It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
So, I'd really like to know...

What defines a "MAN" and a "WOMAN?" What about the estimated 1-1.7% of the 4 million births in the USA who are officially classified as "intersexed?" That is, they are born with ambiguous sexual organs? They are neither man nor woman, or, alternatively, they could be BOTH man and woman?

No good resorting to DNA, because there are also a number of people who are born with XX and XY chromosomes.

Or what happens to the people of this country who are transsexual and are married? What is their ultimate fate?

This amendment is sloppily written.




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Since moving to CA I've been kinda shocked that you can amend the State Constitution with a simple majority.



Well, you could always get a amendment passed that changed it to a supermajority. The law is what it is. Nothing wrong with doing that.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

So maybe, just maybe, we should be looking toward giving people the right to chose who they want to marry, instead of attempting to dictate terms to them.



Or perhaps we should stick to the morals that this country was founded on. Perhaps we should stick to family morals and ideals and keep the wicked misguided homosexuals in the closet where they belong. Stop corrupting our children with immoral unnatural views and lifestyles.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Or perhaps we should stick to the morals that this country was founded on. Perhaps we should stick to family morals and ideals and keep the wicked misguided homosexuals in the closet where they belong. Stop corrupting our children with immoral unnatural views and lifestyles.


I can guarantee that if I understand what you're thinking, those are not the morals this country was founded on. The U.S. of A. has a secular goverment that, ideally, strongly frowns upon any form of oppression. It is not majory rule and the majority has no right to deny a minority the right to life, liberty, etc.-- i.e. all rights are natural rights and the role of government is circumscribed.

The reason these things need a constant reminder is that The Constitution was placed just ahead of where human mental evolution was at the time which is still the case for many. Some will stay behind until the bitter end however unfortunate that is. They must either become illuminated or perish forever, with as many as possible assisted along the path.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 



Or perhaps we should stick to the morals that this country was founded on.


This is not about morality, it is about legality. I know it has become popular to piss and spit on the constitution in our nation and call it patriotic but one can not argue that the constitution specifically mentions measures like Prop 8, and states why they are not legal. Currently the measure is unconstitutional. In a secular nation where the constitution expresses very clearly, with out need for interpretation that making laws that favor a religion are not legal this ceases to be about morality and religion, this becomes a civil rights issue. The US government has approved in two states that marriage is defined as a union (religious or not) between two consenting adults despite race or gender. The constitution can not contradict itself, and no law can legally contradict a right given to citizens in other states.



[edit on 6-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
tO QUOTE A LADY FROM cALIFORNIA TODAY,
"You can't change the definition of something that existed forever because you don't like it."

I believe that says it all. Since time began, marriage has been between a man and a woman. People wish to change the deffinition so that they feel better about their own immorality.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
tO QUOTE A LADY FROM cALIFORNIA TODAY,
"You can't change the definition of something that existed forever because you don't like it."

I believe that says it all. Since time began, marriage has been between a man and a woman. People wish to change the deffinition so that they feel better about their own immorality.



A lot of people who opposed prop 8 were straight; I met a woman and her husband protesting against it as I waited in line to vote. When you make generalization about an issue you show your lack of understanding when it comes to that issue and your general ignorance.

This thread is not about the definition of marriage, it is about an unconstitutional proposition.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
tO QUOTE A LADY FROM cALIFORNIA TODAY,
"You can't change the definition of something that existed forever because you don't like it."


We can change the definition of any man-made contrivance any time we collectively decide to do so. If I don't like it all the more reason to do so presents itself. Of couse this odd sort of thinking I have needs to be tempered and guided by a strong moral compass. More specifically, if you wish to go after someone, it will merely be a matter of time before you are the target of disapproval. Why I should mention that (as I do repeatedly) should be no mystery to anyone casually acquainted with certain historical events. Let live and live (sic).

Edit: I must add I have no personal interest at all in allowing same-sex marriage. It is just a matter of "do unto others...".

[edit on 11/6/2008 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I only have one question. I really don't care about the law in California, or who gets to marry who. Just one simple question:

How can the Constitution be unconstitutional?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


On page two of this thread I quote the constitution and show where it expresses why Prop 8 is not constitutional. That is a simple overview of this issue. If you’d like me to find you more sources that go over it in depth I can attempt to, but please first address that post.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

I read that post. But that is no longer the Constitution; that is what it used to say. It now contains an amendment which changes the document, by definition.

A law is subject to the Constitution under which it is passed. Therefore a law can be declared unconstitutional if it violates, either in form or intent, the principles which control the passage of law. The Constitution has no superior legal authority other than the people who ratified it in the first place, and who amend it as they see fit. This amendment was legally passed by the people who have the ultimate power over the Constitution, and therefore has no legally superior document to appeal to.

