Judicial Activism
May 15th, 2008 at 08:59pm Matt Margolis
As I expected, the California Supreme Court gave a big F.U. to the will of the people, and legalized gay “marriage” in the state.
California’s Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation’s biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.
Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after - religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: My question to the gay rights activists who pressed this in the courts: Are you stupid? I mean, seriously - here’s a year when strong-with-hispanics McCain has a shot at winning California against weak-with-hispanics Obama, and you - in an act of pure self-centeredness - have to press an issue which will add to McCain’s strength an energised and united conservative base coming out in November to send gay marriage down in flames at the polls, as has happened every single time it comes on the ballot in the United States.
Stupid, stupid, stupid…but, hey, we’ll take it and thanks very much.
Entry Filed under: Kook Left
66 Comments Add your own
1. 42 | May 15th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I’m a liberal…and this ruling is ridiculous, though I don’t think a Con. Amendment is the way to go
2. Sidetrack | May 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Gas is at $4.00 per gallon, middle class Americans are losing their homes in foreclosures, millions are without access to adequate healthcare, bridges are falling into rivers and over 4,000 have died in a civil war far from home. Will the cons talk or even debate plausible solutions for these problems? No it is election time. There is a need to rally the base, by bashing a group of people cons believe inferior. You can bet that foreclosed house or tank of gas another round of ban same sex marriage amendments are coming in the swing states.
3. SimonSusmussion | May 15th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I thought in a free nation, a person had the right to marry the person he/she loved?
I guess terrorists really don’t hate us for our freedom, because we really don’t have any.
4. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Ah, the “Will of the People” again, a.k.a. Mob Rule.
The Bill of Rights protects the Individual for just such a situation. The Right of the Individual trumps any “Will of the People”.
5. Freedom1 | May 15th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Those bastards overruled the will of the California people again and okay’d this atrocity.
6. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
How come so many Americans don’t have a clue about how their own government functions and why? Especially the Judicial Branch? Don’t they teach these things in school?
Justices are not ALLOWED to listen to the ‘Will of the People’. They have to interpret the LAW with reference to the Constitution (in this case the California State Constitution) and then with reference to any existing Case Law.
Americans like to brag about how wonderful their Constitution and their Bill of Rights is, but a lot of them don’t have a clue about what exactly they are bragging about.
7. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Oh, and 6 of the 7 SC Judges were appointed by …..
that’s right: Republicans
8. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Oh, and another point. Since this is California: What was the “Will of the Californian People” Matt?
Can you answer me that?
Do you remember that the people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws?
And that both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue?
So, again. What was the Will of the Californian People?
9. Freedom1 | May 15th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I’m a Californian. I voted for the state-wide ban on gay marriage. It passed by a 2/3 rds margin, IIRC. That’s the will of the people.
10. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
9. Freedom1 | May 15th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
By 61% it passed, but the reason you have a Supreme Court is to correct wrongs done “by the will opf the people” to individuals. Imagine how many gay and lesbian couples will marry tommorrow?
11. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
the reason you have a Supreme Court is to correct wrongs done “by the will opf the people” to individuals.–Cavalor.
Wrong. The Supreme Court’s purpose is to prevent the few from forcing their will on the majority, and to decide on the side of morality so that a sense of reason for the peace of a society may be kept in check.
When Judges start deciding in favor of immorality … then is when trouble is on the horizon!!
12. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Freedom1:
That referendum was in 2000.
In 2005 California’s state legislature - elected by the people of California - enacted it’s first same-sex marriage law. Polls have found substantial support for gay marriage in California, with dramatic trends toward favoring gay marriage. See here and here.
Again, what is the will of the people?
You’ve got it backwards: the Supreme Court’s purpose is to uphold the (State) Constitution. And the Constitution protects the rights of minoriest from majority rule.
13. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 78, regarding the duties of the federal judiciary: “wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.”
It would be Judicial Activism when judges would listen to the mob outside the courtroom. It wasn’t activism, it was their duty.
14. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
what is the will of the people?
The ‘Will of the People’ is embodied as - ‘The Will of the good people of the United States.’
the Supreme Court’s purpose is to uphold the (State) Constitution.
And the State Constitution is always in compliance with what the will of the peoples decision was when it was ratified!
And the Constitution protects the rights of minoriest from majority rule.
