a jurisdiction has the responsibility of deciding when laws enacted by current legislatures or initiatives exceed basic Constitutional bounds. That’s their job. And the importance of that job is never clearer that when the majority of the population is granted a right or privilege that the majority seeks to deny to a minority population - that’s called “tyranny of the majority” and it’s no better than any other form of tyranny. Kudos to the California Supreme Court for doing the right thing for couples who don’t deserve the denial of rights that the haters wish on them.</p>
<p>I support the ‘mathmom solution’. All existing marriages should be retroactively recognized as civil unions for legal purposes. Going forward, there should only be civil unions. No more official use of the term “married”. We would file taxes as “civil united, filing jointly”.</p>
<p>Kluge, why be so hasty to call people who might not applaud this latest decision … haters? Isn’t your last sentence an expression of hate as well for people who happen to have different values from yours?</p>
<p>Would you maintain a similar position regarding education since the “tyranny of the majority” is what has kept the current system of a secular education as a monopoly except for the people who are fortunate enough to buy their way out. </p>
<p>Are some “rights” more important than others?</p>
<p>“Actually razorsharp, I and many others really couldn’t care less how many people support a law - if that law violates a person’s constitutional rights, it could be the most popular law in the world and I would still consider it null and void.”</p>
<p>I agree. Whether a law is constitutional is most important. That’s the way our democracy works.</p>
<p>As for me, I am a hetero who supports gay marriage, so am glad that the California Supreme Court voted the way it did.</p>
<p>xiggi: The difference is that you CAN legally buy your way out of a secular public education. You cannot legally buy your way into a gay marriage if it is not recognized.</p>
<p>So you think that legislatures are the tools of special interests but individual voters are free from the manipulations of such interest? Why should we have elections–at any level?</p>
<p>Bring back Athenian democracy!! But remember, it was based on slavery.</p>
<p>In a sense, this was a legal technicality, that the law violated the constitution. The people are free to remedy this by amending the constitution, if they want. I personally applaud the court’s decision, but the majority will rule in November.</p>
<p>Hanna, hasn’t ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS changed the landscape of education at it relates to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Or should we still consider the Blaine Amendment as the voice of the people?</p>
<p>Is the discussion about the legality of same-sex unions or about the “rights” that are attached to the “marriage?” The absence of “benefits” for gay couples is similar to the absence of true school choice. In this regard, the decision to "opting out of the “system” simply costs you. Same difference?</p>
<p>Kluge, I would rate your understanding of the meaning of judicial activism at a big fat zero. When a court overturns a statute, it tells you absolutely nothing about whether that court has engaged in judicial actism. If congress passed a law making it a crime to say anything negative about a member of congress and a court overturned that law, it would not mean the court engaged in judicial actism. Why? Because the court would be applying the first amendment which prohibits congress from passing a law infringing freedom of speech. The US Constitution supercedes any statutes passed by Congress.</p>
<p>The Calif Supreme cout re-wrote the Calif Constituation to require gay marriage when there is no logical or reasonable basis to support that re-writing. </p>
<p>One of the most important concepts of American goverment is a balance of power among the different branches of goverment. The California Supreme Court made itself “more equal” than any other branch of goverment and the people of Calif.</p>
<p>BTW, most of you posters have falsely assumed I opposed gay marriage. I could care less whether there is gay marriage. I care that laws are enacted by the will of the people instead of by judical fiat. When court pass laws, it creates a lot of resentment and it is completely unnecessary. All you have to do is look at all the resentment resulting from Roe v. Wade. That resentment doe not exist at the same level in many European countries because they resolved their differences by majority rule.</p>