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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Yes, but I don't think a state can make a law that goes against the US Constitution.

I also didn't know about the 2/3 vote. That's great news!
Thanks for the explanation.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Read this post. The California Constitution can be revised, but it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature, which didn't happen.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Perhaps if every american living an "alternative" lifestyle, stopped paying their taxes in a country that doesn't recognize their basic civil rights, the federal government would finally step in and end this state by state crap. By the way the United States is one of the LAST countries to not allow same sex marriage. Just goes to show you how behind the U.S. really is.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by sos37
 


Read this post. The California Constitution can be revised, but it requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature, which didn't happen.


Then what was the purpose of putting Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place if the outcome wasn't going to be honored? Just more wasteful spending at the expense of the taxpayers - which, by the way, includes gays and straights.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Then what was the purpose of putting Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place if the outcome wasn't going to be honored? Just more wasteful spending at the expense of the taxpayers - which, by the way, includes gays and straights.


That's what I'd like to know.

This should never have gone to vote.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   


Yes, but I don't think a state can make a law that goes against the US Constitution.


Nope, that's true, they can't.

But the way it works, the US Constitution wasn't even part of the debate.

Some clarification on the "2/3 legislative vote" issue -the California Constitution differentiates between an Amendment, which adds to existing Constitutional law but does not modify/nullify the existing law, and a Revision, which can nullify existing law.

For an Amendment, a 2/3 Legislature vote is not required, only a petition signed by 8% of the electorate and a ballot initiative.

However, since Prop 8 modifies/annuls existing legal rights under the state Constitution, it technically qualifies as a Revision and not an Amendment, and that is what today's hearing is about.

The law seems clear enough in this case that Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional, since it's a Revision that pretends to be an Amendment - it nullifies what the state Supreme Court has already ruled to be an existing civil right under the State Constitution.

...I really should have been a lawyer, I'd have a lot more money now



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Then what was the purpose of putting Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place if the outcome wasn't going to be honored?


I'd like to know that, too.

Who "drove" prop 8? Who made it happen? xmotex, do you know?

Edit to add answer: The Campaign

ProtectMarriage.com
Basically, the Catholic and Mormon Churches with support from other religious organizations.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I think this is natures way of slowing down the -increased- population growth.
Let them marry - This is no ones decision - but their own.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Okay, then the question about why it was on the ballot in the first place stands. In the event that Prop 8 passed, wasn't there a lawyer in California smart enough to see this coming and realize that Prop 8 was just a "revision" and not an amendment, which would make the whole point of voting on it useless in the first place?

Is this really how things work in California? If so, it's no wonder the state is broke! I can only imagine how much was spent putting Prop 8 on the ballot, how much is being spent fighting it and working this whole thing out when a bit of thinking prior to the election could have saved everyone a whole bunch of time, money and emotional distress.

If this is how the state works, then California deserves to fail, fiscally.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by sos37]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Well, that's really beside the point for the purpose of this discussion, isn't it? I mean, yes, it was a mistake for it to be there, and there was money wasted (much of it coming from other states) but that doesn't mean it should stand.

California's economic issues really aren't related to this subject.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


They did, but the legal challenges did not reach the State Supreme Court before Prop 8 went on the ballot, so since it wasn't struck down the election, legally it had to be allowed on the ballot.

And yes, as BH points out, most of the funding for the "Yes on 8" campaign came from out of state, specifically Utah.

To understand why all this is happening, it's important to understand the basis of US Constitutional law, which also applies to the Constitutions of the various States.

Individual rights, as seen in the Constitution, are not "granted" by the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights (and the State's equivalents) are simply seen as guaranteeing that the state cannot limit these individual rights, but these rights are not rights "given" by the government, but preexisting "natural" right which the government is not allowed to take away.

It sounds complicated, but basically all it means is that the bias of US Constitutional law is always towards the rights of the individual, and the burden of proof and law falls on those who wish to limit those rights.

The Founding Fathers of this country knew what they were doing, and knew that the bias of Constitutional law over time would always be to increase the rights of each individual.

