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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Again you misunderstand that the two are directly connected, as is stated in the constitution. I could care less about your opinion; everyone has a right to their own. But what you say about Prop 8 being constitutional is simply incorrect; the constitution clearly expresses the law of the land when it comes to separate states and contradictions, and equal rights clauses.




posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by beforetime
 


No means no? So if people had voted on civil rights in the 60’s and everyone decided blacks should be segregated the blacks should have accepted an unconstitutional decision and moved on? No thank you, that is not the kind of mentality that stays strong against injustice, even when the narrow majority supports it. If my father held that mentality I would not be here, my parents would have not legally brought me into a non-segregated world. People who are talking about us going down a slippery slope by granting everyone equality are using the same tired arguments that motivated bigots back then. I don’t care how unpopular or protested equality is, like I’ve stated before if history has shown us anything we know what the outcome will be and how people who voted for prop 8 will be remembered.

Just my opinion.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
It's good to see so many allegedly ardent Constitutionalists supporting an electoral end run around a Constitutional document when it serves their ideological interests


In my opinion, the best solution is to encourage gays and lesbians to enthusiastically exercise their Constitutionally-protected Second Amendment rights.

I suspect that that will also deal effectively with the vague threats of "hate crimes" if this electoral atrocity is overturned (as it ought to be) by the courts



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



Prop 8 is only changing California's Constitution not the U.S. Constitution.


The tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people.


Since marriage is not covered in the U.S. Constitution it is a power of the states to determine who can get married or who cannot.

this ban has been voted on twice now. the first time a judge struck it down, so they rewrote the amendment and it passed again. we live in a majority rule society whether you like it or not.

the simple fact is a majority of the people of California said they do not want same sex marriages and they amended their state constitution to reflect their feelings.

Many states have put before the people resolutions to define what marriage means, and the majority of americans say that marriage is defined between a man and a woman. why should the minority force the majority to accept their lifestyle?

By doing so I could argue that you are violating my rights. by trying to force your will on me! See how this could go? no matter what happens people on both sides will never agree!

The states do not have to let gays marry it does not violate their rights guaranteed under the constitution. and by the way life liberty and the persute of happiness are not rights they are ideas under which the constitution was framed.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
The big problem, as I see it, is a jurisdictional issue. While the legal precent is that SCOTUS has defined marriage as a right, the definition of marriage is a State issue.

Since there is no formal amendment, law or definition at the Federal level, the right to define what marriage is falls to the individual States (as defined in the Constitution). As a result, the States have compacts agreeing to recognize legal documents and conditions (drivers licenses, criminal extraditions, etc.) which includes marriage.

So while two people may have a "right" to marry according to the Federal government, it falls to the States to define what marriage is. This year, California, Arizona and Florida have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Massachusets has not. Connecticut has not.

This may actually require Congress to provide a Federal definition of marriage and enact laws accordingly effectively nullifying the State compacts and, again, rescinding power traditionally reserved for the States. However, considering the extreme unpopularity in many conservative states, this is not very likely to happen with sufficient majority, even among "liberal"/Democratic states. This is one of the reasons why the battles have occurred at a State level in the hopes that the States will define marriage as between two people, not two heterosexual people. This is especially true in California since "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation".

For full disclosure I am against defining marriage as anything but between a man and a woman. Does this make me a homophobe? Possibly. However, it also makes me a person that stands by what I believe in and protects what I feel is special, sacred and worth protecting. My sister-in-law is a lesbian, and I love her deeply as she is a member of my family. She loves her lover and has been in a committed relationship with her for many years. Believe it or not this has actually caused me to internally debate my position before I ultimatley decided on how I would vote for Prop 8. In this case I voted for what I felt was right, instead of what I thought was right for my sister-in-law.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
To Mercenary

First, I find it ironic that you have a British character in fight of an American flag
.

How is it that the minority is forcing you to accept their view? I doubt very much gay people are forcing straight people to marry them. What this is is the majority take away rights from the minority. As others have said, laws were on the books, and yes, even some states had segregation as part of their constitution. It is when the majority tries to take away the rights of the minority, it is always Unconstitutional.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I personally have voted to keep marraige between a man and a woman, both times...in 2000 and 2008 and the gay and lesbians dont seem to realize that the will of the people is that WE DO NOT recognize marriage between same sex couples. They have lost twice to get it approved in CA and twice the citizens have voted it down.

