It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DocMoreau
Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure
(visit the link for the full news article)
(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.
Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Californias Proposition 8
Yes on Prop 8 in CA appears to be winning
Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So where exactly has anyone here condoned violence ?
Except for the churches threatening gays with hellfire and eternal damnation ? I suppose that's okay is it ?
So basically you condone the actions of your "friends" as long as its not one of your family members?
you want judges to decide how people live their lives.
ahhh spoken like a true Liberal.
The role of a judge is to interpret the constitution not create laws.
the majority feels your belief and the belief of your friends is wrong.
wheres your proof that it hasn't happened in these other countries?
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!
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.
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.
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???
So i ask again just how are you going to try and get this overturned?
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.
Yeah like those dirty liberals who got rid of Jim Crowe laws with out a vote.
The judges overturned laws that were unconstitutional, based on their understanding of the constitution.
Yes and that majority narrows drastically every four years. This shows that we are actually gaining more support, not losing it.
Yes it does and civil unions do not allow the same rights.
And forcing my morals on people???
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!
answered that question, did I not? You need only read the transcripts from the previous cases where such amendments were overturned.
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.
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.
Because the majority of the people in California have said we want marriage defined as between a man and a woman.
It is not a judges job to make the laws it is the judges job to enforce the laws in the state.
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.
True but Judges cannot overturn Constitutional amendments On the grounds they are unconstitutional.
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.
I said at the STATE level! maybe you need to learn to read?
you can't have your cake
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.
maybe because its an opinion piece backed up with facts.
Maybe you should get your info from a neutral source, or better yet most law schools put the information on their websites!
wheres your proof that it hasn't happened in these other countries?
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.
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.
So you are actually telling me you think it would have been right to put that Supreme Court decision to a vote?
All the reasons they gave for overturning it the first time were perfectly legal. Despite your majority mentality.
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.
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.
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.