If a Constitution designed to protect our liberties can be ignored and/or rewritten based on what one side or the other thinks is good policy, then that Constitution means and protects nothing. If these Judges want to implement their own views, they should resign from the bench and run for the legislature. Maybe their ideas would carry the day or maybe not, but that’s democracy. When the Constitution is silent, the people’s will must be respected, right or wrong.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9303992

The judge writing the opinion in this case is a Republican and, again, not commenting on the constitution aspects. I like his reasoning, as much as can be discerned at this stage.

This judge, right or wrong puts a very human face to the right of politics. I don’t know if he will be crucified by the right for his decision, or if it is indeed the right decision in law, but just wanted to make comment.

On Fernando and Cassel’s coments, votes mean nothing in law if there is a law or constitutional ruling that overides the vote, just an indication of point of view, no matter how overwhelming. There are endless reasons why a legislature should or must follow a proposition vote, however judges have to follow law and consitution, with (according to some in the Supreme’s) an ear to changing public and international sentiment. Not sure about that last bit…

Fernando Caballero

Although I oppose gay marriage on the merits, my major issue with this is one you recognize. The California Constitution does not require the state to sanction same sex marriage. When a nation decides to have a democracy in accordance with a Constitution, that nation should have just that, a Constitution that is applied as written, and democratic rule determined by elected representatives. A Constitution that protects liberty is completely meaningless if a select few can pretend that Constitution means whatever they need it to mean when they can’t implement their agenda at the ballot box.

If you take a look around the site, which it looks you are right now, you’ll see why I presently appreciate disagreements with you even more than I normally do.

Firstly, don’t know the rights or wrongs of the decision in law – leave that to those who do.

I actually support the right of same sex couples to the same legal protections as hetro couples. Whether that be the right to marry or some other legal union I don’t really care.

All 6 of my children are hetro and I guess if I am honest I probably sigh a very slight sigh of relief, however if one were not, I could not think less of them nor would I want them to not have full legal recognition and protection if they were in a committed relationship.

I actually see marriage in law as distinct from marriage in religious terms in any state that supposedly has legal separation of church and state. One is a union sanctified by the church according to it’s beliefs with certain moral expectations, the other is a legal recognition of a union of two people pledging to each other and enshrining certain protections, and in those terms I have no issues with what they have done in CA (provided it meets the constitutional test).

Our Capital territory wants to legalise civil same sex unions, however the federal govt has said it will overturn any attempt. We have a very vocal religious minority that like to claim majority.

I’ll now retreat to my foxhole!