California Court to Decide Legality of Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Originally posted by Iago18

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

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.

Basically you are saying "we" are better then you because we can be Married and you can't. That is not equal rights.

Many words used today come from the past. In the past governments were religion. The fact same words are used today is irrelevant to where they came from.

The legal government document is "Marriage License". Everyone who chooses to get married - whether in a legal union or in a church - is required to have a "marriage license".

It is a License - a government license for the sole purpose of protecting rights and property of people choosing to combine their lives and household as one.

You wanting to preserve the sanctity of a word - means what to me? Absolutely nothing. Its a word.

Let's remember that this case is not going to decide the legal "rightness" or "wrongness" of gay marriage. The suit was brought because the referendum did not follow the proper procedures for amending the state constitution, and it appears they have a pretty good case.

There is a reason that Constitutional provisions cannot be undone by a simple majority, but Prop 8's (out of state) backers decided to try an end run around the state Constitution with a referendum that has no legal validity.

Imagine the right to bear arms or the right to free speech could be undone by a simple majority vote.

Does anyone really think that would be a good idea?

A minority of people approve of murder . . . but the majority thinks it is wrong.

Should we try and overturn that law too?

reply to post by skeptic1


Civil Rights have NEVER been 'majority rules' kinds of things. Did anybody see the movie "Australia" (now on dvd)? Although set before and through the beginning of WWII, it has scrolling comments at the end that show that until 1973 in Australia, it was illegal for whites to even adopt aboriginal children. That was accomplished in the courts.

What the majority thinks is manipulated by mob rule. In this day and age, it is manipulated by whoever has the most money to buy advertising. The big Churches across the USA and the world poured multi-millions into advertising on the Statewide propositions (like Cal's Prop 8) to add discrimination against gays into their Constitutions. I'm sorry, under the US Constitution, it was NEVER set up to work that way.

For those of you who would rather encourage gays to be promiscuous than have the kind of personal commitment that marriage would give them, you are fanning the flames of the problem with AIDS - think about it!

Rather than alienating potential allies for the core issues of conservative values of economics, honest government, and national security, you guys are blowing it by hammering on issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Wise up! Encourage the courts to do their jobs of upholding and defending the US Constitution. If they did that across the board, like they are supposed to, the issue of concern about eligibility for POTUS would be a done deal.

I know. It should never have gone to a vote.

I just can not validate the argument - - "the people voted"

reply to post by xxpigxx


And, how is gay marriage equivalent to murder?

Who does it hurt?

Good point.

Marriage has historical context. Until the last couple of decades, no one would have considered a same sex marriage.

Now, it is being considered.

I think that same sex marriage would be approved by voters if there were considerations put in the bill that allowed religious institutions that view marriage as a sin, to not be forced into marrying same sex couples and/or allowing their facilities to be used in such a marriage.

reply to post by Wildbob77


Churches are private entities. They can refuse to perform the ceremony for any reason. They don't need special considerations.

A Catholic church can refuse to marry a couple if both aren't practicing Catholics.

That being said, I would hope if homosexual marriage is ever allowed nationwide that they wouldn't be protesting on the steps of churches. That pushes it a bit too far, in my mind (even though there are some churches that perform same-sex marriage ceremonies now, all should not be required to do so).

Religious institutions are already legally protected from those kinds of demands.

That's a misconception Prop 8's supporters banked on, but a church is not legally obligated to recognize or perform any marriage it doesn't wish to.

That fact predates the whole gay marriage issue.

Only the government is obligated to recognize gay marriage, churches are not.
I don't even think anyone has ever seriously argued that they should.

It would be ridiculous.

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.

lol Kalifornia is the most ridiculous state I have ever seen! If the people of Kalifornia allow this to happen then they deserve to not have their opinions or believes heard. Just the elite that decide what is right and what is wrong. No more majority rules for you, silly Kalifornia. This should never have been a voting matter. They should have either kept it the way things were, or stuck to prop 8.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by OKCBtard]

I love how some of you mis-guided people think you have a "right" to get married. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO GET MARRIED. whether you are gay straight black white tall short fat skinny!