Again, this came about only when the Supreme Court Activist Judges changed the former meaning and intent of the founders and ratifiers to mean what they want it to mean - Giving rise to the individualist mindset, and therefore usurping the will of the people!
Let’s look at it this way, let’s take one person against 20 people - If that one individual in question decided he had a “right” to beat up on other people, when the law says ‘no’, and it isn’t permissible for the other 20 people to beat up on people…..does that give that one individual the “right” to beat up on other people?
You decide…
15. Jeremiah | May 15th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
….even further….should the law be changed so that that individual can beat up on other people?
16. Jeremiah | May 16th, 2008 at 12:01 am
It would be Judicial Activism when judges would listen to the mob outside the courtroom.
Who knows best….The judge/judges….Or 50 million people?
17. Jeremiah | May 16th, 2008 at 12:03 am
A STUPID JUDGE HAS NO D***ED RIGHT TO FORCE HIS OPINION ON THE WHOLE COUNTRY!!!
18. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 12:32 am
When you want to make an analogy, first make sure the analogy fits the reality.
The reality is more like this:
“Let’s look at it this way, let’s take one person against 20 people - If those 20 people in question decided they had a “right” to beat up on that one person. They make a law that says “yes we can” but the Constitution says people have a right not to be beaten up: does that give those 20 people the “right” to beat up that person?”
Remember we are talking about the California Constitution. That Constitution explicitly states that Californians have a Right to Marry and that all Californians have a guarantee of “equal protection” under the law. There was no way that the Californian Supreme Court could rule any other way.
You can’t have a Constitution that says you have a right to marry and a law that says you don’t have a right to marry. It’s as simple as that.
19. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Willem,
If you enter a contract with someone, do you want it to be a “living, breathing” contract, or are you going to insist on the provisions being enforced? You know darned well how you’ll answer that - but, somehow, when it comes to judicial usurpations like this, you’re ok with it…and the saddest thing is that you’re ok with it simply because it happens to agree with your worldview.
Here are the mentions of “marriage” in the California constitution:
Here are the mentions of homosexuality/gender/gay/bisexual/lesbian/sexual orientation:
Not a lot in there about homoseuxality and/or marriage, huh?
So, what about basic rights? Well, here ya go:
Once again, not much in there about marriage or about homosexuality. In other words - nothing in the California constitution warrants a judicial decision that gay marriage - in contravention of laws duly passed by the people of the State of California - shall happen. The judges just made this sh** up as they went along - and that, my friend, is tyranny.
20. Decidenator | May 16th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Mark said:
The California Constitution, like the US Constitution, guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. And since there are many legal protections granted to married couples, the judges concluded that the state can’t only allow one class of people to become married.
21. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Decide,
Nonsense - gay marriage was expressly prohibited by act of the people of the State of California and nothing in the California constitution prohibits such a thing. You’re acting as if marriage is a right - its not; its a privilege, and it is up to the people to decide - via constitutional legislative means - who will be accorded the privileges of marriage.
22. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Deleted - couldn’t engage in actual debate, brought in DNC talking points as a desperate expedient to try and change subject.
23. Jeremiah | May 16th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Ever State…and by all means the Federal Supreme Court of the land should add a Constitutional amendment that reads thusly:
‘Neither the State/United States (whichever you prefer), through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.”
And that’s exactly the way it should read!!
24. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Legalizing gay marriage is evil and we’ll all pay for it if we don’t undo this travesty of morality and justice.
4 deluded, immoral judges contravened the will of millions of California voters.
This is evil.
25. Doug | May 16th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Oh my goodness, this is becoming about as intelligent as the DailyKos postings.
It’s really pretty simple, if you think the CA Constitution or the US Constitution gives Gays the Right to Marry through Equal Protection, then you also must believe it gives Fathers the right to marry their Daughters, Brothers the right to marry their Sisters, even whole towns the right to marry each other in one big massive polygamist ritual.
There is no difference. So where do you stand? My stance is pretty solid, the govt. can make rules regarding marraige, if they didn’t have the right to make those rules, then all of the above could happen.
26. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Oh, and you’re 100% correct, Mark. This will absolutely motivate and mobilize millions of Californians, especially Republicans and Independents, to get out and vote in November to strike down this evil travesty and to vote for John McCain for President of the United States.
