California Court Decision on Gay Marriages

M Richardson · 05-18-2008, 12:17 AM

Hopefully, Slayer and Chance can either stay civil or stay out. In the meantime, I thought the thought process of one of the justices involved in the decision was interesting. From the L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4272300.story

SAN FRANCISCO -- In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court's historic gay marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "weighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.

The court was poised 4-3 not only to legalize gay marriage, but to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other court in the nation and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored," left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

UGLY · 05-18-2008, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by M Richardson

Hopefully, Slayer and Chance can eith$r stay civil or stay out. In t`e meantime, I thought the thought process of one of the justices involved in the decision was interesting. From the L.A. Times*

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4272300.story

SAN FRANCISCO -- In the days leading dp to the California Supreme Court's historic gay marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "wdighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.

The court was poised 4-3 not only to legalize gay marriage, but to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other court in the nation and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored," left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

Some would argue that race and sexual preference are not the same. The main difference would be that race is apparent and we have no control over what race we are born into while there is no concrete way to tell if someone is homosexual or lesbian without the m telling you, add to that the fact that we don't know if it is a choice or a genetic imprint.

I don't think that Gays should be discriminated against but like I said in the other thread. Let the people vote on the issue again. They had already voted against same sex marriage in the recent past. Lets see if the citizens have changed their minds on the issue.

BonnieJ2 · 05-18-2008, 11:38 AM

I think when people use race in this argument they are not always saying that the two are the same, but 50 years ago we thought we were doing things the right way and today we don't think that it was such a good direction. They hope that in the future we'll look back and say, I can't believe we discriminated against them that way - just like the race issue.

Spider · 05-18-2008, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

Some would argue that race and sexual preference are not the same. The main difference would be that race is apparent and we have no control over what race we are born into while there is no concrete way to tell if someone is homosexual or lesbian without the m telling you, add to that the fact that we don't know if it is a choice or a genetic imprint.

I don't think that Gays should be discriminated against but like I said in the other thread. Let the people vote on the issue again. They had already voted against same sex marriage in the recent past. Lets see if the citizens have changed their minds on the issue.

I really believe that while participation in gay behavior may be a choice, sexual preference is not. Still, unless gay behavior is harmful (no more so that heterosexual behavior) or sinful (a religious judgement - doesn't belong in secular government), why deny gays the same right to marriage as heteros? Will they be worse at it? Doubtful. Will it cheapen the institution of marriage? Hardly, if it allows lovers to solidify their devotion to one another.

sgallan · 05-18-2008, 08:43 PM

Will it cheapen the institution of marriage?

I tend to think that denying gays the right to marry has cheapened the institution. I know it has for me.

hardcore · 05-18-2008, 08:55 PM

When I got married it was because I felt that it was the right thing to do and the next step in expressing my love for my significant other. Through good times and bad I have never regretted that decision nor have I questioned it. I do not think that allowing a gay couple to marry would add to or take away from my marriage so in good conscience I could not deny them that right.

UGLY · 05-18-2008, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Spider

I really believe that while participation in gay behavior may be a choice, sexual preference is not. Still, unless gay behavior is harmful (no more so that heterosexual behavior) or sinful (a religious judgement - doesn't belong in secular government), why deny gays the same right to marriage as heteros? Will they be worse at it? Doubtful. Will it cheapen the institution of marriage? Hardly, if it allows lovers to solidify their devotion to one another.

I am just pointing out common arguments against gay marriage. I have stated before while I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle I don't think that the gov. should regulate which consenting able minded adults can be married. I am however an advocate of letting the people of the state not the judiciary of a state vote on such issues and make the decision themselves. That way the voice of the people in the republic we live in is heard and followed. It is also a way for those who support the lifestyle to come out and support the measure through the democratic process instead of through the judiciary behind closed doors.

Spider · 05-18-2008, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

I am just pointing out common arguments against gay marriage. I have stated before while I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle I don't think that the gov. should regulate which consenting able minded adults can be married. I am however an advocate of letting the people of the state not the judiciary of a state vote on such issues and make the decision themselves. That way the voice of the people in the republic we live in is heard and followed. It is also a way for those who support the lifestyle to come out and support the measure through the democratic process instead of through the judiciary behind closed doors.

Time for the Spider to go to bed, but first I'll just tweak a previously used analogy to point out that the voice of the people is not always the best way to make laws. In the 50's if there had been a vote by the people to legalize racial segregation in a southern state, it would have passed, but it wouldn't have been the right or proper thing to do.

matclone · 05-18-2008, 10:06 PM

I just want to point out that the Constitution of the State of California (or the United States) also represents the voice of the people--which the Court is tasked with upholding. There are, and will be, many rhetorical, and often disingenuous, claims made about the court subverting the will of the people. Not that they can't make mistakes, or even do wrong, but note there was disagreement on the court, and the Chief Justice as the article indicates, found it tough to decide--all which points to the idea that these issues are not so black and white and the decision came after due deliberation. I happened to see some of the proceedings on TV awhile back--probably on C-Span. It was great.

ODH · 05-18-2008, 10:23 PM

New Hampshire passed Civil Union law this year and it has really effected my marriage. It has legitimized the homosexual lifestyle, which now that a civil union is an option is becoming very appealing to me. . . uh, then again maybe not.

California Court Decision on Gay Marriages

Politics & Religion