For once the Supreme court actually mentioned "the wills of the voters" in their descision to uphold the ban on same sex marriage.This is the way it should be and the 6-1 decision(which is almost unheard of)speaks loud and clear that the wills of the voters always have the final word on these issues.Lets hope we see more of "majority rules" instead of the liberals way of thinking "we know what is best for you".

Hopefully Iowa and the other states will follow with their own ammendments considering they were also passed with out being voted on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage

California high court upholds gay marriage ban


By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer – 27 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO – California's Supreme Court upheld the state's gay-marriage ban Tuesday but said the estimated 18,000 same-sex weddings that took place before the prohibition passed are still valid — a ruling decried by gay-rights activists as a hollow victory.

Demonstrators outside the court booed, wept and yelled, "Shame on you!" Activists said they would go back to the voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal the ban, and a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn it was filed late last week.

In a 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George, the court rejected arguments that the ban approved by the voters last fall was such a fundamental change in the California Constitution that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

"We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of voters to define marriage in the California Constitution," said Andrew P. Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind the initiative. "The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected."

As for the thousands of couples who tied the knot last year in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California, the court said it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.

Moreover, the court said it would be too disruptive to apply Proposition 8 retroactively and dissolve all gay marriages.

Doing that would have the effect of "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by this state's highest court," the ruling said.

While gay rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority, the justices said that the state's governing framework gives voters almost unfettered ability to change the California Constitution.

The decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse, holding signs and waving rainbow flags. Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest. More than 150 protesters were arrested, with citations for failure to obey a police officer and jaywalking.

Later in the day, about 300 people marched from City Hall to a downtown park, holding signs with slogans such as, "Still Married, Still Fighting" and "Ban the marriage of church and state."

More than 1,500 protesters are gathered at a nighttime rally in West Hollywood, expressing their opposition to the decision. Police said the rally has been peaceful, with no arrests reported.

In San Francisco's Castro district, where many gay men and lesbians live, the large rainbow gay pride flag that flies in Harvey Milk Plaza had been lowered to half-staff and a black stripe put on the top.

"We're relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love," said Amber Weiss, 32, who was in the crowd at City Hall, near the courthouse, with her partner, Sharon Papo. They were married on the first day gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.

"I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens," Papo said.

Jeanne Rizzo, 62, who was one of the plaintiffs along with her wife, Pali Cooper, said: "It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over. I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."

A San Francisco police officer said many of the officers staffing the protest were members of the department's group for gay, lesbian and transgender police.

"I go out every day fighting for people's lives but I can't get married to who I want to," said Officer Lenny Groberg, 52, the first openly gay officer assigned to the city's gang task force.

A small group of Proposition 8 supporters also gathered outside the court.

"A lot of people just assume we're religious nuts. We're not. But we are Christians and we believe in the Bible," said George Popko, 22, a student at American River College in Sacramento, where the student government officially endorsed Proposition 8.

In the state capital, Republican state Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo, the incoming minority leader, said the court's decision "reaffirmed the principle that the people's votes do matter."

The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. For a while, that put California — the nation's most populous state — back in its familiar position in the vanguard of social change; at the time, Massachusetts was the only other state to allow gay marriage.

In what gay activists called their "Summer of Love," same-sex couples from around the country rushed to get married in California for fear the voters would take away the right at the ballot box. In November, Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent approval.

As the fight went on in California, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage, bringing to five the number of states that allow same-sex couples to wed.

In California, gay rights activists argued that the ban was improperly put to the voters and amounted to a revision — which required legislative approval — not an amendment. But the justices disagreed.

The court said that while the ban denies gay couples use of the term "marriage," it does not fundamentally disturb their basic right to "establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one's choice and to raise children within the family." California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships.

In their 136-page majority ruling, the justices said it not their job to address whether the ban is wise public policy, but to decide whether it is constitutionally valid, while "setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

Justice Carlos Moreno, who had been under consideration as President Barack Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, was the lone dissenter.

He said denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change."

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," Moreno said. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office fought the ban, said: "Today we are faced with a disappointing decision. But I think we also know it could have been worse."

Prominent lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies filed a lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.

Olson said he hopes the case, which seeks a preliminary injunction against the measure until the case is resolved, will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a former U.S. solicitor general who served in high-level Justice Department jobs in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.

In these circumstances, the California court was probably right in this judgement. Nevertheless, this was a lame decision for both sides of the argument. On the one hand, those marriages that did take place are still valid in the eye of the law, but on the other, no new marriages take place.

