Because they are activist judges. The people voted, passed a law in 2000. The judges decided that the people don't know what they're talking about so they took it upon themselves, "whether we like it or not".
Yep, that's my beef with activist judges. It oversteps the bounds of their powers and violates checks and balances. Legislating should be done from the legislature, not the judiciary.
The "disconnect" between California choosing Obama and passing Proposition 8 is entirely described by the intermingling of left-wing influence (minorities) and right-wing influence (Christianity). A very large part of California's population is Hispanic and black, especially in Southern California. Both comunities tend to be quite religious. While both groups tend to be "liberal" on most issues, on religious issues they have the brainwashed need to oppress others that organized religion has had through the ages. So, Hispanics and blacks went big for Obama and big for the gay marriage ban. No real disconnect...minorities can be religious as easily as whites. Because it was unconstitutional. It wasn't a random decision by judges to invalidate the wishes of voters. Voters aren't allowed to do anything; passing a slavery bill would also be struck down by the California Supreme Court.
Not at all. That check on the legislature was how the system was meant to work. What I believe is unconstitutional is legislating from the bench. The only real check on the judiciary is that they don't have the power to make laws, only uphold them or reject them.
Dude, an "activist" judge is supposed to mean a judge that will ignore laws passed by Legislatures and ignore lawful contracts in order to dispense their personal opinion of "justice".
I agree. So the California Supreme Court ruling that Xericx was condemning isn't judicial activism. It was properly executing their duty by striking down an unconstitutional law. That gay marriage opponents found enough bigots to subsquently change the constitution is a shame. Fortunately, this is a losing battle for the gay marriage opponents in the long run. In two years, it will be back on the ballot to change the constitution back to its original, neutral wording (which would re-enable gay marriage). Both sides believe that once gay marriage has had a chance to happen for a couple of years, support will swing permanently in favour of gay marriage rights.
yes, and I'm saying that the phrase "activist judge" is, for the most part, used for a judge that is extending abortion rights and rights for gays (with a smattering of striking down religious displays). In other words, the issues at play are relatively narrow. Instead of calling them "activist judges," we should be honest about it and call them "judges that are intent on extending rights to gays, and making abortion easier." Denny believes that there are other legal issues that these judges have been "activist" on, but I can't comment until I've studied any judicial opinions to see what criteria and precedent their decisions were based on. Decisions that are based primarily on "principles of international law," for example, would undoubtedly qualify. Decisions that may be based on a reading of the constitution or supreme court precedent that may be broader than some would prefer might not. Departing from the federal sentencing guidelines probably don't qualify, in my view, since the guidelines specifically allow for deviation under certain circumstances. Some judges are branded "activist" because they give someone a lighter sentence than the guidelines suggest, but that's why we have judges--to determine whether a particular sentence is appropriate.
Again, there are the same legal rights under a civil union, which was the "basis" for the judicial activism. I see it as judges stepping into politics, not properly interpreting the constitution. They are legislating from the bench.
I wasn't commenting on the specific issue, but rather the issue of judicial activism in general. I prefer judges who stay within the bounds of their original duties outlined in the constitution. Of course, I'm no legal scholar, so I'm really out of my depth on the specifics.
NO rights are not being denied. A civil union/domestic partnership has the exact same benefits as a marriage in California. This is semantics.
I disagree that no rights are being denied. The right to have the union called the same thing in the eyes of the law is being denied. "Separate but equal" has been out of vogue as a legitimate concept for decades. If it were "just semantics," both sides of this debate wouldn't care so much. The passion this generates, on both sides, shows that it is not just semantics to people.
What rights are being denied or taken away? By calling it "marriage"? Please, that is a fucking weak argument for all the "bigot, civil rights, etc" brouhaha that's being thrown around. This is simple semantics. The law and constitution states that marriage = one man + one woman. However, gays are allowed to have domestic partnerships, where they make the same lifelong commitment, with the SAME RIGHTS AND BENEFITS. A domestic partnership offers every single, identical right that marriage does in the state of California. Its just not called "marriage". I really don't see the big deal here. Go ahead and throw out your "separate, but equal" bullshit, but that is a huge afrontment to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s where there were whites only and blacks only bathrooms, drinking fountains, and what not. An irrelevant analogy. And those that were the victims of the separate, but equal movement see things the same way and have voted accordingly. This is just centered on the TERM and WORD "marriage". All rights, access to services are IDENTICAL.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. You didn't actually contradict anything I said, just rephrased your opinion with a few expletives.
I'm afraid not. You said "Don't give me that separate but equal bullshit! This is totally different! This is separate...but equal!"
Let's assume, for the moment, that you are correct. . . . as far as California is concerned. This thread is about more than California, it is about what occurred in states such as Florida and Arkansas. Don't narrow your focus. For the moment, for the purpose of this thread, and to advance this discussion, I'm willing to accept the premise that there is no difference between a marriage and civil union in California. How does that excuse the blatant bigotry that exists in the rest of the country?
"but that is a huge afrontment to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s where there were whites only and blacks only bathrooms, drinking fountains, and what not. An irrelevant analogy. And those that were the victims of the separate, but equal movement see things the same way and have voted accordingly." but go ahead and trivialize it by relating it to the word "marriage". Not the rights of marriage, but the WORD itself.