Gone is apathy. This decision means war - to preserve our Christian society and American way of life.
27. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Mark, read the decision by the Court. They explain it far better than I can why Californians have a constitutional “right to marry”. To highlight just one portion:
Together with a guarantee of equal protection under the law, you d-mn well can rest assured that I would enforce the government to hold up it’s end of the contract.
Because the ‘contract’ between me, my partner and the government is of absolute no business to your, your partner’s and the government ‘contract’. It doesn’t affect your contract in any way, shape, or form. You stil have the same contract.
28. Gaijin | May 16th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Man you guys are really drinking the koolaid today.
Willem, nice job of bringing some sanity to the conversation.
Marko, being that marriage is a privilege, is it ok for states to forbid interracial couples to marry? This was common practice in many states until those activist judges did away with it.
Jerry…”Wrong. The Supreme Court’s purpose is to prevent the few from forcing their will on the majority, and to decide on the side of morality so that a sense of reason for the peace of a society may be kept in check.”
Would this be similar to when under Jim Crow laws the white majority wanted to sit in the back of the bus, but couldn’t because the black minority was forcing their will upon them?
If it wasn’t for “activist” judges, the South would have never been desegregated. Separate but equal(but not really equal) was the will of the people for over 100 years. Our country is a much better place because of those “activist” judges. Although, I am sure there are some who would disagree.
Man jerry, it’s almost comical how you think you know what you’re talking about when it comes law and politics. Stick to Fire and Brimstone, you are much better at it.
Lastly, I would just like to say, that’s what you get for trusting Republican appointed judges. I wonder if John McCain has them on his short list for the Supreme Court?
Peace, Gaijin
29. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Deleted - still off topic.
30. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Mark writes:
“If you enter a contract with someone, do you want it to be a “living, breathing” contract, or are you going to insist on the provisions being enforced? You know darned well how you’ll answer that - but, somehow, when it comes to judicial usurpations like this, you’re ok with it…and the saddest thing is that you’re ok with it simply because it happens to agree with your worldview. ”
Once again Mark is guilty of comparing apples and oranges.
A contract is an agreement between two parties that details each parties obligations and rights. Given this nature, it can be reduced down to details.
A constitution is a general compact between a government and its people that outlines the rights of citizens. Like our Federal Constitution, CA’s constitution is written in broad language. Both are written in this fashion because the Framers of both had no way of detailing what a government could and could not do. Look at the amount of case law just detailing with the definition of speech. No Framer could have dreamed up every scenario that might invoke the First Amendment. They left the document’s interpretation to future generations.
To require our Constitution to name every right a citizen possesses would lead to bizarre results. For example, nothing in the Federal or CA constitution says marriage is a right. By your logic, the government could outlaw marriage between heterosexual couples because marriage is not mentioned.
In fact, given your interpretive method, our Federal government could outlaw sex altogether. We could become a country which only uses artifical insemination to procreate.
So, do you agree with this? Or do you admit that we have rights that are not expressed in the Constitution?
31. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 2:17 am
It only will bring out the same old, same old fundamentalists who no matter what will always vote an R, even if their candidate has been found with several dead high-class prostitutes (male ánd female) on Election Eve, paid for by the taxpayer.
The rest just can’t be bothered, especially when they have to pay for a full tank of gas on their way to the voting booth.
32. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Doug writes,
“It’s really pretty simple, if you think the CA Constitution or the US Constitution gives Gays the Right to Marry through Equal Protection, then you also must believe it gives Fathers the right to marry their Daughters, Brothers the right to marry their Sisters, even whole towns the right to marry each other in one big massive polygamist ritual.”
This is a BS argument for two reasons.
First the the state could show a compelling interest (and easily a rationale basis) for not allowing incestual marriage, namely the genetic effects on children of the marriage.
Also, most states allow incestual marriages as long as the relation is far enough apart so that the gene pool is diverse enough to largely eliminate health problems.
Second, the slippery slope argument is always available but rarely pursuasive. Society can see the difference between homosexuality and beastiality even though you apparently cannot.
For example, look at how the left uses the slippery slope argument for gun control. Just because the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bare arms does not give a person the right to own a nuclear missile. Yet, the far left believes that we are moments away from Bill Gates owning an ICBM.
