California Supreme Court to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Decision

w00t!!

my fingers are also crossed!

 

While I like the prospect of legalized gay mariage, I don't think going through the courts is the best idea. Gay marriage is very political, and the court is not the place for that.

 

wooot! California could offically join MA as one of the best states!!!

This would also be ironic since in Brothers and Sisters Kevin and Scottie couldn't actually Get "married" but they did some ceremony.

 

That would be awesome!!

 

How will California "lead the country" when it's been legal in Massachusetts for several years?

Election year: you don't stop progress because it might cost votes. Or rather, you shouldn't. And in this case, you can't--it's in the courts so it's completely separate from the election cycle.

I'm not convinced they'll decide in favour of it for sure anyway. They didn't in New York.

 

But that's precisely what the courts are there for, to deal with unjust legislation and spineless legislators. If it (and several other prominent human rights issues like, oh, segregated schools) were left to legislatures, justice would simply never prevail because politicians (especially today, it seems) are often cowards and concerned only with re-election and there is always going to be someone who will make a huge deal out of something that has no negative implications. Well no negative implications other than shattering certain people's narrow little view of the world.

The only reason gay marriage is "political" is because right-wing fundamentalists have made it political. It should simply be a matter of human rights and not at all a wedge issue used to rile up frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives who haven't 2 brain cells to rub together between them.

 

You seemed to imply the court was issuing its decision specifically because a Presidential election is happening or that maybe there was an alternative to the judgment being released during an election year, and what I was trying to point out is that the courts do not schedule their judgments based on whether it's an election year or not, given that we're talking about separate branches of government. Of course the decision will affect how some people vote. It's doesn't mean it will affect the outcome of any elections, however.

Plus you're assuming McCain will become President.

And you're also assuming as President he could somehow overturn a state court's ruling, which I suppose he could if he continued down Bush's moronic path of an anti-gay marriage amendment to the US constitution. Which I'm guessing he wouldn't, but not because he's okay with gay-friendly rulings, just because it would be politcally inexpedient (and hopefully unlikely to pass, although you never really know with the US).

 

Yes, but using the courts like that reduces the effectiveness of the outcome. If the courts do it, then people see it as, "Well, that was just some crazy, activist judge overstepping his boundaries. He doesn't speak for me." But if the legislature does it, then suddenly it was done by people who were elected by and represent them. Considering that it is California though, I don't see there being much backlash. But if the Georgia Supreme Court tried that, well they'd probably be shot. The thing is, courts can make decisions however they want, but they have no power to enforce it if people aren't convinced that it was impartial judgment. And making such a decision would then ruin the courts credibility and subsequent judgments would also be ignored. The main problem in this scenario is that no matter how you look at it, the court will look like it is taking a side on the issue. It will be essentially useless to try and convince the opposition that any judgment they make is fair or impartial.

 

I'm sorry... maybe this is because I'm Canadian and not American, but last I checked if you didn't obey a court decision, you went to jail as you were breaking. the. law. Are you honestly saying that a court should base its decision on what it can garner popular support for? That isn't even remotely how the judiciary works.

Don't get me started on "activist" judges. When a court or a judge issues a conservative ruling, it's a ruling. When a court or a judge issues a ruling that's even remotely liberal, somehow this is the judge or the court "overstepping" their authority and being activist?! First off, not everyone will see it that way because not everyone is retarded and some people know that making judicial decisions is not about what's popular but about how the law gets interpreted and that interpreting the law in a liberal manner is no better or worse than interpreting it in a conservative one. Secondly, the whole point of the justice system is that courts DO take sides in issues. That's the whole POINT of the law: you decide yea or nay.

The problem isn't that courts take sides in issues, the problem is that right-wing fundamentalist freakoids take issue when the side taken is not their own and try to claim the judicial system is broken because they don't always get their way. The courts are not damaging their credibility by making decisions; making decisions is specifically what courts are meant to do.

 

But the can and has damaged its credibility in the past to the point that its decisions were ingnored. For example, in Dredd Scott v Sandford, the court issued a ruling that said, in effect, that Dredd Scott, as a black man, did not have standing in federal court and so could not sue. That decision literally split the country in half, and nobody saw it as any sort of "judgment." The problem was, the half that actually supported the decision left and formed the Confederacy, which left the court with no supporters. Next thing you know, the court issues a writ of habeas corpus concerning some Confederate supporters that Lincoln arrested, and nobody listens to them because they see it as the court taking a side, and not as judgment. If you want to get into the theory, according to the Federalist papers the executive branch has the sword, the legislative the purse, but the judicial branch only has judgment, so the court has to convince the people that its rulings are judgment.

Also, because not all cases sent to a supreme court are criminal, it is not always as simple as sending them to jail for not agreeing. But even then, sending them to jail relies on the executive branch for support, so if the court alienates the executive, there's no one to send them to jail, or otherwise enforce their rulings. For reference, I point to Worcester v Georgia, where President Jackson is quoted as saying, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!".

That may seem problematic, but again I reference the Federalist papers. The founders intended that "ambition would counter ambition," that is to say that because all people are ambitious, there ambitions will cancel out. For example, in Marbury v Madison the Supreme Court faced quite a dilemma where taking either side would result in a weak court. Marshall, however, wanted greatness and sought a way to have it both ways and succeeded. The result was the power of judicial review. And the best part was the court had their mortal enemies, the Jeffersonians, arguing for their decision.

Note: I'm sorry if that reads a bit like a bad college essay, I just finished my American Government class last week, and had to write a paper on essentially the same topic.

Edit: Also, about the whole activist judges thing, that was just an example of what the opposition would say. I was trying to illustrate that they could never be convinced that such a ruling was judgment.

 

You act as though complete left-wing people don't get upset when they dont' get their way either, or anybody else for that matter.

Also, I would appreciate it if you could be a bit more conscientious about what you say regarding mentally ill and right winged people. Discrimination is discrimination.