Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure

Originally posted by DocMoreau

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure

www.sfgate.com

(11-05) 12:48 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- After a heated, divisive campaign fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters have approved Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents promptly filed suit to try to block the measure from taking effect.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Californias Proposition 8
Prop. 8
Yes on Prop 8 in CA appears to be winning
Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

Look at the big picture!

Proposition 8 was about overturning a court ruling overturning a ballot initiative.

Same sex marriage was just a side issue in a case of judicial tyranny.

Of course, I expect the courts to rule that they are not tyrants.

reply to post by Mercenary2007


Hmm, how many politicians support the rights of incestuous couples to marry? How many politicians support the rights of pedophiles to marry their groomed victims?

Seriously, can you name one?

Originally posted by cognoscente

Originally posted by Annee
Am I wrong?

The constitution protects the minority over persecution of the majority.

I totally agree. However, it's the long standing of social institutions such as the Church, which prevent that document from protecting the minority at all, if ever.

Well - it is my opinion - that is on the downswing.

I believe many are tired of religion hi-jacking politics.

reply to post by Mercenary2007


Hey merc ,back so sooon .I thought you said you'd had enough .

So where exactly has anyone here condoned violence ?

Except for the churches threatening gays with hellfire and eternal damnation ? I supppose thats okay is it ?

And who will be delivering that retribution ? You with your big gun ?

Mercs are what arabs drive . And the convertible's are VERY popular with male hair dressers . having a bad hair day ?

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

There are a lot of people on this site who have not replied to that thread, why assume they agree with the violence? I know you are trying to make a point, but your logic as usual falls flat. Stop these silly assumptions and using them to demonize the people you disagree with, I beg you. I do not condone the violence. As for tolerating people who are pro-Prop 8 I have to, some of those people are my family.

First I know not a lot of people had replied to that thread that's why i pointed it out in this thread to see if people like yourself would defend them or denounce them.

second I like your answer though, you only tolerate people that agree with the ban because "you have to because they are your family." So basically you condone the actions of your "friends" as long as its not one of your family members?

The same way we’ve had these amendments overturned before. When people’s ignorance and bigotry is not in the way and civil rights issues are not put to a vote judges who understand the constitution and faulty arguments against homosexuals and homosexual marriage often side with us. That is the increasing trend, this same trend happened with African-Americans, whose rights if put to a vote would have been hindered for many more years.

ahhh spoken like a true Liberal. So its those pesky people that vote that are in your way. you want judges to decide how people live their lives. It makes perfect sense now. Since the majority of the people say no. you won't except their opinion and instead want a judge to legislate from the bench?

And people wonder whats wrong with this country. The role of a judge is to interpret the constitution not create laws. the laws come from the people via our elected officials. And since the elected officials voted to put this issue before the people and the people have spoken in California twice now that should tell you something.

the majority feels your belief and the belief of your friends is wrong. And lets not kid ourselves the reason this passed the 2nd time is because the people of California have had enough of people like yourself that won't except their opinion and get an activist judge to legislate from the bench and not do the job they were voted into office to do! And they want marriage defined as between a man and a woman!

Why should we believe this when there is absolutely not a shred of evidence for it, only evidence to the contrary? That would be very ignorant, unless we were –like you-trying to make any excuse as to why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal. It has had no adverse affect on societies or other countries that have embraced it, nor has it led to sexual abuse, incest, or polygamy being legalized. Also gay couples are not proven to have caused any harm to our society, despite some people’s opinions, to assume their marriages would is just another poor attempt to make excuses to support the real reason you oppose it.

I know you consider yourself a rather smart person. but you really are being ignorant about this. In this world anything is possible. wheres your proof that it hasn't happened in these other countries?

Oh that's right you don't have any. and whether you want to admit it or not there are people in this country that believe it is ok to marry animals, children etc. And eventually they will want the same so called right to get married.

And not allowing same sex marriage does not lawfully affect gays. most states allow civil unions which carry the same weight at the state level as Marriages so please find a new arguement this one is pretty pathetic!

And forcing my morals on people??? you and your friends have a lot of room to talk there. Because that is exactly what you are trying to do to those that don't agree with you.

So i ask again just how are you going to try and get this overturned? since the Amendment to California's Constitution made Banning same sex marriage very constitutional? Being homosexual is not a protected class under the equal protection clause. And marriage is not a protected class either. See you have no legal standing in the Constitution to sue for relief.

its not a matter of religion or bigotry its a matter of law and the clear lack of standing that you or gays have to sue for relief.

here's an article for you to read. ARTICLE

Gay-rights activists are challenging the vote on procedural grounds. Because the new amendment is part of the California constitution, they can't claim that it violates the constitution.

