And I feel the same way about the murder of unborn babies, but I don't think it is proper to have the Supreme Court to stop abortion. It should be decided by state legislatures.

1) Slavery wasn't overturned by a legislative process either, really. The Civil War Amendments would not have been passed without the intervention of the Civil War itself. Had that not happened, there's a good chance the person posting this article would not be an American citizen -- really! Brown v. Board of Education did not completely overturn Plessy v. Ferguson; read the opinion if you doubt me -- the court states that its opinion only voided part of the precedent. It would have been equally difficult for the Court to completely overturn Dred Scott v. Sanford.

2) The actual history of civil rights is a little more complex than that short quip of yours suggests, tLb. It runs more like this:

--Congress approves and enough states ratify three Constitutional amendments freeing the former slaves for good and guaranteeing citizenship and the equal protection of the laws to them.

--Congress then passes laws designed to give these amendments legal teeth (Civil Rights Act of 1866, still in effect).

--Starting with the Slaughter-House Cases in 1883 and culminating in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the Supreme Court gradually eviscerates those civil rights acts.

--The Court halts America's march down the path South Africa would later follow in 1917 by striking down the City of Louisville's racial zoning ordinance in Buchanan v. Warley. Private organizations move to put the country back on this path by other legal means. (Edited to add: The Court eventually closed off this loophole too in Shelley v. Kramer (1948), but the true end did not come until passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1965.)

--A series of court cases beginning with Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938) and culminating with Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. (1954) gradually chip away at, then finally remove, the logical underpinning of Plessy, but stop just short of overturning it completely. That would ultimately require...

--legislative action, in the form of the 1964 Civil Rights Act LBJ shoved through Congress, using JFK's martyrdom as the lever to dislodge the stone Kennedy himself could not move.

But note the timeline: it took almost a century to the year from the end of the Civil War for black Americans to finally redeem the promise implicit in those three amendments. When it comes to obtaining fundamental rights, no one should have to wait that long.

__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
“Basically I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.” --Theresa Neilson Hayden

What an absolutely stupid response.

I am a male. And you're saying that the law currently provides equality in that I can marry a woman - a person with whom I have no romantic, emotional, or sexual connection. Meanwhile, I am not allowed to enter into a civil contract with my male partner*, that person with whom I share the bonds normally associated with marriage. And that's "equality?"



*Being single, that "male partner" is currently hypothetical, so y'all let me know if you have cute friends

Or you can look at it as follows:

You can enter into a marriage with a woman - a person with whom you have no romantic, emotional or sexual connection.

geoffrobinson, however, cannot enter into a marriage with you - a person with whom he has no romantic, emotional or sexual connection.

Government is discriminating against geoffrobinson!

__________________

The sufferings of blacks should not be compared to the sufferings of Jews throughout history. The sufferings of Jews should not be compared to the sufferings of Gypsies, either. Presecution, oppression and degradation manifests itself differantly in regards to differant communities of people.

Jews, Gypsies, and gay people were all imprisoned by the Nazis in concentration camps. Jews, Gypsies, and gay people were exterminated in the gas chambers.

The above quote byJWK really offends me. This person is trying to dismiss the worldwide struggle of the L/G/B/T people by using a word "conduct". This illustrates, to me, the contempt BIGOTS have for the people they despise.

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

There you go again, making things up. You have no idea about my “feelings” towards homosexuals. In addition, your assertion about consenting adults being denied the right to marry under the law adopted by the people via the ballot initiative is flat wrong. In spite of the law, all consenting adults were left free to strike up a relationship and call that relationship whatever they wanted to call that relationship.

Your comparison of people’s skin color to the conduct of people is pathetic.

In any event, my concern in this case is the rule of law and the court hijacking the legislative power of government and speaking for the entire population of the State of California in setting public policy, and thus, engaging in judicial tyranny by undermined the very rules of a Republican Form of Government which is guaranteed to every State in the Union by Article 4, Section 4.of the United States Constitution!

JWK


" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Bigots? The conduct of name calling is not very becoming.

I do not believe that countless judicial opinions issued by our courts establishing the institution of marriage as being a unique situation and the basic building block of society and therefore eligible to be recognized by the state is “bigoted.” . E.g., see Moran v. Moran, 188 Ariz. 139, 144, 933 P. 2d 1207, 1212 (App. 1996) (describing marriage as relationship with which State vitally concerned “for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress”) (citation omitted); Soos v. Super. Ct., 182 Ariz. 470, 474 897 P.3d 1356, 1360 (App. 1994) (“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”) (quoting Skinner, 316 U.S. at 541); see also Jackson v. Tangreen, 199 Ariz. 306, 313, Par 27, 18 P.3d 100, 107 (App. 2000) (recognizing State has legitimate interest in “promoting healthy family relationships that enable children to become well-adjusted, responsible adults”) (citation omitted).

Heck, even California’s own court stated over one hundred and fifty years ago “The public is interested in the marriage relation and in the maintenance of its integrity, as it is the foundation of the social system.” Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 94.

And in the case of Estate of De La Veaga (1904) 142 Cal. 158, 170-171[75 P. 790] the Court announced “that the marriage relation is the foundation of all society has been so frequently expressed by this court that it is entirely unnecessary to refer to the cases wherein it is so held.”

Also see Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 684 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106]:“[T]he structure of society itself largely depends upon the institution of marriage....The joining of the man and woman in marriage is at once the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime.”

And as to the assertion that equal protection of the law is violated by the State putting its stamp of approval on opposite sex couple marriages, the California Second District Court of Appeals held that the fundamental due process right to marry does not encompass the right to “same-sex marriage.”

The Court of Appeal also held that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not impermissibly discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, does not violate the right or privacy or free expression, and furthers legitimate state interests. Based on those holdings, the Court of Appeals held that marriage statutes which define marriage as the union between on man and one women do not violate equal protection See: In re Coordination Proceeding, Marriage Cases (Cal. Superior 2005) 2005 WL 583129.

Now, back to the real issue which is, the court hijacking the legislative power of government and then spoke for the entire population of the State of California in setting public policy, and thus, engaging in judicial tyranny by undermined the very rules of a Republican Form of Government which is guaranteed to every State in the Union by Article 4, Section 4.of the United States Constitution!



JWK


" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Which doesn't mean that same sex marriage is a threat to civilization. I don't think any court can go that far.


Same sex marriage will not end the human race.


Same sex marriage will not stop children from being well adjusted.

Indeed, the public is interested, but if the divorce rate is 50% it seems there is an integrity problem but it is not for the legislature to correct.

Marriage the foundation of society. Gay people are part of the foundation of society.

A same sex marriage could also be said to be socially productive and fulfilling.

However, given another case it could rule differently.

All the above can be true, the marriage only being defined as between a man and a woman does not discriminate against Gays and Lesbian be cause Gays and Lesbians can get married. However, Gays & Lesbians are discriminated in that they cannot marry in the same manner as the heterosexual.

The legislature has limited powers.

__________________

*Apathy rules

*unless apathy doesn't rule

Believe it or not, even if you don't directly say how you feel about gays, what you write and the tone tone you write it in display your attitudes quite clearly.

And I can call myself a Chinese astronaut, but that doesn't make it true. This isn't about the right to call yourself something, it's about the right to be married. Mr. and Mrs. Loving weren't fighting to call themselves something. They fought to be able to be married, even though their interracial relationship was politically unpopular.

Courts are not extensions of legislatures. The process of a law enacting does not stop once a legislature has a vote. A court in the US is not the legislature's rubber stamp. Otherwise that would be tyranny.

__________________

*Apathy rules

*unless apathy doesn't rule