Likewise, just because I have the right to free speech doesn’t give me the right to lie about you in the newspaper.
33. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Wow, Mark writes,
“You’re acting as if marriage is a right - its not; its a privilege, and it is up to the people to decide - via constitutional legislative means - who will be accorded the privileges of marriage.”
This is what my driving instructor told me about my driver’s license. Are you a driving instructor, Mark?
So the State of Nevada could revoke your marriage just as it could take away your driver’s license?
I guess marriage is not as sanctimonious as every conservative seems to think it is.
34. Jeremiah | May 16th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Likewise, just because I have the right to free speech doesn’t give me the right to lie about you in the newspaper.
Alright then, you agree that one right does not give you that same right to create a wrong.
It’s the same with everything else in life…there is right and there is wrong…But, in spite, the Supreme Court sided on the side of wrong….and is something we’re going to have to stop at all costs for the future’s sake of our Nation.
Provided America continues to look to the God of Creation…No laws will be put into effect that would change the intent of our Founding Fathers…and thus, we will maintain peace.
35. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Fathers marrying their daughters and Brothers their sisters? Isn’t that an argument against heterosexual marriage?
Exactly the same argument was used against interracial marriage. You didn’t include people marrying their pets. Conservatives seem to have an inexplicable urge to marry their pets. I guess you don’t.
36. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 2:50 am
It all went downhill when homosexuality was decriminalised. Right?
When will we see pink triangles in the US? Or do you prefer tattoos?
37. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Jeremiah,
I don’t understand a word you say. You are against gay marriage, I undertand that. But you don’t make any argument as to why today’s decision was legally incorrect. You just tell me that God thinks it was wrong.
How can I respond to that? How about this.
No, He doesn’t think it is wrong. In fact, he doesn’t care.
How is my answer any less testable than your assertion.
38. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Willem,
Californians voted to ban gay marriage by 61%! 61% of the voters in liberal, la la land California voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage.
Those “fundamentalists” in California who up until now wouldn’t have bothered to show up at the polls in November to vote for the way too liberal John McCain, now have a strong incentive to go to the polls and to vote in November to (1) ban gay marriage and (2) to vote for McCain for President of the United States.
The Demoncrats just made a huge mistake. Barack Obama has already voiced his support for “gay rights” so, this is just going to galvanize opposition to him and to his candidacy like nothing else could.
I’m betting every Conservative group in the country will be enthusiastically canvassing the airwaves, the internet, talk radio, television and the newspapers between now and November to get people to go out and once again ban gay marriage.
Since the dawn of humankind, virtually no nation or state has sanctioned gay marriage. Even the Romans never recognized gay marriage. Thousands of years of human history have shown that marriage between a man and a woman has been the recognized, legal and moral definition of marriage.
Today’s immoral, poltically correct rulings to legalize gay marriage are just evil fads.
39. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Um Willem,
Apparently you have not been on here in a while. Jeremiah wants to execute gays. However, he is fair. The first offense will be punishable with a fine. The second offense = death.
40. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Freedom1 writes:
“Since the dawn of humankind, virtually no nation or state has sanctioned gay marriage. Even the Romans never recognized gay marriage. Thousands of years of human history have shown that marriage between a man and a woman has been the recognized, legal and moral definition of marriage. ”
So what?
For thousands of years, these civilizations owned slaves and denied women the right to own property. We ended slavery and allow women the right to own property. Our civilization has managed.
There is no argument weaker than “This is the way it has always been, and by gum, it is the way it always will be!” No one on here can point to the specific evil that supposedly will erupt once gay people have the right to marry.
41. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 3:23 am
What,
No, that is covered under the 9th and 10th amendments - the government cannot abrogate - save by constitutional amendment - the things people were commonly doing at the time of the adoption of the constitution.
42. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Willem,
If you can’t see it, then there’s really no hope for you: the judicial sleight of hand:
Which phrase is meaningless - “constitutionally based” is “living constitution” claptrap which just allows a judge to inclined to insert into law anything he wishes. No rights are “constitutionally based” - some enumerated rights are secured by constitutional action, but none of them are based upon the constitution. Furthermore, there is no right to marry - not in the sense the judges mean; the right to marry, as it were, is a right for any man to marry any woman who is agreeable…but there is no fundamental, human right to be married…if so, then people could be commanded to marry others even if not so inclined.
