What do you think about the California vote against g*y marriage and the court overturning it?

Question

Shouldnt the court uphold the rule of the people. Is this similar to the presidental election of Bush and Gore?

Answer 1

This is nothing new to Californians.  It happens on a fairly regular basis.

The court must follow the Constitution as they interpret it.  You can put anything on the ballot; you could put a proposition on the ballot to reinstate slavery if you could get enough signatures to qualify it.  Only when the law takes effect and is challenged is the court brought into the picture.

Al Gore wanted to ignore Florida law and only recount part of the returns.  Florida law is plane, if you have a recount it all gets recounted.  When Gore challenged that law Bush was pretty much forced onto the other side of the issue.  It went to the Florida Supreme Court which upheld the law.  The Gore took it to the US Supreme court and they recognized that States Rights include establishing the voting procedures for their state and upheld the FSC decision.

Gore came from an administration so used to ignoring the law that he thought he was still the VP and could push anyone around he wanted to.  It didn't work, FSC read the law, read the Constitution and said, "Hey this guy has no case".

The California vote on the g*y marriage thing was 60/40 in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman.  If 60% of Florida's voters had voted Gore the outcome would have been considerably different.

Answer 2

There is SUPPOSED to be a separation between church and state, so I don't know why this g*y marriage thing is still an issue.  Conservative Christians will say that the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman and however this country is not supposed to be governed by the Bible or any other holy book.  So yes, I think the ban should have been overturned.

Answer 3

I think you should live your life and let those people get married if they want to. Seeing g*y people kissing isnt going to make you want to be g*y, i hope youre not that feeble minded. Thats something they have to live with not you. Why do people always have to be invovled in other peoples lives, its just plain and simply not your business. I think it should be legal everywhere, who cares so what. Your not g*y great for you, but that doesnt mean that youre better than they are, there is one sin thats unforgiveable in Gods eyes, and that aint it.

Answer 4

I think it is ridiculous that it has even become this big of an issue. I say let them have all the benefits of being married, but maintain that they also have all the problems with dissolution of the marriage. I really don't care about what someone else wants to do with their life, as long as it does not effect mine.

Answer 5

The supreme court will not rule on whether or not an amendment is constitutional until it becomes law. It would take forever to wade through all of the new state laws every two years and make sure everything is ok. Most stuff like that would not be voted into law anyways so it would waste the courts time.

I am not sure about California, but here in Colorado you just have to get enough signatures from public to get admendments to be voted on. No government offical has to propose them for them to be voted on in the elections.

Answer 6

What the court did is called 'legislating from the bench.'  In effect they are making rulings based on their political opinions instead of what the law says.

It sounds like those of us in California need to start gathering signatures for a recall election like we did to Rose Bird in the '70s.

Answer 7

The problem is that what gives the majority the right to enact laws that RESTRICT the rights of a group of people??

Answer 8

I voted against Prop 22 (the same-s*x marriage ban).

If the law actually did violate the California state Constitution, the court was absolutely correct to strike it down.  If the court was creating a new right, I think it was wrong to do so.  I'm not conversant enough with the state Constitution to be able to judge, but from a law professor's blog entry I read, it does appear to be correct.

If a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it was enacted through the legislature, or by direct vote, it should be struck down.

Answer 9

this is a typical end run for the liberals in this country that want to tell everyone how to live and what morals we should live under.    it is a shame that this happens over and over again and the hurt it does the people .    isn't it about time that the people take back the country from the liberals that want to destroy it?   liberals and congressional liberals have ganged up on the country.   wait till the country starts using more eletricity than we can produce and maybe it will spark the people to get off their butts and overhaul the country so that are pursuit of happiness can be enjoyed    mr doodles

Answer 10

whatever happened to the moral majority????

it seems a small group of people who prefer a deviant life style have more rights than the clear majority, whats up with that??????

a few politicians are after the vote and don't care about whats right or wrong just their bottom line.they are as crooked as the day is long.judges overthrowing laws to make a name for themselves!!!! really what will that be like standing before the judgment seat of GOD when you have overthrown GODS laws and principles and values????

people do not be fooled just because a sin is common does not change the fact that it is a sin!!! no man shall change the word of GOD not even the self proclaimed pope of the roman catholic persuasion???

homosexuality is an abomination to GOD! he has not changed his mind and marriage was ordained by GOD as being between a man and a woman no exceptions!!!GOD BLESS!