Into a document that allowed slavery and other violations of human rights to continue, they built a kind of legal virus which the brightest among them knew would eventually make those violations illegal.

This country was founded by some really smart cookies



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by sos37
 


Well, that's really beside the point for the purpose of this discussion, isn't it? I mean, yes, it was a mistake for it to be there, and there was money wasted (much of it coming from other states) but that doesn't mean it should stand.

California's economic issues really aren't related to this subject.


I'm not arguing that it should stand if it's a clear violation of the set constitution already set. But what is part of the discussion is why wasn't someone smart enough to look at the big picture and figure this out before Prop 8 was even placed on the ballot.

There's another tangent that this decision will no doubt open to California voters who may not fully understand how Prop 8 was (will be) nullified - if the state can null and void any vote that they don't agree with then why should I bother casting a vote in the future for anything?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Basically, the Catholic and Mormon Churches with support from other religious organizations.



So they are making amendments (or whatever) to the Constitution on Religious belief.

Again - this is just so wrong.

A while back I was following this very closely. A gay activist stated this is a very complicated case and he believed it would be between 3 to 5 years before this right would be given to gays.

We know it will happen - eventually.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
There's one more point to make - in doing the "right" thing, the state Supreme Court might make the gay community happy, but they risk pissing off a majority that voted for Prop 8 and seeing some of those voters regard this decision as a betrayal of their vote, possibly the "last straw". I imagine California will see an exodus of more than a few people, pushed over the edge by this. I hope the state is ready to account for the loss on taxes and everyone else that lives in California is ready to pick up the slack.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
They have the right to go wherever they want, of course.

However I doubt many will, and considering how overpopulated this state is already, I'm not sure they will be missed.

Also, as was pointed out earlier, Prop 8 passed by a very small majority, and that only because of a huge and extremely deceptive ad campaign, funded by outsiders, that suggested to people things like the idea that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, which they won't, and can't be.

That would be a clear violation of the freedom of religion provisions in the United States Constitution, which like people have already pointed out, trumps any State law, period.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
There's another tangent that this decision will no doubt open to California voters who may not fully understand how Prop 8 was (will be) nullified - if the state can null and void any vote that they don't agree with then why should I bother casting a vote in the future for anything?


What are you saying? "if the state can null and void any vote that they don't agree with..." It's not a vote they don't agree with. It's a vote that was illegally performed. This isn't a matter of preferences, it's a matter of Constitutionality. If you vote for something that is unconstitutional, then yeah, you voted for nothing.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Whether it is gay marriage, death penalty or whatever if the majority votes one way or the other I say let it stand. This is why we are the “United States” and not just one big state. If you do not like the policies/laws of a state DON’T LIVE THERE.

When we take “we the people” and put that into the hands of a liberal or conservative court of just a few, who know what is good for us ignorant, we are risking more of our freedom and the rights of the people.

Gay marriage is not the issue here, but the court ruling over what the majority voted on is.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I think the best way of resolving this is to prove the vote unconstitutional. By out of state unfair and false campaign practices or something.

If judges go against a majority rule without just cause - - that could really get ugly.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Whether it is gay marriage, death penalty or whatever if the majority votes one way or the other I say let it stand. This is why we are the “United States” and not just one big state. If you do not like the policies/laws of a state DON’T LIVE THERE.

When we take “we the people” and put that into the hands of a liberal or conservative court of just a few, who know what is good for us ignorant, we are risking more of our freedom and the rights of the people.

Gay marriage is not the issue here, but the court ruling over what the majority voted on is.


I have to agree with you on this. The real issue is whether or not the people have a say in their constitution. And if a judge overturns what the people voted on, then the people have lost any power...any say that they had. Its either what the people have voted or its going to be what the government says is so.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I think the best way of resolving this is to prove the vote unconstitutional. By out of state unfair and false campaign practices or something.

If judges go against a majority rule without just cause - - that could really get ugly.


How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional when the majority voted on it? I would think the amendment BEFORE it is voted on is where all this should happen. For the courts to let it go to a vote is basically saying it is good to go.

Also, gay marriage is not a fundamental right under the US constitution so a state can vote on it for the state constitution.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join