What you’ve got here, Willem, is judicial tyranny - and you like this bit of fascism because it works out the way you want…and that is just sad; shows a very servile mental attitude on your part.
43. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Mark,
So you are claiming it is a right and not a privilege now? You are contradicting yourself. Which is it?
44. What? | May 16th, 2008 at 4:05 am
Oh Mark,
First off, where does this come from?
“Furthermore, there is no right to marry - not in the sense the judges mean; the right to marry, as it were, is a right for any man to marry any woman who is agreeable”
If it is a right it must have an origin. Where does this right come from? The law? It can’t be a human right because you write:
“but there is no fundamental, human right to be married…if so, then people could be commanded to marry others even if not so inclined.” (This makes not sense, why can’t there be a fundamental human right for two people to marry?)
If the law creates the right, then the equal protection clause in CA requires the law treat all people the same unless a compelling interest exists not to. Gays are not allowed to marry. The law, by only allowing marriage between heterosexuals, is denying equal rights to homosexuals without a compelling interest. The CA court ruled their was no compelling interest and that gays were being treated differently than heterosexuals. This is no different than the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that bans on interracial marriages offended the equal protection clause. The only difference is CA decided to apply strict scrutiny instead of rationale basis.
Finally you write this:
“What you’ve got here, Willem, is judicial tyranny”
So you would say the same thing about Brown v. Board of Education?
Who protects the minority from the tyranny of the majrotiy, Mark?
You are just bitter because you are on the losing side of this one. You would be cheering if the Supreme Court deemed abortion unconstittutional.
45. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 4:10 am
What? -
It’s good vs. evil.
People who support and condone gay marriage support and condone evil. Gay marriage is evil.
God made this abundantly clear in the Bible.
46. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Where in the Constitution is the right to gay marraige?
Not specifically defined.
10th amendment states that this issue and others like it are remanded to the states.
California (state) VOTED to ban gay marriage, 61% mind you. The C SC by any stretch of the imagination interpreted rights where none are specifically outlined effectively legislating from the bench.
61% VOTED against gay marriage, but there are many liberals here that want to disregard that and at the same time want the President to do something because a majority in a POLL wishes it.
Truly pathetic.
“How come so many Americans don’t have a clue about how their own government functions and why?” - WVO
Why? It’s simple - those Americans are victims of liberal and union controlled government schools. They don’t teach civics in public school, so the libs can do and say what they want and these ignorant souls will know nothing is amiss.
Decide - 10th amendment - read it, learn it.
47. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 16th, 2008 at 6:36 am
45. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 4:10 am
No, same sex marriage, gay marriage call it what you will is the law in California. You may not like it, you may lose sleep over it, but there is very little today that you can do about it. And that is what has the knickers of so many conservatives here in a twist. It is that the country is out of their ability to control what people they think are inferior to them do and now they have been told that those people are equals under the Law and that is a hard seed for them to swallow. Try washing it down with law rather than blind religious adherence and reason rather than bigotry and life can actually be a warm and tender experience.
This decision does not change your life one bit, unless you are gay and want to move to California. It is not your religious duty to save a nation that is not in need of saving. Thanks for the kind prayers and the nice incense but America has business to do getting back to her position of prominence and assuring that all the people are treated with equity in matters of law. Plain and simple and one thing that no state constitution grants you as a right is the ability to take a right from someone because their having a right offends you. The mere thought of that connote creating lesser classhood which if allowed could one day be used to literally throw American Christendom to the lions if the majority were to say change its mind about religion and you become the minority.
Kind of makes thing look different when those rose colored glasses are off dunnit? Shoe being on the other hoof or summick like that. But I digress . . .
If you want a theocracy in the US freedom 1 I am happy to inform you that this can only happen if you buy a plot of land put up homes on it and start your own religious cult that lives by its own biblical law. Otherwise the United States is a secular capitalist representative democracy full of people that profess a certain religion many of whom have very compassionate Faith and love for their Fellow Man.
When the religion you belong to because you belong becomes more important than the message of love and hope, well mate it really is all over innit?
And on the polygamist thing when you can find for me a group that is polygamist for some secular reason and not some religious reason [bigamy and polygamy are two different things] then I might twig to your idea that the slope might be a bit more slick than normal until then enjoy the warm comfort of your 1st amendment right to worship as you choose.
