California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[Tiberius]

I wouldn't trust them any further than Minimalist can throw them.

Have you *seen* Minimalist? Methinks you should amend your statement.

[Minimalist]

Why should my government decide who I can marry?

Because the republicans sold out to the xtian right decades ago and they think that jesus only wants you to put your dick in a woman....whether she consents or not.

[Doubting Thomas]

How about no laws. If your gay and want to get married go for it. If your straight and want to get married go for it. Why should my government decide who I can marry? Marriage is a personal thing, and should not need to be "okayed" by the government. A more efficient and logical way is to erase all laws on marriage. So then gay/straight marriage is now bound by laws, and becomes a non-issue.

I think that's what they're trying to do. All marriage laws (AFAIK) tell you who you can't marry. They should just do away with them, though I still support keeping incestual marriages illegal. But it's not like there will be throngs of family members clamoring for the right to get married. And even then, no marriage law will keep people from having sex with each other if they want to.

[kılıç_mehmet]

If it is unconstitutional, I'm sure it'd have been brought before a supreme court.

[Anomalocaris]

Why should my government decide who I can marry?

Because the republicans sold out to the xtian right decades ago and they think that jesus only wants you to put your dick in a woman....whether she consents or not.

Jesus undoubtedly knew all about dicks, but probably nothing about "in a woman".

[The Grand Nudger]

If it is unconstitutional, I'm sure it'd have been brought before a supreme court.

You have more faith in the operators of our system of justice than I do. One would have expected many things to be taken up by the supreme court that were not, for very lengthy periods of time, and in each case you can point to the people who were/are supposed to be the safeguards of our laws as the obstruction in the process.

[kılıç_mehmet]

If it is unconstitutional, I'm sure it'd have been brought before a supreme court.

You have more faith in the operators of our system of justice than I do. One would have expected many things to be taken up by the supreme court that were not, for very lengthy periods of time, and in each case you can point to the people who were/are supposed to be the safeguards of our laws as the obstruction in the process.

It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of law.
If there is no law at all, or any laws that are in contrast with the US constitution, there is no real obstruction for anyone to bring this issue before the supreme court.

But from what I understand from your post, you say that the instruments of law are the ones that are obstructing the law. I don't know how this is possible.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's possible because any time you set up a system (of any kind), there are people who will find ways to game that system (for whatever reason).

Consider the obstruction to the slavery issue, as one extreme example. The text is clear, and yet it persisted.

[kılıç_mehmet]

It's possible because any time you set up a system (of any kind), there are people who will find ways to game that system (for whatever reason).

Consider the obstruction to the slavery issue, as one extreme example. The text is clear, and yet it persisted.

But it seems to me that proponent of gay marriage are also able to bend the law in various ways, just as opponents are.
But in either way, it's quite troubling. It's either constitutional, or unconstitutional. The supreme court should be able to respond to these allegations.
And I take that any federal court is to follow any decisions taken by the supreme court, yes?
So this must be settled by the supreme court, or any consideration based on the law will not be a certain matter.

[Minimalist]

I've read the decision. Much of it deals with peripheral issues such as who has legal standing to attack or defend the proposition. For the main issue, the court cited Romer v Evans 1996 517 US which was a supreme court decision.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with civil rights and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with LGBT rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had ruled that a law criminalizing homosexual sex was constitutional.[1]

An amendment to the Colorado state constitution ("Amendment 2") that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize gay and lesbian citizens as a protected class was passed by Colorado voters in a referendum. A state trial court issued a permanent injunction against the amendment, and upon appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was subject to "strict scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The state trial court, upon remand, concluded that the amendment could not pass strict scrutiny, which the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with upon review. Upon appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the amendment did not even pass the rational basis test, let alone strict scrutiny.

Per wiki.

The California court applied the precedent. The Supreme Court, under the concept of stare decisis (the thing is already decided) is not even under any obligation to consider any appeal.