# CA Supremes Annuls SF Same-sex Marriages **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565 "2004-08-12T18:27:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565/21 "2004-08-12T21:47:38Z")
Let me be one more to say that this was the only correct decision to make under the law, but so was the Mass. decision. Neither court was legislating from the bench, merely interpreting the law. I don’t think you’re going to get the outraged hypocrisy on this board that you were expecting, **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565/22 "2004-08-12T21:57:04Z")
**DtC** : There actually were quite a few people on this board arguing that Newson was not only correct in performing the marriages, but that he was compelled to do so by the consitution. I’d expect those folks to have an issue with this ruling. I can dredge up the threads if you don’t remember. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565/23 "2004-08-12T21:59:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How so? That’s precisely the determination made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court - that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state to recognize same-sex marriage. the courts did not require massachusetts legislatures to recognize marriage at all. the constitution might require legislators not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation with regards to issuing marriage licenses. that is not the same as saying the constitution requires the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. > [@](#): > > It is a California constitutional issue, and ultimately rests in the hands of the California Supreme Court. > > But here’s a hypothetical: the California Constitution, Art. 1, Sec 17 provides: “Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or > excessive fines imposed.” > > An arsonist, sentenced to three years in prison, alleges that any prison time at all, for any crime, is a punishment so severe that it violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the state constitution. > > If the California Supreme Court were to agree with this argument, they would be overstepping their prudent bounds, even if acting technically within their power. > > Yes? > [@Ramanujan](#): > > i understand your point, and i can see the validity of it i wholly agree that it is inadvisable to let the courts have too much power with regards to deciding legislative issues. i don’t, however, see how this particular case reflects that notion. furthermore, i can’t tell whether or not you think this should be an issue for the courts to decide. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565/24 "2004-08-12T22:02:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **DtC** : There actually were quite a few people on this board arguing that Newson was not only correct in performing the marriages, but that he was compelled to do so by the consitution. I’d expect those folks to have an issue with this ruling. I can dredge up the threads if you don’t remember. whether or not he was performing his constitutional duty remains to be decided. this case was about whether or not he broke a specific law. the issue of whether or not he behaved appropriately regarding the ca constitution won’t be decided until the court decides whether or not the law is in conflict with the constitution, if you accept that an executive is bound by duty to uphold the constitution above all other laws legislated. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565/25 "2004-08-12T22:04:19Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t think you’re going to get the outraged hypocrisy on this board that you were expecting, **Bricker**. He’ll find the outrage in my posts [in this Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=271010), because I’m too angry for a debate right now. And no doubt he’ll be able to point out that it’s hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565/26 "2004-08-12T22:14:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **DtC** : There actually were quite a few people on this board arguing that Newson was not only correct in performing the marriages, but that he was compelled to do so by the consitution. I’d expect those folks to have an issue with this ruling. I can dredge up the threads if you don’t remember. I wasn’t one of those people and I don’t think I even read the threads on this particular. If people though the mayor was bound to do this by the California constitution, they were wrong, but that still doesn’t mean they were hypocritical unless they now say that this Court was legislating rather than interpreting existing law. Personally, I never saw the mayor’s actions as anything but a symbolic act of civil disobedence. I fully expected this decision. I also disagree with the rhetoric about the decsion in Massachusettes being an activist one rather than a legitimate ruling based on the state constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565/27 "2004-08-12T23:27:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The ultimate option with legislators is voting them out of office and replacing them with people more amenable to your will. That option is non-existent with federal judges, and - depending on the state - limited or non-existent there as well. And can’t the people still vote out legistlators who refuse to change the Constitution to what they want it to be? Can’t they still vote in legislators who will pledge to add an amendment outlawing gay marriage? That option still exists. You’re being silly here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supremes-annuls-sf-same-sex-marriages/259565.md?page=1)