The states say who can or cannot marry. Right or wrong the majority of people in California passed an amendment to their states constitution defining marriage.

It just goes to show you how Liberal California has become. If one group changes the constitution the other group can't then turn around and claim what they did was unconstitutional. Hello they changed the constitution so they could legally ban gay marriage.

California honestly has more important things to worry about right now than wasting money they don't have on a stupid court case!

And i know you pro gay marriage people are going to bash me. But before you do Show me where in either California's state constitution or the U.S. Constitution where it says you have a right to get married.

Anyone can live together as a union.

Marriage is a legal government license. It is a license to protect individual rights and property brought together to form one. You are applying for a license.

It has nothing to do with religion.

Every citizen should have the same equal right of protection by law - a protection of individual rights and property when brought together as one.

Majority rule should have no bearing on a legal government license to protect the union of those joining their lives as one.

reply to post by Mercenary2007


In California, a revision of the state Constitution requires a vote by two thirds of the legislature then a majority public vote.

Prop 8 is unconstitutional because they skipped the "two thirds of the legislature" part.

Again, do you think a Constitution should be subject to a majority vote?

Would you be OK with it if a majority of voters supported a "ballot initiative" to get rid of the First Amendment, or the Second Amendment?

I doubt it, and neither would I.

There has also been extreme controversy on out of state funding.

I'm not sure how that can be addressed in court - - but it is another aspect that is being discussed whether it was legal or not.


Funding for California ballot initiatives flows in from out of state
The emotionally charged Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage, has received support from Colorado's Focus on the Family. And a Utah philanthropist has donated $1 million to the opposition.

By Dan Morain
August 01, 2008 in print edition B-3

Large sums from outside the state are pouring into the campaign coffers of several hotly contested initiatives that will appear on California's November ballot, including funding for and against measures that would ban same-sex marriage and require egg ranchers to provide roomier quarters for hens.

articles.latimes.com...

reply to post by Mercenary2007


You're right. There is no enumerated Constitutional right to get married. There is, however, the right to equal protection under the law (14th Amendment).

9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, anyone born or naturalized here is a citizen and has the same privileges as everyone else and the rights named in the constitution aren't the only rights we, as citizens, are entitled to.

Bill of Rights

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I think most people don't look at it that way, though. Most people look at it as a social or religious issue.

It isn't.

reply to post by skeptic1


So what about the will of the people? Have they not decided? Is California not a democracy?

Another expample of the liberal agenda. If you don't agree with the majority rule, find a sympathetic, fellow liberal, judge to overturn it on some some form of convoluted nonsense.

The liberals are such sore losers.......

reply to post by slicobacon


Who is the majority to dictate how a minority can live.....especially when that decision is based on fear and religious fervor?

There should not be a place for those types of votes in this society.

Gays are no more or less than us straight people.....and they shouldn't be treated as anything other than equal.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


To be accurate though, the California Supreme Court ruled that preventing gay marriage was unconstitutional with regards to the California state Constitution, not the United States Constitution.

Specifically that it violated Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the part that spells out the Equal Protection clause:

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws... (etc.)

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on the case that spells it out pretty clearly.




[edit on 3/5/09 by xmotex]

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?

How can it be unconstitutional? The vote for Prop. 8 was for amending to the current state constitution which in itself changes the definition of "constitutional" as far as the state of California goes.

The California Supreme Court really shouldn't even be involved at this point. If it was decided that the people of California have the right to amend their own Constitution by a majority vote, and they voted to change it, then it should be changed. Remember, the role of a Supreme Court is to INTERPRET law BASED on the Constitution.

The Constitution should be trumping what the Supreme Court of California says. The only thing that the California State Constitution should have to answer to is if the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to hear the issue of making the gay marriage ban a national issue covered in the U.S. Constitution and not leave the issue up to the states.

The right thing for California to do is wait until the next election cycle and vote on the measure to amend the constitution in favor of gay marriage, not circumvent the will of the people like a bunch of crying baby-losers.