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.

 

California Court to Decide Legality of Same-Sex Marriage Ban

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

California Court to Decide Legality of Same-Sex Marriage Ban


www.cnn.com

Officials are expecting a standing-room only audience Thursday for a same-sex marriage hearing at the California Supreme Court. Justices are expected to decide the fate of the state's same-sex marriage ban and the validity of about 18,000 gay and lesbian marriages.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered in San Francisco's Castro District Wednesday night to push for the court to reinstate same-sex marriage in California.

On Thursday the court will take on the constitutionality of the controversial Proposition 8, a measure banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November.

The hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. and is expected to last until noon. A ruling in the case is due within 90 days after the hearing.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I honestly hope they decide to over-turn Prop 8. But, if they don't, I really hope that the couples who married when same-sex marriage was legal in California, can remain married under the eyes of the law.

It would be completely unfair to strip them of their marriages, declare them null, and turn their worlds upside down.

As a straight woman with gay family and friends who are watching this closely, I can only hope that the day will come (in the near future) where everyone, no matter who they love, is seen as equal and equally deserving in the eyes of people and the law.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
The people of California voted and just because it didn't turn out the way they wanted they want to over turn it.

Why even vote for to begin with.

This is stupid to even consider over turning something that was voted on.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


What if they determine that it is unconstitutional? Should it still stand just because the people voted on it? How is that fair?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by jd140
 


What if they determine that it is unconstitutional? Should it still stand just because the people voted on it? How is that fair?


That should have been determined before it was put on the ballot. The fact is that they thought it would pass and now they are scrambling trying to figure out how to fix it. So of course they will say it is unconstitutional, if they don't then they will have more gays crashing churches.

Thats all you have to do anymore to get your way. Throw a protest or infringe on someone elses rights and people will give you what you want to shut you up.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
The people of California voted and just because it didn't turn out the way they wanted they want to over turn it.

Why even vote for to begin with.

This is stupid to even consider over turning something that was voted on.


It happened before in Kalifornia, I believe prop 183 about not giving illegal aliens all the free stuff they get and kicking them out.............Kali vote for it and it won...........the looser took it to court and it was thrown out!!!

So why even vote? I asked that too..... I believe voting is the one of the last things we can do to try to change things, if it even works anymore, that isn't a violent revolutionary overthrow, but the sheeple keep voting for the same idiots election after election and then have the nerve to complain...................how many decades have republicrats been in office and nothing has change except more and more reliance on government.

I hope they throw that out. Until someone can tell me exactly how a gay marriage adversely effects your relationship with your hetro spouse, I think 8 was pure hate.

Off my soapbox, ya all have fun with this one



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Oolon
 





I hope they throw that out. Until someone can tell me exactly how a gay marriage adversely effects your relationship with your hetro spouse, I think 8 was pure hate.


That's what I wonder, too.

And, I've yet to get an honest answer to that question.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Oolon
 





I hope they throw that out. Until someone can tell me exactly how a gay marriage adversely effects your relationship with your hetro spouse, I think 8 was pure hate.


That's what I wonder, too.

And, I've yet to get an honest answer to that question.


the only answers I get are the same stuff I spouted (and then some) the last time this went through our state ( and that last time I was a Christian ). I didn't realize till now how completely meaningless my responses really were. Oh, well....I think I have grown a little but that is my opinion.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Twice, California voters voted to ban gay marriage.

Twice the courts intervened and made gay marriage legal. The last time that the courts intervened the courts said that the only way to ban gay marriage was to make a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a women.

So the voters passed a constitutional amendment with that definition of marriage.

Now that courts are looking at this as unconstitutional.

It seems to me that the courts are trying to create law. That is not the purpose of the courts. The courts interpret law they do not create law.

I think that this will go to the supreme court if the California courts rule this unconstitutional.