This decision does nothing to address the legitmate 14th amendment claims made by gay rights activists. In my view, the broader issue at hand is indeed a 14th amendment issue and as such needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Nobody including the Supreme court is above the power of the voters.This non sense of judges passing laws on a whim has been going on way too long.We need to get back to every bill being voted on.I am glad the voters are finally fed up with this liberal crap from the taxes to the envormental laws and putting a end to it.Some states like Texas want to break away from the government completly.

Umm Thomas3474 do you understand the difference between the state courts and the federal courts?

"For once the Supreme court actually mentioned "the wills of the voters" "

The California Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States are not the same. I could talk about federal districts too but...

The issue isn't dead...far from it.

In the meantime...what ever you do...if you don't believe in same sex marriage...please don't marry someone of the same sex!

Resist! After all...I know if the courts recognized marrying mules legal....ummm never mind

No duh lynn.I realize every state has it's own constitution.However the Federal supreme court can over rule any states supreme court descision.That is why we have it to begin with.They have the final word and there is no appeals.

I suppose the gays can also add to their list of homophobes,racist, and bigots the Supreme court on top of their others...Bill and hillary clinton,President Obama,and of course every Christian in America.

You ever stop to think maybe we got the right idea?After all the only support they gays are getting are from the liberals and the gays.

Yeah, that doesn't really make sense or is not relevant to this conversation.

There are certain rights that are guaranteed by the constitution. Relevant to this discussion is the 14th amendment which guaranteed equal protection under the law. Not affording gays the same rights that are afforded to straight couples who are able to mary seems a pretty clear violation of the 14th amendment.

If you would have joined us in our marriage debated there is NOTHING written in the Constitution about marriage and therefore it isn't and never has been a right.This is true that no matter what laws states pass and what their Constitution says every American has certain rights under the Federal constitution.It is also true that no states can ever take away these rights but they can add ammedments to the Federal Constitution and these ammedments have been made over 30 times since it was written.

As far as there is no right to marry in the U.S., Supreme Court precedence disagrees with your opinion. In loving v Virginia a unanimous court ruled that marriage could not be denied because of race. This is the exact same thing that is going on right now, except replace race with sexuality. The court held that:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

So while marriage is not explicitly mentioned by the constitution, the court has considered marriage to covered by the 4th amendment the constitution (life ...liberty). This is pretty basic stuff here.

That's one man's opinion and it is not a law.Since marriage is neither a law or a right it is up to the voters to describe what marriage is,who is involved,and what rights(if any)they are entitilted to.The Supreme court just issued a judgement on this issue.They wrote 134 pages about it.What could you possibly tell me that they didn't already take into consideration?

Perhaps you should reread my post.

1. That is not one man's opinion. It was the opinion of the unanimous Supreme Court.

2. Since the Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting United States' law, it actually IS law.

3. It is not up to the voters to decide who can marry. The case I cited is evidence of this. The court ruled that, despite a state law to the contrary, interracial couples COULD marry. The voters did not vote on this. This was the interpretation of the constitution.

4. The California Supreme Court was ruling on a proposition, not necessarily on the legality of gay marriage as it deals with constitutional issues.

Please read this carefully, if you don't understand some of the concepts I can explain them, but this is pretty basic constitutional law.

If we will all pull out our Constitutional hymnals and turn to Articel 4 - Section 1 (sentence 1).

All states already recognize same gender marriage as legal and binding, whether or not they choose to perform them in that state. So long as one or more states issue licenses and perform civil, recorded ceremonies, Texas, California and your state has no choice but to recognize those marriages as leagal and binding on all parties, inculding parents, children, insurers an employers."\

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State"

Unless there is an Amendment to the US Constitution to change this to "the judicial proceeding other then marriages between gays and public records not involving Queers & Dykes", case closed.

i am not a liberal, nor am i gay.

i do, however, fully support gay marriage; i'm also very saddened by this verdict. i had thought we were finally progressing...and then we take three steps back.

me too lulu me too


kinda funny they pick and choose the will of the people they wish to follow

if the will of the people were the true motivator medical pot would be legal

hypocrites of the supreme courting kind

from what I gather, the California Supreme Court wasn't ruling on the validity of same sex marriage.
But they ruled on the validity of the voters amending the California Constitution by referendum.

I would think the next order of things is for it to be challenged in the Supreme Court
as to whether the amendment to the California Constitution is accordant to the US Constitution

I just don't get it

It's incredibly sad.

there won't be any progress until the majority of voters cease to see it as a threat

and all of this anger and indignation and hissing and spitting ain't gonna do that. just the opposite

should i be surprised

adj you dork. I get what is going on...just don't get what's in peoples minds