That's precisely why so many states have gone the amendment route, to make the ban essentially bulletproof.

And yet, even if it's not unconstitutional, to deny a specific group of people the fundamental right to pick their partner for life and legalize their union certainly sounds unconstitution-ish.

What's the Deal?

So what's the deal? Aren't constitutions supposed to protect individual rights from government intrusion, not take them away? How else would the rights of an unpopular minority ever get protected?

States can't take away rights that the U.S. Constitution guarantees. Provisions that enshrined racial segregation in state constitutions, for example, fell when the U.S. Supreme Court said they must.

So far, the high court hasn't ruled on same-sex marriage, which has never been a legally recognized right except for recent, fleeting periods, usually lasting only until a court, a legislature or the passage of a constitutional amendment put a halt to it.

See precedence is against you. once a state makes an amendment to their constitution its usually game over for your side.

What ever your point of view is gay people pay taxes and should have rights.
One of those rights includes being able to legally marry.
Not just for love but what about financialy,there partner should be protected and have the same rights as any hetrosexual couple that marrys.
Gay people pay taxes that go toward the running of there country yet they arent allowed the same rights ? thats just wrong.

Why not let the people who pay the taxes vote.

reply to post by reconpilot

I missed your charming personality

So where exactly has anyone here condoned violence ?

Did i say anyone in this thread condoned violence? no i didn't i asked a valid question If you did since some people on your side seem to think its ok to attack an old woman in public in front of a camera because she didn't agree with them and wanted to voice her opinion.

SO why exactly should people be tolerant to this issue if these same people choose to act in such a manner? It does more to hurt their cause than it does to help it wouldn't you say?

Except for the churches threatening gays with hellfire and eternal damnation ? I suppose that's okay is it ?

And that matters how? its a religion, doesn't mean it will happen. remember religion is a belief. Unless you have proof that anyone has ever had this happen to them. Remember i'm not a religion believer so by you asking me that i had to laugh because its just stupid.

And as for the rest of your post you well it just shows your bigotry. and i'm not going to take your bait into personal attacks.

[edit on 11/11/2008 by Mercenary2007]

reply to post by Mercenary2007

So basically you condone the actions of your "friends" as long as its not one of your family members?

My friends? Those men were not my friends and I do not condone those actions towards anyone, no matter who is behind them, gay or straight. I stated, I don’t condone violence. As for being tolerant you asked and I answered. I tolerate loved ones who oppose prop 8 though I disagree with them, as they tolerate me and my support for overturning it.

you want judges to decide how people live their lives.

Explain to me how in this instance judges are deciding how people live their lives? They are defending the rights of everyone based on what this country was founded on.

ahhh spoken like a true Liberal.

Yeah like those dirty liberals who got rid of Jim Crowe laws with out a vote.

The role of a judge is to interpret the constitution not create laws.

The judges overturned laws that were unconstitutional, based on their understanding of the constitution.

the majority feels your belief and the belief of your friends is wrong.

Yes and that majority narrows drastically every four years. This shows that we are actually gaining more support, not losing it.

wheres your proof that it hasn't happened in these other countries?

Show me where one of these countries has approved sexual abuse, sex with animals, or polygamy?

And not allowing same sex marriage does not lawfully affect gays. most states allow civil unions which carry the same weight at the state level as Marriages so please find a new arguement this one is pretty pathetic!

Yes it does and civil unions do not allow the same rights.

Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side. lesbianlife.about.com...

And forcing my morals on people???

Yep.

So i ask again just how are you going to try and get this overturned?

I answered that question, did I not? You need only read the transcripts from the previous cases where such amendments were overturned.


[edit on 11-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Mercenary2007


Also, that article you quoted is just another opinion piece floating around on this issue. Other opinion writers have ones stating why the legal case is valid. They all make reasonable cases; however I don’t see why you think that one opinion piece undermines all of the previous legal arguments that got these amendments overturned.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

On Topic

Stop the Insults and Attacks

Semper

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Explain to me how in this instance judges are deciding how people live their lives? They are defending the rights of everyone based on what this country was founded on.