Does anyone remember the 10 Commandments? NO, not the 10 suggestions either.
God was against it then and put it in writing as to what he expected from us.

Before that even, God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve. God has been consistent through time, too bad man has to consistently challenge him.

And YES I do believe that God is alive and well and is most likely wondering why the people he created cant follow 10 Commandments that are so simple.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 






First, I find it ironic that you have a British character in fight of an American flag .

How is it that the minority is forcing you to accept their view? I doubt very much gay people are forcing straight people to marry them. What this is is the majority take away rights from the minority. As others have said, laws were on the books, and yes, even some states had segregation as part of their constitution. It is when the majority tries to take away the rights of the minority, it is always Unconstitutional.


First what does my avatar have to do with anything? a silly attempt by you to try and discredit me somehow?

The minority forcing the majority of people to accept their lifestyle is a violation of straight peoples rights whether you want to admit it or not.

No one has a given right to get married, just because you think its a right does not make it a right. it is a priviledge, and as a priviledge it is regulated by the state. is it fair that gays cannot marry another gay person no its not. But honestly they are going about changing the laws wrong. they claim they are being discriminated against and i agree they are, But why try to get the ban overturned, they should propose their own amendment to ban all marriages. its only fair if they can't marry then no one should in the state of California.

The people that wrote the prop 8 admendment did it completely legal they followed the requirments to amend California's constitution, it went to a public vote and a majority of the people voted to amend their states constitution. not once but twice, that should tell you something right there. they are not ready to accept same sex marriages yet. and California is one of the most liberal states in the country.

Hell it took how long before the people allowed a black man to be elected president in this country. the majority of the people in this country finally decided it was time for that. maybe the minorty should sue to get the election thrown out because they don't agree with the results. Honestly it doesn't matter what the issue is not everyone is going to agree, there will always be some group that feels they were discriminated against.

If their isn't anything in the constitution guarranteeing a right then its not unconstitutional until there is an admendment to the U.S. Constitution making what this ban has done unconstitutional.

Like i said life liberty and the persute of happiness are not rights under the constitution, they are ideas. if they were rights they would be covered in one of the articles or the admendments of the constitution not in the preamble.

And by your reasoning that if the majority is taking away the rights of the minority then i say every law in this country is unconstitutional that i don't agree with since i would be in the minority on the issue.
this country runs on majority rule. whether its a simple majority or a super majority. if there wasn't a majority of like thinkers then nothing would ever get done, there wouldn't be any laws.

and again just to clarify marriage is NOT A RIGHT, its a regulated Priviledge. Just like driving a car, just like who can buy alcohol.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


First I never said it changed the US constitution, I said it contradicted the clauses expressed in the nation wide constitution that involve seperate states. Pay attention.

Secondly,

The minority forcing the majority of people to accept their lifestyle is a violation of straight peoples rights whether you want to admit it or not.


No one is forcing anyone to accept a life style, they are forcing straight people who already enjoy marriage to not force their personal beliefs on gays. Straight people have no rights taken away from them when gay marriage is legalized, it only allows gays to have the same civil rights.

EDIT: As I said to you in a previous post you never replied to:

Marriage in itself is a religious institution. The government should not be involved in it at all, but if it does involve itself and makes marriage a right for some it should not impose religion’s standard of what marriage is. Marriage in more than one state in the US now is defined as a right given to two consenting adults, despite gender or race. No state can make a law against this right; such is expressed in the constitution.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DocMoreau
I find it very strange, and a bit of a conspiracy that it took $73 Million dollars to barely get this bill passed. That is like two million dollars for every resident of the state.


there's only 36 1/2 people in california?

sorry, had too.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I dont see what the problem is. If two people want to get married, I say go for it. It wont bother me. It seems like a civil rights issue more than anything else.
Just my opinion.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


FSBlueApocalypse I’m so glad someone else is trying to reason with this crowd but I think it is a waste of time, you make far too much logical sense and they are already repeatedly inserting emotional reasoning that disregards everything, even the constitution. When people get to thinking this way I usually welcome the challenge of discussing an issue with them, but when I get off the computer just the thought of them makes me ill. And then when I get back on and see their user names the sickness comes back every time I spot them. I don’t know if it is because I’m so sick of the constitutional interpretation hypocrisy or that I know people whose loving families are affected by this ignorance, but this thread is making me nauseous. I’m so glad I saw one pro-equality, tolerant poster who understands the constitution in this thread before I go to sleep. Good night and star for you!



