There's a reason why the founding fathers made the threshold required to amend the Constitution more stringent than just a simple majority vote. Sometimes, the "will of the people" is not enough, like when a simply majority desires to take fundamental rights away from the minority.
P.S. A court is not "activist" simply for properly interpreting the Constitution and the law. A court is only "activist" when it sets aside the Constitution and the law and instead makes decisions in order to achieve an agenda that are contrary to the Constitution and the law, as would have been necessary in this case to rule against gay marriage.
Still, I fail to see how the court can decide that the Constitutional rights of one group is taken away by this unconstitutional law, and yet allow that law to remain in effect while this is being appealed.
@digger1123, who is making the tired argument of bestiality as an analog to same-sex marriage. You might as well throw pedophilia into your misguided argument.
The thing missing in your analogy is consent between adults - something dogs, cats, and people who are not adults cannot give.
And before you add bigamy to your list, laws against that apply to the entire population. They exist largely because bigamy is usually characterized by extreme misogyny, child abuse, forced consent, forced sex, and isolation of victims. There's a reason why bigamist subcultures keep to themselves, create their own secretive enclaves, and limit members' access to the outside world.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of our appellate courts. They decide which cases they will hear and take the cases they see as most likely to need another opinion. Of course the Supreme Court overturns the majority of decisions. This is the nature of agreeing to hear an appeal. I haven't heard yet that the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Do you know something we don't? There is still the opportunity to appeal to the full panel on the 9th circuit.
"...The 9th Circuit's reversal rate of 76 percent during the 2003-04 Supreme Court term was virtually the same as the national average of 77 percent for all circuit courts. Likewise, the percentage of reversals -- 75 percent -- of 9th Circuit decisions for the 2002-03 Supreme Court term was almost the same as the national average of 73 percent for the total number of federal circuit court cases reviewed. For the 2001-02 term, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate was 76 percent while the national average was 78 percent. During the 1990s, however, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate did exceed the national average, most notably during the 1996-97 term, when the court's 95-percent reversal rate topped the national average of 71 percent and "earned the Western circuit its reputation as the nation's 'most reversed,' " according to a July 3, 2004, article in the Sacramento Bee.
During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 percent of the cases it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, compared to a 73-percent average reversal rate for all circuit courts of appeals. But the high court reversed 100 percent of the decisions it heard from the 1st, 2nd, and 10th circuits."
That statement, though noteworthy, has very little to do with the substance of the ruling or the legality of gay marriage, which would appear to be the more relevant topic.
Neither of those things is a particularly relevant analogy for gay marriage because neither of them involves making a distinction (discrimination) based on the *identity of the individuals involved.*
Having differing laws that apply or don't apply to *diffferent kinds of contracts* (one person, two people, multiple people) is perfectly acceptable; having a set of laws dealing with one specific type of contract (in this case a 'marriage' between two people), but making discriminatory decisions about *who* does or does not have those rights is not.
I agree. I've long said that we should open "marriage" (which is really just a special business arrangement between people) to anyone and everyone that wants it. Just scale the rules and laws with that. If three people want to get married, fine. If one wants to leave that marriage, they get 1/3 (unless there's a prenup). Heck, business law and partnerships would work remarkably well as a basis. The end result is the same - if marriage cannot be defined as man and a woman, it cannot then be defined as two people.\
Honestly, I'd like the government to just declare all marriage "civil unions" and leave the religious unions to the religions.
Considering the several polls in the past year that have shown support for gay marriage nearing or exceeding 50% nationwide, it's not exactly cut and dry that this ruling is necessarily out of line with the will of the people.
Also, keep in mind that their decision was so narrowly tailored to the details of the Prop 8 case that it actually DOESN'T have any national ramifications, which might keep it off of SCOTUS's plate.
dirtyfriesFeb 7, 2012Buried
Precisely why civil rights should never be left to the populist vote.
notachickenhawkFeb 7, 2012Buried
There's a reason why the founding fathers made the threshold required to amend the Constitution more stringent than just a simple majority vote. Sometimes, the "will of the people" is not enough, like when a simply majority desires to take fundamental rights away from the minority.
P.S. A court is not "activist" simply for properly interpreting the Constitution and the law. A court is only "activist" when it sets aside the Constitution and the law and instead makes decisions in order to achieve an agenda that are contrary to the Constitution and the law, as would have been necessary in this case to rule against gay marriage.
crom99Feb 7, 2012Buried
Time to give up on this one, fundies. It's a losing battle.
notachickenhawkFeb 7, 2012Buried
Finally a court rules with some common sense.