So again, how can the Constitution be unconstitutional?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Prop 8 was not constitutional from the beginning, before it was passed, giving every right to have it appealed and over turned. California Supreme Court already ruled on equal rights clauses earlier this year and that ruling made it clear that Proposition 8 is not constitutional. Partially the court decided on this issue due to the pieces of the constitution I listed. Putting it to a vote was not constitutional from the start.

I’ve already made a donation to www.invalidateprop8.org... They have a strong case on their side and I have no doubts that they will prevail. Then again, we live in nation where the constitution has not always been respected, and sometimes it takes years to correct such mistakes.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
So again, how can the Constitution be unconstitutional?


If you don't mind me interjecting more here, I might suggest that a change to a constitution would be unconstitutional if it creates contradiction within its structure by being contrary to its own preexisting articles and amendments.

But then again, I am not a lawyer and as such I look for internal consistency in a system of rules and axioms.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an
amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may
amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared
and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at
a general election the question whether to call a convention to
revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question,
within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention.
Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from
districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: law.justia.com...

OK, here's the extent of the requirements for amending the California Constitution. Which of the above requirements were violated in the passage of Prop 8?

Was it voted on and passed by an assembly composed of a minimum of 2/3 of each house?

Was it passed by a general vote of the electors (voting public)?

Something in this section must be violated in order for any amendment to be considered unconstitutional under California law. There is nothing said in the Constitution about what an amendment may say.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Here is where you miss the point RedNeck, I’ve quoted what the national constitution states in regard to separate states and contradictions, and equal rights clauses.

If you can not understand that by reading what is explicitly stated in the constitution then I don’t know what will help you comprehend that. I guess this is where we prudently agree to disagree.

I have no doubts the group of tolerant people I admire will grow, as this group has when it comes to racial issues and other supposedly liberal issues like abortion. If we are to use history as an example we will prevail. With every ten years everything comes closer to being in that tolerant groups favor, in the US and around the world. Thirty years ago this bill would have passed by a landslide, today it is calculated that it only passed by 4%.


[edit on 6-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

That's what I was afraid of. Would you get very upset if I asked you nicely to stop?

You see, I really don't care about whether Rosie O'Donnell can get hitched to her girlfriend. Or Ellen DeGeneres, or the guy down the street. But what has happened so far is this:

An election was held in California to pass a law that forbade gay marriage in California. It passed. A judge then struck down that law as unconstitutional and implemented gay marriage unilaterally. Then a constitutional amendment was proposed and passed by the voters in California. Now that is going to be challenged against the US Constitution. See a pattern yet?

I would really not like to see a useless amendment to the US Constitution to define marriage. I just don't think it is needed. But on this track, that is exactly what we will have. California is one of the most gay-friendly states in the Union. How exactly do you think the vote will go nationwide?

Please, leave the US Constitution alone. Please? I'm asking nicely...

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Please, leave the US Constitution alone.

Prop 8 IS trying to change the constitution to define marriage, when the constitution has already been changed. This is a contradiction. This attempt to change the constitution I doubt will last, if it is not overturned now then I have no doubts it will be changed later.

As for California being a liberal state, yes it is fairly liberal, that is why this prop barely passed. Like I said in the past this would have been a landslide. There has been extreme progress, and the other measure involving abortion has failed for the second time, demonstrating the progressive nature I speak of.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp

No, I don't mind. This is a public forum.

Your response is accurate, but the amendment would carry just as much weight as the previous sections that were in conflict; perhaps more depending on the legal theory used. But my point was to get rapinbatsisaltherage to understand what is happening. When I first heard of the original legal ban on same-sex marriages that was passed, I figured there would be a fight over it. But when I heard how the judge involved struck it down and the ensuing furor, I knew Prop 8 was on the way and would pass. I just didn't know the name of it yet.

In that same crystal ball, I see the population of the US opening the Constitution for a similar amendment. Then I see riots and hate crimes spreading throughout the land, taking us 30 years back in time on this issue. I don't want to see this, but it appears some people are determined to see it happen.

But I better get out of here before I am branded a hate-monger for trying to show what went wrong...


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Prop 8 did change the California Constitution. I don't care what you say in it; it doesn't affect me.

If you are challenging the California Constitution via the US Constitution, you are going down a path that does affect me. The California Constitution is different from the US Constitution.

Please, read my post above this one. The results of your actions are easily predicted, and severely disastrous to both your cause and the freedom of the country at large.

TheRedneck


[edit on 6-11-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
So even if the people voted and they voted NO
they still want to fight it?

i see allot of old school beating about to take place..if you homosexuals force it on Californians ..
NO meens NO

they voted wait a year or so try again..


That's why Californians said NO...they was told to like it or lump it.
They didn't even get a say in it.
Now they spoke said NO...so why cant it drop till next voting season.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join