Because the majority of the people in California have said we want marriage defined as between a man and a woman. you don't agree with their opinion and you want to take that choice out of their hands and put it in the hands of a judge. It is not a judges job to make the laws it is the judges job to enforce the laws in the state.

Yeah like those dirty liberals who got rid of Jim Crowe laws with out a vote.

maybe you should do a little research while it is true that the Supreme court of the U.S. Ruled that most Jim Crow laws were un-constitutional it didn't say they all were. And there was a vote on ending all jim crow laws in the U.S. ever heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the The Voting Rights Act of 1965?

The judges overturned laws that were unconstitutional, based on their understanding of the constitution.

True but Judges cannot overturn Constitutional amendments On the grounds they are unconstitutional. the only way you can over turn a constitutional amendment is on procedural grounds. If the people behind the Amendment didn't follow the clauses of the constitution to amend the constitution. Currently California's constitution allows 2 ways to amend the state constitution. and they followed the constitution to amend the constitution.

Yes and that majority narrows drastically every four years. This shows that we are actually gaining more support, not losing it.

Really??? i don't know what kind of Kool-aid you've been drinking but 30 states within the last 4 years have amended their constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman and only 3 states have amended their constitution to allow same sex marriage. so that shows you are wrong on that thought.

Yes it does and civil unions do not allow the same rights.

I said at the STATE level! maybe you need to learn to read?

And forcing my morals on people???
Yep.

Oh i see its ok for you to force your beliefs and morals on other people but when they speak up and don't agree with you its not ok. you can't have your cake and eat it too so if its ok for you and gays to force your beliefs on others then its more than ok for people that don't agree with you to do the same to you.

answered that question, did I not? You need only read the transcripts from the previous cases where such amendments were overturned.

30 states have these amendments name 1 state besides California that has an amendment to their constitution on same sex marriage issue that has been over turned. There is a reason why this issue has never left state courts. It is a state issue not a federal government issue. Cases on this issue haven't been heard in federal court or even the Supreme court because its a state issue!

Also, that article you quoted is just another opinion piece floating around on this issue. Gay opinion writers have them too. They all make reasonable cases; however I don’t see why you think that one opinion piece undermines all of the previous legal arguments that got these amendments overturned.

maybe because its an opinion piece backed up with facts. maybe because the author interviewed people on both side and did a little bit of research on the legality of the issue. Something you clearly have tried to do but clearly didn't understand what you were reading or just didn't agree with it!

Also that nice big quote you posted, usually its better to file a single return on your taxes since your taxed at a lower level! survivor benefits through Social Security aren't that great to begin with! and they end once you remarry!

They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

first there isn't a discount on family medical insurance it actually cost more than for a single person. also the deductible is higher!

and you don't have to be married or even a family member to make treatment decisions for someone that can't. all you have to do is give them power of attorney, and that doesn't cost anything other than the paper its printed on! and you can do any kind of power of attorney yourself you don't have to hire a lawyer to draft it up.

And hospital employees know what to do if you show up with a power of attorney. they give you the forms to sign to give consent for treatment!

Maybe you should get your info from a neutral source, or better yet most law schools put the information on their websites!

[edit on 11/11/2008 by Mercenary2007]

One thing that no one seems to have brought up is that the Majority always restricts the rights of the minorities. That is the basis of all criminal law in that the Majority just dosen't want to put up with some of the behaviours of the minorty. In the case of Prop 8 in California that was recently passed, the Majority ruled against the behaviour of the Minority in expanding the definition of Marriage to include Homosexual unions.

The crux of the issue in being a constitutionally protected minority in the U.S. revolves around something that can't be changed, such as race, or sex vs behaviors which can be changed, or not practiced. Behaviors such as drug addictions seem to me to be the closest to sexual preferenence. With an addiction their is a biological compulsion towards an action/activity. Some addictions, like eating are a good thing, some like Meth/Heroin abuse are destructive. So the key here is that the majority of California voters in the last election re-affirmed that they do not want to endorse this behavior, or more likely do not want to declare it equal to traditional marriage.

My second and final point is that Marriage has civil and religious overtones. Living in California and having recenlty voted on Prop 8, I have the impression that was the religious overtones that caused the Proposition to Pass. The word Marriage, like the word abortion conjures up a huge amount of emotion. If the emotion/religious ladden language is divorced from the actual legal concept, then it is likely that an admendmentt to the constitution of California declaring that Civil Unions between two consenting adults had equal rights to that of Marriage, it probably would pass.

reply to post by Mercenary2007

Because the majority of the people in California have said we want marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

Explain to me how in this instance judges are deciding how people live their lives? You have not answered that question; you just went on a tangent.