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



First I never said it changed the US constitution, I said it contradicted the clauses expressed in the nation wide constitution that involve seperate states. Pay attention.


It doesn't contradict them, since the U.S. Constitution does not cover marriage it is left up to the states to regulate. And each state can approach the issue how ever they see fit. impose any kind of restriction on it they want.NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO GET MARRIED this is something people like yourself need to realize, just because you think it is a right does not make it a right. Its a privilege, an idea, a wish. the only thing that the parts you quoted say is that another state has to recognize a marriage preformed in another state.


No one is forcing anyone to accept a life style, they are forcing straight people who already enjoy marriage to not force their personal beliefs on gays. Straight people have no rights taken away from them when gay marriage is legalized, it only allows gays to have the same civil rights.


But see gays are forcing their lifestyle on the majority. why should I be forced to accept something just because you or anyone else says i should. By the gays trying to force their lifestyle on me or anyone that don't agree with them they are violating our rights. Again you think marriage is a right. It is not a right, marriage is a privilege regulated by the states how they see fit under a majority rule. If a majority says they don't want same sex marriage then that is their right under majority rule. again it should tell people something when the people of California vote twice to ban Same sex marriage. California is one of the most liberal states in the country and they do not want same sex marriages. Also the first Ban was never heard in the U.S. supreme court so it was never ruled it violated the U.S. Constitution!


Marriage in itself is a religious institution. The government should not be involved in it at all, but if it does involve itself and makes marriage a right for some it should not impose religion’s standard of what marriage is. Marriage in more than one state in the US now is defined as a right given to two consenting adults, despite gender or race. No state can make a law against this right; such is expressed in the constitution.


you really want to go down the marriage is a religious institution route? really you do? Yes maybe in the past before the U.S. even existed it was a religious institution. But now its not. You don't have to ask the church for permission to get married, you have to ask the state. see that's why you have to apply for a license from the state to get married. I also didn't know that the church issued the marriage license once you are married, seems like the one i got was issued from the state i got married in! Also you don't have to have a minister preform the marriage, you can have a judge, in some states the mayor of a city can marry people, a cruise ship captain, or anyone that is authorized by the state to preform marriages.

your argument Marriage in more than one state in the US now is defined as a right given to two consenting adults, despite gender or race. is invalid. those states are in the minority, which a majority of those states citizens said they were ok with it. the fact is the majority of the states have defined Marriage as between a man and a woman,because the majority of their citizens said that's how they want marriage defined as.

again marriage is not a right! i don't know how many times people have to tell you that! You do not have a right to get married, you are allowed the privileged to get married as long as you follow the laws of the state your getting married in!

[edit on 11/7/2008 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
It's good to see so many allegedly ardent Constitutionalists supporting an electoral end run around a Constitutional document when it serves their ideological interests



As I have said numerous times, if you don't like the law that has been passed, change it by the proper legal means or take it to the U.S. Supreme Court. They (U.S.S.C.) are the ultimate arbitrators of what is and isn't Constitutional.

Sexual orientation is not a "protected class" like these other classes which are protected by Federal laws and regulations. It is only recognized as a protected class in certain municipalities. You may not like that, but that is the way the current law is structured.

# Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Civil Rights Act of 1866
# Ethnicity
# Religion or sect - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
# Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
# National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
# Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
# Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
# Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
# Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
# Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
# Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
# Genetic Information -



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Again you misunderstand that the two are directly connected, as is stated in the constitution. I could care less about your opinion; everyone has a right to their own. But what you say about Prop 8 being constitutional is simply incorrect; the constitution clearly expresses the law of the land when it comes to separate states and contradictions, and equal rights clauses.

  1. Believe it or not, in some ways I support your cause. This despite your attempts to turn me against it.

  2. There are two constitutions here being discussed, the California Constitution and the US Constitution. They serve different purposes and have different legal domains. You seem to have the two mixed up.