Note: I haven't expressed any view pro or con on gay marriage. My big interest in this subject is the courts trying to make law.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
The people of California voted and just because it didn't turn out the way they wanted they want to over turn it.

Why even vote for to begin with.

This is stupid to even consider over turning something that was voted on.


Why it ever went to vote is the mystery.

The constitution is designed to protect the minority.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I am fascinated as to how the court can justify ruling on the issue. Isn't the court bound to uphold the law? Frankly, "morality" aside, legally, the way to get rid of this is to simply have another vote. Why try to use the courts when you think you have the votes to get rid of it in reality?

Doesn't California have bigger problems?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Iago18
 


Bigger problems?

I think that the removal of rights from a group of people by another group of people who don't approve of their lifestyle is a pretty big problem.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I understand, but I was more referring to the budget concerns and the agricultural concerns plaguing California.

Hopefully, if there is justice in California, it will be left for the people to decide. Frankly, the "removal of rights" can be fought if there is enough voters who agree.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
The primary reason against gays and gay marriage is religion.

Equal rights is Equal rights - - you can not deny equal rights because of religion.

It is just wrong.

This should NEVER have gone to popular vote.

The vote needs to be declared unconstitutional - - and thrown out into the garbage where it belongs..



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
It's too bad we all have to wait 90 days for the outcome. I certainly hope this is overturned. Prop 8 is like revoking the rights of black people to marry (which they once weren't allowed to do).

I don't care how the majority feels about it, equal rights means equal rights for ALL.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Iago18
 


Bigger problems?

I think that the removal of rights from a group of people by another group of people who don't approve of their lifestyle is a pretty big problem.


Well, I have to agree.

This is one of those issues that makes me want to pull my hair out strand by strand. It literally drives me nuts that the government has ANY say in CONSENTING ADULTS marrying each other. The fact that LOVE BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS can be governed is beyond my comprehension.

I dont even care if a group of men and women want to marry each other. Who the hell is anyone to say whether they can or can not!?!?


And I am one of those born again Christains too


[edit on 3/5/2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

I don't even care if a group of men and women want to marry each other. Who the hell is anyone to say whether they can or can not!?!?

And I am one of those born again Christains too



Good for you. I know many Christians who are seeing what they should actually be seeing.

* Equal Rights
* Committed Relationship
* Family Focus

Not to mention government control over the heart of legal adults.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
It seems to me that the courts are trying to create law. That is not the purpose of the courts. The courts interpret law they do not create law.


If the people of the great state of Massachusetts voted to change the definition of the word "firearm" to mean any gun powder-powered projectile device no greater than .22LR caliber and the people rose up and took it to the Supreme Court, would the Supreme court be creating law to overturn this vote?

Or, if the people of the great state of Oklahoma voted to change the definition of the word "marriage" to be a union between 2 people of the same race and the people rose up and took it to the Supreme Court, would the Supreme court be creating law to overturn this vote?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I think a solution that was proposed a while back would be a good idea:

Look, the term marriage has necessary theological connotations. They are completely inseparable because of history and faith.

My question: why is the government involved in deciding who can be married? Likewise, why do voters, or judges, have to decide demonstrably theological issues?

So, the answer to that may just be, for the economics of marriage and social control. I would, frankly, prefer that marriage be left to churches and that the government only give out civil unions, or something along those lines.

See, IMO, and in the opinion of many of the drafters and founders of the United States, including Madison and Jefferson, the State should have very little interaction on the regulation of public morality or theology. So, get the government out of the marriage business, let them have everyone equal and get the benefits they need.

If a church wants to issue marriages, then its up to their congregation to decide. Let's get real on the issue. Separate the theology and spare the conflict.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Exactly.

Fear, ignorance, and more fear make people do strange things at times. The majority isn't always right, nor are they always fair. And, the majority should never be determining the rights of the minority....especially a minority that some in the majority seem to fear and loathe for baseless reasons.

When that is the case, it is up to the courts to step in and make things right.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join