It is not a judges job to make the laws it is the judges job to enforce the laws in the state.

And to protect the people, despite the majorities bigotry. The judges did not make a law; they struck down one that was unconstitutional.

maybe you should do a little research while it is true that the Supreme court of the U.S. Ruled that most Jim Crow laws were un-constitutional it didn't say they all were.

So you are actually telling me you think it would have been right to put that Supreme Court decision to a vote?

True but Judges cannot overturn Constitutional amendments On the grounds they are unconstitutional.

All the reasons they gave for overturning it the first time were perfectly legal. Despite your majority mentality.

Really??? i don't know what kind of Kool-aid you've been drinking but 30 states within the last 4 years have amended their constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman and only 3 states have amended their constitution to allow same sex marriage. so that shows you are wrong on that thought.

Nope, the voters you talk about have been consistently swinging towards our side for thirty years. Especially when it comes to younger people, generally the people who are the strongest supporters and who swung those votes in the conservative favor will probably be dead in thirty years or less. With each generation we get more and more supporters, this is a consistent trend, just look at the exit polls.

I said at the STATE level! maybe you need to learn to read?

They don’t give gay couples equal rights, what’s your point? You say gays should have equal rights, just not the right to marry, I’ve showed you that currently civil unions do not give those rights, and certain things are only recognized when people are married. You don’t think they deserve any of the rights I listed that they don’t have?

you can't have your cake

Wow, again, show me how gay marriage legally affects you? How does it legally affect you? It does not. Your support of Prop 8 legally affects gay couples, it affects almost every aspect of their lives together.

30 states have these amendments name 1 state besides California that has an amendment to their constitution on same sex marriage issue that has been over turned.

Massachusetts

maybe because its an opinion piece backed up with facts.

Please provide links to these facts, I did not see them.

Maybe you should get your info from a neutral source, or better yet most law schools put the information on their websites!

If you’d like to post any links that counter the statements made about civil unions and benefits I’ll be happy to look them over.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by Mercenary2007



You:

wheres your proof that it hasn't happened in these other countries?

Me: Show me where one of those countries has approved sexual abuse, sex with animals, or polygamy?

I'm still waiting for an answer.



[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Sadly I think you have a valid point in regards to the judicial system .
most people do not understand the way the constitution has been subverted by a parallel system of corporate /admiralty law . The only thing missing is a poop deck for when they have finished reading you the charges .

I always signed my drivers licence without prejudice . They used to deliberately fluff the lamination hopeing when I signed a fresh one I would not bother ! I did though .

Its a rats nest because to many greedy people thrive on the corporate laws for them to question their validity and constitutionality . The hill is just a depraved empty shell rubber stamping a hidden governements agenda .
What worries me is that if the people do march en mass to washington these guys will call it 'civil disorder' and come down hard . UNLESS gays ,military,vets , hockey moms ,redknecks,black and white, and the whole panoply of American society marches TOGETHER AS ONE PEOPLE . Then there is hope . A lot depends also on how much brass in the pentagon grows some balls and integrity . certainly morale is at an all time low and they have already been suffering great humiliation .
The bastards tested a bio weapon on a remote iraqi village .We had to clean that mess up .

Public opinion is fickle at the best of times and volatile at the worst . I want to believe Americans will wake up and unite but only time will tell .

So like you ,I live an honest simple life ,close to nature ,away from the main/wall street whores .Not the hookers , they are okay in my book and its an honest trade compared to that of a stock,loan or mortgage broker.

Oh ,and by the way I dont think all christians are bad . many are well meaning . But I tend to agree with my grandfather who said that you will find more practicing christians outside the church than you ever will in it .

Proposition 8 ,its not another victory for the moral majority .
Its a nail in the coffin of democracy .

reply to post by Mercenary2007

In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.
• In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S. 17
• In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time. 17
• The change averaged slightly less than 1 percentage point per year.

•
• www.religioustolerance.org...
•

This is the same kind of trend we are seeing with gay marriage now. Please look at these polls before you tell me we are not dramatically gaining support. Pay special attention to the polling done on young adults and high school seniors, in most cases those people favored same-sex marriage by 80%; most of these polls are old, in more recent polls sometimes that number is actually higher, I’m giving you these polls because they give an in-depth lay out of the trend and cite references for every poll. It is fantastic for someone like me to see these supportive numbers with younger people going continuously up, these people are our future, and the overwhelming majority of them support equality.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Listen lady if your going to quote what i say then include the whole quote and quit trying to twisting my words around to fit your agenda!