  3. The laws of the State of California are exclusive to the State of California, and are under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the State of California. The only way the US Constitution may come into play is if one or more of the rights specifically enumerated in it are seen to have been violated by the State of California.

  4. Proposition 8 is not a law. It is a constitutional amendment, and according to the California Constitution, it is now already a part of the California Constitution itself and therefore cannot by definition be declared unconstitutional based on the California Constitution.

  5. The right to marry is not enumerated in the US Constitution. Your very argument is based on an interpretation, not an enumeration.

  6. You have already, in your blind zealousness, managed to force a drastic and unneeded change to the California Constitution that prohibits the very thing you support.

  7. Should you continue far enough in your protests and legal challenges, as it appears you will be more than happy to do, you will either
    • force an amendment to the US Constitution that will forever ban same-sex marriage and possibly usher in another era of discrimination
    • anger the populace of the US as a whole to the extent that gay beatings will again flourish as in the past
    • create such a backlash against the government that it will usher in another Civil War, possibly destroying the US Constitution and all of its protections, including your right to to attempt to convince others of your position.

  8. Your claim that you care not for my opinion shows you have no concept of a majority rule, nor do you have any concept on how to accomplish political change.

  9. In the process of fighting this un-winnable battle, an attorney will make a lot of money by telling you what you want so desperately to hear. When all is said and done, he will have become wealthy, and you will have lost. He is not your savior; he is your parasite.

  10. You will not listen to any of this.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

But the whole thing is that TWICE it's been voted on. and both times the margin of victory was substantial. You can't say "you didn't win because we (the opponents ) didn't really vote". What kinda crock is that? All the proper procedures were followed. If opponents of the amendment didn't get enough votes to turn out well phooey on them.

Since you don't seem to like the people getting legislation enacted by following the proper procedures, take your case to the U.S. Supreme Court and let them judge it on it's merits.

You are more than welcome to get a ballot initiative going to repeal that amendment. Follow the procedures in place, but please don't whine about why you lost.



Your still missing the point. Some issues should certainly go to a ruling of such a panel. This however is not one of them. The personal rights of every individual is not or should not be subject to anyones ability to see or not see morality within the confines of whatever actions are taken which harm no one else and do nothing to thwart the ongoing social structure. Its not about the idea of taking it to the judicial system or dealing directly with a majority ruling style of law inactment.Its about respecting the rights alloted to every human being regardless of personal opinions. If you read the constitution its very clear,in fact quite obvious that this is a form of discrimination which the constitution sought to defend against.Now in regards to the tax status the thing I see wrong with this whole thing is that its reversed, since marriage is suppose to be "religious" why do such couples also get tax status changes? I think the tax status change should be with civil unions and therefore severing governmental factors from a "religious ceremony". Once done we could grant all marriages pre-existing before the inactment of this movement the tax status of having a civil union and hence forth the procedure would be basically swapping out getting a marriage license for a civil union license....just a theoretical possibility


[edit on 7-11-2008 by Averysmallfoxx]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   




  1. The laws of the State of California are exclusive to the State of California, and are under the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the State of California. The only way the US Constitution may come into play is if one or more of the rights specifically enumerated in it are seen to have been violated by the State of California.

  2. The right to marry is not enumerated in the US Constitution. Your very argument is based on an interpretation, not an enumeration.

  3. Your claim that you care not for my opinion shows you have no concept of a majority rule, nor do you have any concept on how to accomplish political change.



So the only way the u.s. constitution would come into play is by there being a clear violation of I dunno....lets say an individuals right to self expression and maybe (thinking hard).....unequal rights to tax status based on a religious concept of unification of two households/peoples income (which shouldnt even exist since there is suppose to be a pretty clear definition between church and state). Is that what your talking about? And the right to marry is not listed in the constitution perhaps but the actions of two people persuing there personal happiness in a fashion that hurts no one else in any way is not some how stated in the constitution at all? you sure about that? cuz I kinda think its under the whole "right to persue personal happiness" thing (not to mention the whole right to personal expression thing, ie: right to express what you personally find to be happiness). And lastly, how does majority rulings enter in to personal rights? So if your dealing with a minority (lets justs say race since thats about as unfair to discriminate against as gender preference) of blacks, in a predominantly white community/society, where the two cultures dont see eye to eye at all in terms of whats moral and what is not the black vote gets ignored because there are less of them than there are you? How on earth do you get to the point where thats acceptable? Your findings are ridiculous friend.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 

yeah i was gonna call him on that too but i thought...nah, too easy lol.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by pavil
 