Still, I fail to see how the court can decide that the Constitutional rights of one group is taken away by this unconstitutional law, and yet allow that law to remain in effect while this is being appealed.
miklkitFeb 7, 2012Buried
This is why referendums are bad. They need to pass a higher standard.
rahepsiFeb 7, 2012Buried
As the issue falls under "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; I would say that this qualifies.
MusicManGPFeb 8, 2012Buried
"The 9th's decision was based on the premise of homophobia within the population - an argument that is emotional in nature"
No it wasn't. It was based on the premise of the majority voting away rights of a minority, specifically targeting a minority to do so.
al3efromanFeb 7, 2012Buried
I notice you don't have anything to day about the reasoning given for the decision. Your desperation is showing.
ultar6Feb 8, 2012Buried
@digger1123, who is making the tired argument of bestiality as an analog to same-sex marriage. You might as well throw pedophilia into your misguided argument.
The thing missing in your analogy is consent between adults - something dogs, cats, and people who are not adults cannot give.
And before you add bigamy to your list, laws against that apply to the entire population. They exist largely because bigamy is usually characterized by extreme misogyny, child abuse, forced consent, forced sex, and isolation of victims. There's a reason why bigamist subcultures keep to themselves, create their own secretive enclaves, and limit members' access to the outside world.
al3efromanFeb 7, 2012Buried
You seem to misunderstand the nature of our appellate courts. They decide which cases they will hear and take the cases they see as most likely to need another opinion. Of course the Supreme Court overturns the majority of decisions. This is the nature of agreeing to hear an appeal. I haven't heard yet that the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Do you know something we don't? There is still the opportunity to appeal to the full panel on the 9th circuit.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016
"...The 9th Circuit's reversal rate of 76 percent during the 2003-04 Supreme Court term was virtually the same as the national average of 77 percent for all circuit courts. Likewise, the percentage of reversals -- 75 percent -- of 9th Circuit decisions for the 2002-03 Supreme Court term was almost the same as the national average of 73 percent for the total number of federal circuit court cases reviewed. For the 2001-02 term, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate was 76 percent while the national average was 78 percent. During the 1990s, however, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate did exceed the national average, most notably during the 1996-97 term, when the court's 95-percent reversal rate topped the national average of 71 percent and "earned the Western circuit its reputation as the nation's 'most reversed,' " according to a July 3, 2004, article in the Sacramento Bee.
During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 percent of the cases it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, compared to a 73-percent average reversal rate for all circuit courts of appeals. But the high court reversed 100 percent of the decisions it heard from the 1st, 2nd, and 10th circuits."
misterbadideaFeb 7, 2012Buried
That statement, though noteworthy, has very little to do with the substance of the ruling or the legality of gay marriage, which would appear to be the more relevant topic.
bookantFeb 8, 2012Buried
Neither of those things is a particularly relevant analogy for gay marriage because neither of them involves making a distinction (discrimination) based on the *identity of the individuals involved.*
Having differing laws that apply or don't apply to *diffferent kinds of contracts* (one person, two people, multiple people) is perfectly acceptable; having a set of laws dealing with one specific type of contract (in this case a 'marriage' between two people), but making discriminatory decisions about *who* does or does not have those rights is not.
raiderduckFeb 7, 2012Buried
Another step on the long road to true marriage equality for all.
auditortuxFeb 7, 2012Buried
I agree. I've long said that we should open "marriage" (which is really just a special business arrangement between people) to anyone and everyone that wants it. Just scale the rules and laws with that. If three people want to get married, fine. If one wants to leave that marriage, they get 1/3 (unless there's a prenup). Heck, business law and partnerships would work remarkably well as a basis. The end result is the same - if marriage cannot be defined as man and a woman, it cannot then be defined as two people.\
Honestly, I'd like the government to just declare all marriage "civil unions" and leave the religious unions to the religions.
howdoesseanrollFeb 7, 2012Buried
Haha, good luck digging down all of these comments "patriots".
rogue100Feb 7, 2012Buried
Considering the several polls in the past year that have shown support for gay marriage nearing or exceeding 50% nationwide, it's not exactly cut and dry that this ruling is necessarily out of line with the will of the people.
misterbadideaFeb 7, 2012Buried
Also, keep in mind that their decision was so narrowly tailored to the details of the Prop 8 case that it actually DOESN'T have any national ramifications, which might keep it off of SCOTUS's plate.