The judges overstepped there bounds when the ruled against the ballot initiative. they went against what the majority of the people of California wished. which to pass a ballot initiative in california you have to have a simple majority but it passed with 61.4%

Straight from a judges mouth that ruled on the ballot initiative

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.

SOURCE
and lets not kid ourself the vote in the california Sepreme court was only 4-3 so only one vote decide the ruling.

but you want proof that the judges legislated from the bench. A San Francisco trial court threw out all of the gender requirements on state constitutional grounds. On appeal, an intermediate court reversed that decision. In December 2006

So the trail judge in San fran decied to remove the gender requirments on marriage licenses. Something that should have been done by the state legislator not a judge.

The California supreme court decided they wanted to be activist and not remain nuetral and rule on the merits of the case. they ignored the laws on the books that regulated marriage and threw them out.

So the people of California took it that the Judges were trying to legislate from the bench so they propsed prop 8 to amend the constitution to over rule the activist judges that struck down the previous ballot initiative.

So you are actually telling me you think it would have been right to put that Supreme Court decision to a vote?

If the supreme court ruled that only some jim crowe laws were unconstitutional they should have ruled they all were but they didn't so the congress voted to remove all jim crowe laws so the ones that the supreme court didn't rule unconstitutional couldn't be used against non whites. it wasn't just african americans that were being discriminated against back them but they got the most attention!

All the reasons they gave for overturning it the first time were perfectly legal. Despite your majority mentality.

The california supreme court did not over turn a constitutional amendment they over turned a change in California law big difference! And no they were not perfectly legal! they made their own interpretation of how the constitution should have been read. again 3 judges didn't agree with the ruling and 1 is quoted as saying they overstepped their bounds!

Nope, the voters you talk about have been consistently swinging towards our side for thirty years. Especially when it comes to younger people, generally the people who are the strongest supporters and who swung those votes in the conservative favor will probably be dead in thirty years or less. With each generation we get more and more supporters, this is a consistent trend, just look at the exit polls.

yeah thats why 30 states have amended there constitutions to ban same sex marriage and they have not been over turned. clearly the majority is on the side that same marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The law that bans same sex marriage in Massachusetts was left intact! The court gave the Massachusetts Legislature 180 days in which to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" following its November 18, 2003 ruling. Gov. Mitt Romney ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses on May 17, 2004. there has not been a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts to ban Same sex marriage!

Health Care Power of Attorney

A Health Care Power of Attorney is a document that allows you to designate a person (an "Agent") who will have the authority to make health care decisions on your behalf if you are unconscious, mentally incompetent, or otherwise unable to make such decisions. In many states you can also express your wishes regarding whether you wish to receive "life-sustaining procedures" if you become permanently comatose or terminally ill, in the Health Care Power of Attorney document. This will help your agent to know your wishes as he or she makes decisions for you. Even if you do include this in the document, you should still discuss the Health Care Power of Attorney with the Agent, expressing your wishes, values and preferences regarding health care.

A Health Care Power of Attorney is different from a Living Will because it allows you to appoint someone to make health care decisions for you. A Living Will only allows you to express your wishes concerning life-sustaining procedures.

Both Living Wills and Health Care Powers of Attorney are considered "Advance Health Care Directives" because you're giving instructions on what you'd want to happen in the event that you become unable to make health care decisions in the future. Some states also have a specific "Advance Health Care Directive" document that combines elements of a Health Care Power of Attorney and a Living Will. (For a more in-depth look at Advance Health Care Directives, Health Care Powers of Attorney and Living Wills, click here.)

Even if you have executed a Health Care Power of Attorney, you still have the right to give medical directions to physicians and other health care providers as long as you are able to do so. This document only becomes effective when you do not have the capacity to give, withdraw or withhold informed consent regarding your health care.

Durable Power of Attorney

A "durable" power of attorney is actually a general, special or health care power of attorney that contains special durability provisions. If you become mentally incompetent while you have a power of attorney document that's already in effect, a durability provision will allow the document to stay in effect.

You can also sign a durable power of attorney document to prepare for the possibility that you may become mentally incompetent due to illness or an accident. In this case, you would specify that the power of attorney wouldn't go into effect unless a doctor certifies that you are mentally incapacitated.

continued