I personally have voted to keep marraige between a man and a woman, both times...in 2000 and 2008 and the gay and lesbians dont seem to realize that the will of the people is that WE DO NOT recognize marriage between same sex couples. They have lost twice to get it approved in CA and twice the citizens have voted it down.

Does anyone remember the 10 Commandments? NO, not the 10 suggestions either.
God was against it then and put it in writing as to what he expected from us.

Before that even, God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve. God has been consistent through time, too bad man has to consistently challenge him.

And YES I do believe that God is alive and well and is most likely wondering why the people he created cant follow 10 Commandments that are so simple.


I love you how you completely ignore the fact that we are not talking about a book that over the centuries has quite likely been changed and reworded and manipulated for extents unending....we are however talking about equal rights and the lack thereof in the current conditions of California. Lets try to stay focused shall we?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx

I see item number 10 is well in effect here.

I'm not the one you should be trying to convince. As I stated (see item number 1) I am not your enemy; rather I'm trying to be your ally.

I did not post my opinions in the items you quoted (save the last, which is also a lesson from history); I posted legal fact. Wishing these facts would go away is akin to wishing mosquitoes do not exist. You will still get mosquito bites. But, again (sigh) in another vain attempt to promote some understanding of what you are up against, I will attempt to elaborate.

The United States of America itself is composed of one small piece of land: Washington DC. At the beginning, it did not even have authority over that; DC was a city created by agreement between Virginia and Maryland that each would give up sovereign state property for the greater good of the Union, in order to create a capital that could not be claimed by any state. Instead, the United States of America is exactly what the name implies: a group of states who banded together under a central controlling government for purposes enumerated in the preamble of the US Constitution.

California law does not apply in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc., etc., etc. The California Constitution does not apply to the laws of any other state. California is a country of it's own, save the one stipulation that it undertook in order to be a part of the USA... adherence to the US Constitution. Not adherence to US public opinion, not adherence to US customs, but adherence to the US Constitution.

As such, California is restricted by the US Constitution from banning firearms, banning free speech, or controlling a free press. In times of peace, it cannot force its citizens to house military personnel, and can only do so by law in times of war. It cannot conduct unreasonable search and seizure of private property. Ironically, California can promote or restrict religion, since that amendment specifically states "Congress shall not".

Proposition 8 does not infringe upon any of the liberties specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. It may be seen to violate some principle of equality under the law, but let's look at that:

Article IV
Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: www.usconstitution.net...

That's all you have. Now, how many states do you know where same-sex marriage is legal? That would be 2 out of 50 (since at this point, it is illegal in California, like it or not). So you have no claim that your right to marry someone of the same sex is being denied despite being approved by 'several states' (which is not meant to mean several as in many more than one, but several as in separated from the US government and each other; I present this argument only for those whom would try to use it). Claim failed due to no basis for complaint.

on the other hand, you have this, from Amendment 10:

Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: www.usconstitution.net...

That specifies that anything not specifically enumerated to be either the concern of the US Constitution or is specifically prohibited to the states (like California) are the sole provision of the states (like California). The US Constitution has nothing to do with such an act by a state.

Again, this is not opinion; this is existing legal interpretation of existing legal documentation. You may hear different form someone whose financial security depends on it, but you also get lies from used-car salesmen. You cannot win this legal battle, unless you recruit activist judges to overturn legal precedent. And if you go this route (which you have no choice but to do), you will put at risk your own agenda, and possibly everything that is held dear in this country.

Should the worst happen, will you be happy living with your significant other, complete with some marriage license hanging on the wall of your barracks, yet unable to speak freely, open to police abuse and torture, and forced to follow the other theocratic rules of the majority? Are you that blind?

You seek to destroy the house because there's one hole in the wall, rather than wait on someone to come fix the hole.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join