48. Pain | May 16th, 2008 at 6:47 am
46. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 6:28 am
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We, Ourselves of the Collective see a clear logic in the powers not granted the federal government being the powers of the several states. In this the state has ruled in favor of people who had a grievance that the law prohibited them as a class from enjoying the same protections as others. This is a legal recognition of fairness that is not designed to make everyone happy rather it is designed to create as few classes of persons under the law as possible such that society may function under the doctrine of “all men being equal in the eyes of the law.”
49. Pete_Bondurant | May 16th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Several simple questions for those who agree with the California Supreme Court decision yesterday:
Do polygamists have the “right” to marry whom they choose?
Does a father have the “right” to marry his daughter?
The happiest people yesterday, even more so than homosexual couples- polygamists.
50. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 16th, 2008 at 7:57 am
49. Pete_Bondurant | May 16th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Mister Bondurant you know little of the law. Polygamy is a potential social destructor in a capitalist society. Consider if you will that polygamy is really polygyny the state of one man having many wives this means the wealthier or the more virile or attractive will have more wives and more offspring than less wealthy or less attractive men creating a state of tension in the nation, state or community.
For polygamy to be accepted in law it would have to be spread in a measure to ensure equal protection meaning polyandry would have to allowed where one woman could have many husbands. I do feel as many legal minds do that there is a narrow window for the polygamists here but it is too small for them to jump through.
One must also take into account as with incest polygamy is against the law in all 50 states because it is a crime with a victim. Homosexulaity is not a crime between consenting adults.
51. InDaVa | May 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Damn, Freedom1 and Jerimiah really are that dumb. I always thought so but damn!
52. js | May 16th, 2008 at 10:50 am
seeing that marraige is supposed to be the fundamental framework of a family….its hard to endorse a decision that claims that deviant sexual behavior has any equal standing to one man and one woman being married….let alone…the judicial ignorance that fails to recognize that the lifestyle they endorse is a disease ridden scourge on our society….
the folks in california spoke thier will….judicial activism needs to be checked and rejected….
53. ohno | May 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The Republican nominated Supreme Court Judge did his duty.
54. Albert | May 16th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Wow, I had no idea so many conservatives were such huge fans of Separate But Equal (though, to be fair, a lot of the cons here are more into Separate and Unequal–but it’s not bigotry…somehow).
Mark Noonan squeals that it’s “judicial tyranny” that a group of judges did their job, yet he can’t seem to muster up an argument as to why judges ruling on whether or not a challenged law abides by the California constitution is “judicial tyranny” outside of the fact that he doesn’t like the decision.
Others bleat about “the will of the people.” Except that, as Willem points out, the will of the people is actually to legalize gay marriage, and Schwarzenegger stymied the will of the people–twice–by vetoing the legislation.
You cons just can’t seem to drum up a salient argument as to why this is wrong, can you? Enjoy wallowing in your hatred–I know I’m enjoying watching it.
55. Pain | May 16th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Deleted - commenter is consistently annoying and should go away.
56. David B. Schmidt | May 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I will be the first to admit that I am proudly not an attorney; however, what ever happened to the three co-equal branches of government in California? When did the courts did get put above the legislative & executive? Super co–equal? Time and time again, California courts get overturned as this will be shortly as the November ballot.
Then again, if homosexuals want “equal rights” when it comes to marriage why not do it legislatively by bolstering Civil Unions with all of these perceived shortcomings to make it on par with marriage? Try to do it the proper way once and might find a more receptive audience.
57. Brett Michaels | May 16th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
If California were to pass a law banning negro’s from marrying white people and the SC overturned it….how many people on here would be outraged by the Judicial activism?
Can I see a raise of hands?
60yrs ago..many states considered interracial marriage to be moral reprehensible and the ‘people’ passed laws to prevent people like my father and grandfather from marrying white women.
People such as Jeremiah still believe interracial marriages are morally reprehensible.
It doesnt look like much as changed in this country. Back then, negro’s were the target of conservatives…today it’s homosexuals.
58. Brett Michaels | May 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 4:10 am
What? -
It’s good vs. evil.
People who support and condone gay marriage support and condone evil. Gay marriage is evil.
God made this abundantly clear in the Bible.
The founding fathers of this country supported and condoned the enslavement of my race. By your logic…slavery is evil..therefore the founding fathers also supported and condone evil?
59. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
David B. Schmidt
This exactly what the Cal. SC ruled. The Court DID NOT rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into “marriage.” It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between “marriage” (as a religious institution) and “civil unions” (as a secular institution) — i.e., that California law could leave the definition of “marriage” to religious institutions and only offer and recognize “civil unions” for legal purposes — provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining “marriage” for religious purposes.
60. Willem van Oranje | May 16th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I know that you people are desperate to institute vice squads who can bust in bedrooms to check whether people engage in wholesome sex. Can you elude us what particular kind of sex is Verboten by the Fundamentalists? Everything gays and lesbian do in the privacy of their own homes is no different from what straight people do in the privacy of their own homes, including anal sex.
61. js | May 16th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
so many lib’s with thier heads up thier duffs…normal position as far as that goes…but insinuating vice squads chasing sodomites is far from the issue of homosexual marraige….can you elude the fact that two boys committing sodomy on each other have about a nil shot at having kids? can you elude the fact that the anus is not the natural recepticle for a penis, and it is the natural means of eliminating liberal (waste) from the body?
elude the truth, but you cant change it…teaching children that its ok to commit a filthy act like sodomy should be a crime….and that is exactly what they do when they suggest that gays and lesbians are equal to real mommies and daddies….
62. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
BM you are comparing apples to oranges.
Blacks were targets of conservatives?
You mean the southern DEMOCRATS that were responsible for Jim Crowe laws or voted against civil rights laws or the conservative Republicans that gave the votes necessary to pass the civil rights laws??
I think you are confusing your talking points.
63. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
what,
Laws don’t create rights - rights are inherent to individual humans based upon nothing more than their humanity. We are endowed by our Creator with rights, what, as we so clearly state in our sublime Declaration of Independence. There can’t be a right to marry inherent in an individual human because marriage - however constituted - requires the consent of at least one other person. Marriage, then, is a privilege - what I was pointing out is that the only right involved in marriage is the right of one man or woman to marry another woman or man (as appropriate) provided that person consents…in other words, if Joe and Jane consent to marry each other and are not barred by some reasonable law or regulation (against siblings marrying, etc), then you have no business objecting to it. They are each exercising their individual rights - but they are not exercising a group right to marry.
64. Danish Artist | May 17th, 2008 at 12:34 am
BM,
“The founding fathers of this country supported and condoned the enslavement of my race. By your logic…slavery is evil..therefore the founding fathers also supported and condone evil?”
BUZZZZZZ!!!! WRONG! Quit now before you furhter embarrass yourself.
The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery - and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.
Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).
It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.
Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil–and their support went beyond words.
For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:
“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.
In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.
It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
-George Washington
Notice a few additional examples of the Founder’s strong antislavery sentiments:
“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”
-John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.
“[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.”
-Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.
“As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they …[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].”
-John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.
“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part.”
-John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.
“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts… by agreeing to this duty.”
-Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.
“[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.”
-Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.
“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”
-Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four… (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. “To the Citizens of the United States.”
“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.”
-James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.
“It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others…and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.”
-John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, “Lectures on Moral Philosophy.”
Numerous similar quotes could be cited.
Yet despite the progress made by many of the Founders to end the institution of slavery and to recognize in practice that “all men are created equal,” it is currently charged that in the Constitution, the Founders considered a black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another misportrayal of the truth.
The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:
“It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.” (emphasis added)
The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
While there were a few Founding Fathers who were pro-slavery, the truth is that it was the Founders who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This is a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania, but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. A close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, he went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address entitled “To the People of Color,” Allen reminded them:
“Many of the white people [who] have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal.”
-Richard Allen
You libs need to stop listening to revisionists. It is truly making you look stupid.
65. Danish Artist | May 17th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Also, BM, it was the Christian Evangelicals that were the staunchest opponents to slavery. They were the hardliners who started the abolishonists and their movements.
You should be thanking them and not denigrating them and their beliefs.
66. Ian | May 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
It’s sad how many times people need to be reminded that USA is not a Christian Nation, therefore whatever is viewed as immoral by Christian standards but is otherwise completely harmless and victim less should not be banned by the country.
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed