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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

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.


I think you read only what you want to read.

Try again.




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
If gay/lesbian people want to be married and miserable like everyone else I say let them.


If you can express love like anyone else- no matter who it be with...you should be allowed to marry. I honestly don't see why this is an issue for straight people, is it really going to affect you and your marriage directly? I sincerely doubt it.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Forget what the Constitutional Amendment is about for a minute.

If the PEOPLE Vote a Constitutional Amendment IN, it CANNOT be Unconstitutional, It Is A PART OF The Constitution !

It Can ONLY Be Repealed By Voting ANOTHER Amendment In.

Thats The Way It Works !

See Prohibition...



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I think you read only what you want to read.

Try again.


Ok read it again....

And I would say again that a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional when the majority votes, so I missing the point to your outside state thing.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

I think you read only what you want to read.

Try again.


Ok read it again....

And I would say again that a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional when the majority votes, so I missing the point to your outside state thing.


My post was about whether out of state interference and funding had any bearing on the legitimacy of the vote.

Whether there was any cause to recall a vote because it was obtained by falsehoods.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   


And I would say again that a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional when the majority votes, so I missing the point to your outside state thing.


And you're wrong, there are specific legal requirements to change the state constitution, just as there are to change the US Constitution, and those requirements set a higher standard than a simple majority vote.

I have explained this several times already.

You could have majority votes to bring back slavery, ban all guns, or end free speech, and they would still be unconstitutional, because we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy.

It's that way for a reason, if it worked the way you think it did, 60% of the people could vote to throw 40% of the people in woodchippers.

They can't, and they shouldn't be able to, that's why we have a Constitution in the first place, and not "anything goes" mob rule.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:02 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.


Where do you get the idea that a majority can vote for anything and "let it stand"? You are mistaken.



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


No, it's the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of Proposition 8. Read this


Originally posted by greeneyedleo
The real issue is whether or not the people have a say in their constitution.


And they do. But there is a legal process to revise their constitution and they didn't follow it.



Originally posted by atoms.2008
If the PEOPLE Vote a Constitutional Amendment IN, it CANNOT be Unconstitutional, It Is A PART OF The Constitution !


This was not a Constitutional Amendment (to add rights). It was a revision (to remove rights previously granted). To REVISE the California Constitution, their CONSTITUTION states that 2/3 of the legislature must vote on it and then send it to the people. The legislature never voted on it.

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



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

I think you read only what you want to read.

Try again.


Ok read it again....

And I would say again that a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional when the majority votes, so I missing the point to your outside state thing.


My post was about whether out of state interference and funding had any bearing on the legitimacy of the vote.

Whether there was any cause to recall a vote because it was obtained by falsehoods.



Ok thanks



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
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.


I have no issues with Gays or Gay Marriage. I don't care actually if three people marry each other. It is none of my business.

If a referendum no longer has any meaning however, we are no longer a Democracy by definition. That is what scares me.

There are lots of laws and legislation I take issue with, but when the voting is over I accept the final outcome because that is more important than any single issue.

If that court overturns the will of the people, it is renegade and California for all intents and purposes has left the world of Democracy since nobody's vote can overrule the court.

It is sad that the Gay Agenda would rather destroy our method of government rather than accept a majority vote of the people. I feel for the people of California. They may no longer have any voice in government at all.

I believe Abortion for Birth Control to be cold blooded murder for instance. I however accept the fact that it is legal and that has not been defeated by referendum. It is necessary that I do because a Government of the People and by the People is far more urgent.

Before you judge me harshly, imagine for a moment a radical minority having the power to overturn a referendum. (I don't consider Gays radical) This is a slippery slope.

If you want change it should come from convincing the people they are wrong, not by destroying the Democracy that gives you the right to put things to a vote of the People in the first place.

If Supreme Courts are allowed to Legislate from the bench that negates the peoples vote and Legislature entirely. This is not really a Gay issue and people need to use their noggins and realize that.

Accept the name Domestic Partnership for now as long as you have equal rights financially. Then after it has become more acceptable try again. Common sense is a powerful tool if used rationally. Social progress may come slowly, but it comes in time. We all want it our way right now, but should we destroy our futures to get it?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1

That being said, I would hope if homosexual marriage is ever allowed nationwide that they wouldn't be protesting on the steps of churches.


Not picking on you but you bring up an important point to how the world views Gay issues.

They are protesting and interfering with Churches and even entering private property to do it. They hold obscene parades in plain site of children and pass out Gay literature to children in Grade School. All of those things they do and have done. That is what people see and hear in the news.

I think a large part of the Gay Communities problem is them not policing their own ranks and separating themselves from the wild eyed nut jobs who seem to speak for them.

In what way exactly is a Domestic Partnership License any less meaningful than having one with the word Marriage on it because that is what is truly being debated. Both sides are wrong in this one I'm afraid. Both sides are unreasonable but then that seems to be true on many subjects.


BFO

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by Xtrozero
...
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. ... Its either what the people have voted or its going to be what the government says is so.


The "Government" of the United States of America is actually modeled after the tripartite government of one of the First Nations of America, the Iroquois which, IMO is the reason it has survived so far. It includes an Executive Branch, headed by a Chief (President), a council of rule makers (Legislative), and a council of elders who intervene with judgement when the other two get so screwed up they can't function (Judicial Branch). The US. Constitution is the basis by which the people are supposed to be guaranteed a democratic process to make sure that the "Government" is of the people, by the people and for the people.

Our democracy is designed as a Republic. Lately (decades IMO), it has been seriously screwed up. The basis of our civil society, by it's core basis, has to rely on the courts to make final decisions - whether we like it or not. It is called the balance of power.


A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
- Thomas Jefferson



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I do not care if people want to be and live the gay lifestyle. I do not care if gay people enter into binding contracts as a couple. I do not care if they get a tax exemption for this union.

What I do care about is churches being forced to recognizes these marriages when they are so adamantly opposed to it.

Let them do what they want, just don't force it upon religion.

I voted for prop 8 because my impression was that it would what I stated above.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel

What I do care about is churches being forced to recognizes these marriages when they are so adamantly opposed to it.

Let them do what they want, just don't force it upon religion.

I voted for prop 8 because my impression was that it would what I stated above.


And now you just proved the propaganda that was pushed by the Pro Prop 8 - media - was false and misleading.

This along with Gay Sex will be taught in grade school.

That is exactly what the millions of dollars paid for in the week before the vote.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I'm not going to answer any post that argues the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage. I am taking no position on that issue. I am only posting to add a little legal clarity.

From the California Constitution itself, Article 18:

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.
(Emphasis mine)

The constitutionality of the Proposition 8 amendment is legal as long as the vote was conducted legally. If that vote was conducted legally, Proposition 8 is now a part of the California Constitution and therefore bears the same weight as any other provision of said Constitution. It is therefore impossible, by definition, for it to be unconstitutional on the basis of the California Constitution.

From the excerpt above, which is the entire amendment section in it's entirety (sorry Mods), there is no requirement that the Legislature do anything; the Legislature may propose an amendment by a two-thirds majority vote. The only thing which is legally required is for the electorate (voting public) to pass an amendment by a simple majority, specified by the words shall be (see last paragraph for more on this).

It could be argued legally that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution. I seriously doubt that argument would succeed, however, since the Federal government has been loathe to intervene in marriage, stating in numerous Supreme Court decisions that marriage is a state's rights issue. But this challenge is on the basis of the California Constitution, not the US Constitution. It cannot succeed legally. The only possible way for it to succeed is for the California Supreme Court to impose their personal will over the rule of law.

There are two general outcomes for this challenge: either Prop 8 will be overturned or it will not. In the former, this will either create an exodus from California or a riotous uprising, either way crippling the state beyond the ability to function. In the latter, no doubt the decision will be passed to the US Supreme Court. Once there, there are also two possibilities: upholding Prop 8 or overturning it. If it is upheld, it will spell the death knell for gay marriage in the foreseeable future, as those who cast their ballot for Prop 8 will feel justified in their position and will fight fiercely to amend the state Constitution in other states as well (possibly even Massachusetts). If overturned, it will mean that the Federal government has usurped yet another historical state's right and lead to more dissent among the individual states.

None of these outcomes will bode well for either side in the long term. In short, this cannot end well.

The best solution would have been more and better public relations between the two opposing sides before the initiative was placed on the ballot. But that point is now moot; it was placed on the ballot, it did pass in the election, and it is now a part of California's Constitution.

I tend to agree with the poster above that mentioned the possibility of churches becoming forced to recognize and perform gay marriage ceremonies. Yes, it is true that a Catholic Church can refuse to marry any two people who are not Catholic. But being Catholic is not a civil right. I can see a huge court case being brought today by any church who refused to perform a marriage ceremony on a couple simply because they were of different races. Race is a civil right issue. Should Prop 8 be overturned now, it would have to be on the grounds that sexual orientation is a civil rights issue, and therefore churches could conceivably be forced to perform marriages between same-sex couples. I believe this is the concern that propelled Prop 8 in the voting booths. Perhaps it should have been addressed before the vote?

Also, in answer to the difference between a Constitutional Amendment and a Constitutional Revision... there is no such thing as a Constitutional Revision. That is wordplay. Any revision to a Constitution is called an Amendment. As an example, the 'right' of a citizen to hold more than two consecutive US Presidential terms of office was removed from the US Constitution by an Amendment, not a Revision.

And finally, in response to the fact that a simple majority vote can amend the California Constitution, I agree that is a bad idea. However, why has that not been addressed before now? Wasn't it a bad idea before Prop 8?

Reminder: I hereby take no position on the moral aspects of gay marriage at this time, and will not debate such.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


As a Christian, (albeit a non-traditional one), I wanted to approach this from a completely different standpoint.

One, we are ALL sinners, so I have issues with the Bible thumbing that goes on. While I personally don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I am in no position to start throwing stones. I think it's fair to say that NO ONE on this earth is is a position to judge. If being gay is wrong, then God will judge them, plain and simple. I have my own things that I'll be judged on, just like everyone else. It bothers me to no end to see "Christians" being hateful and picketing a lifestyle they feel is wrong. OK...so if they spent that same energy fixing the jungles in their own yards, instead of pointing out the weeds in their neighbor's yards, then maybe there wouldn't be so much hate exchange.

Two, make everyone happy....give them the same rights, but call it something else. You can't infringe on the rights of the gays in favor of the straights, nor can you infringe on the rights of the straights in favor of the gays. For gays to insist that their marriage is the same, it just isn't. They can't redefine "marriage" and force everyone else to accept that new definition, and not experience backlash. This isn't about hate, this about respecting the religious beliefs of Christians, whether they agree with Christians or not, who define their vows between man and woman as a "marriage", a practice and standard that has been around for thousands of years.

There has been little to no consideration for Christians and why they feel the way they do...automatically, straights are prejudice unless they are supportive of the gay lifestyle, and I disagree with this sentiment, wholeheartedly! Why can't there be an equal, respectful exchange for each other's views and feelings, without leaving either one feeling like they are being robbed of something? I think many Christians feel imposed on a little too much with this issue, and some are going way out into left field to express their views. My disclaimer is that I do NOT condone hateful behavior of any sort, from any side, regardless of my stance.

My feeling is that I don't want what I have with my spouse to be in the same category as the gay lifestyle. It doesn't mean I love my gay friends any less, or wish ill feelings on them, or don't think they deserve the same rights. It is their RIGHT to chose how they want to live their lives, and I don't judge. However, I want what I have to be DISTINCTLY different in description in the eyes of the law...I think this is where most good-hearted Christians are coming from, and it's not a place of hate. Just because Christians WANT distinction between what they have and what the gays have, does not mean they hate them. I would venture to say that ANY doctor or lawyer or person with a doctorate would equally fight for their titles if the rules suddenly changed to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to obtain those titles without having had a "formal" education. There is a set standard, and those titles were birthed from those standards. The entire system would be disrupted if the rules were changed midstream. Why, then, is this notion so difficult to grasp, and why are the Christians being made out to be prejudice jerks? Most are not, and are silent in their views.

So, I say give them the same rights and let them live how they want, but don't call it the same thing, because it isn't.

By the way, I've read several instances of where Christians will push to have the law changed to describe a marriage between a man and woman to a "covenant marriage", (if I remember correctly), if the law decides to call same-sexed unions as marriages. I'm not sure which groups are promoting that, but this goes to point out how sensitive this issue is from both perspectives, not just the gays.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:24 PM
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.



You do know that some of the States also voted to maintain Jim Crow laws, Segregation etc right? But that was overturned... do you take issue with that?

Keep in mind... it's not a democracy... it's a democratic republic.


BFO

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by emeraldzeus
reply to post by skeptic1
 

As a Christian...

I think it's fair to say that NO ONE on this earth is is a position to judge. If being gay is wrong, then God will judge them, plain and simple.


I coudn't agree more


It doesn't mean I love my gay friends any less, or wish ill feelings on them, or don't think they deserve the same rights. It is their RIGHT to chose how they want to live their lives, and I don't judge. However, I want what I have to be DISTINCTLY different in description in the eyes of the law...


My husband and I have some gay friends too. In talking with one of these friends the other day, he said he did not want to be seen the same as a straight person. All he believes he deserves is to be seen as having the same legal rights as a straight person. Granted, he is just one gay person and does not represent all gay (or lesbian) people.

I think there was a lot of misleading hype in the advertisements paid for by big Churches about teaching gay sex to elementary school kids and churches being forced to perform gay marriages. If either of those conditions might have resulted from allowing gays to have civil marriages, then that should be what needs to be eliminated, not gay civil marriages.

The fact that Churches with lots of money spent $multi-millions on these campaigns, and they enjoy tax exempt status, needs to be examined too.


Why, then, is this notion so difficult to grasp, and why are the Christians being made out to be prejudice jerks? Most are not, and are silent in their views.


Good question! Perhaps another good question is; why do not more Christians raise their voices as you (We) have done here? I think it is the proverbial problem of the radical minority dominating the scene, the same as in the case of radical Islamists dominating the lives of peace-loving Moslems, perhaps.


By the way, I've read several instances of where Christians will push to have the law changed to describe a marriage between a man and woman to a "covenant marriage"


That reminds me of a term in real estate deeds, and makes me want to jump back to the thread about Clinton granting eminent domain over public lands in the US. It is probably OT to continue this thought here. But, here goes anyway: The US Dept of State has disavowed granting eminent domain to the Chinese on our homes, but not on public lands where the National Treasure truly lies in terms of natural resources, mineral and water rights.

However, regarding privately owned real estate deeds, beware of any clauses that exclude "covenants or warranties". The Chinese or others may be able to claim rights over those deeds WITHOUT eminent domain.

Which brings me back to the gist of why I am posting on this thread: Why on Earth do the Churches wish to alienate gays and women who have had abortions, when politically we could all be much stronger if we would stop hammering on the issues of gay marriage and abortion? Like you said, it is God's job to judge these things. And, according to my understanding, it is the Holy Spirit's job to bring people to understand these things.

Ministers who create stumbling blocks in bringing souls to God will be judged by God for it. So, why do they keep doing it?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


ummm they did have the 2/3 vote or else the secretary of state would not have placed the amendment on the ballot! Also if you would have done any research you would have known that California law defined marriage between a man and a woman back in the 70's. and to this day that section of law has not been removed from the books.

what you and every other gay marriage support can't get through your head is YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRY. NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT. It is a privilege regulated by the states. Just like driving is not a right its a regulated privilege by the state.

And your example of the majority removing the first and 2nd amendments of the U.S. Constitution is stupid at best. The Majority would not vote to give away their rights. See big difference the 1st and 2nd amendments are rights guaranteed by the Constitution Marriage is a privilege. so once again show me where the constitution says you have a right to marry!

If you can't do that then you don't have a pot to piss in when claiming gays have a right to marry!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Gay marriage has been given due process of law. This is not the first time this issue has been put to a vote of the people of California. the first time it went all the way to the California supreme court. They told the supporters when they over turned the ban to find a way to amend the constitution of California. and they did. They did it within the rules laid out in the California constitution. the proposed amendment passed both houses of the California congress with the required 2/3 vote the California SOS was told to put it on the ballot, The people voted, and the majority was for amending the constitution. Whether we like it or not, the people of California have made a decision and that decision was that marriage in the state of California must be between a man and woman.

Now the gays Are pissed and i don't blame them But I'm sorry they lost, they had a chance to raise as much money or more as the pro ban side but they failed to do so. Now they want the Courts to legislate from the bench once again to remove the will of the majority of California residents. That's part of the problem with today's society if they don't get their way they figure what the hell i'll just sue to get my way. I'm sorry but once again people no matter who you are do not have a right to marry anyone you want. you have to ask the state you live in for permission and follow their rules to get married! And Honestly this issue is a states issue not a federal government issue, its a state constitution issue not the U.S. Constitution issue! Since the U.S. constitution does not lay out ANY RIGHTS regarding marriage it falls to the states to address the issue!

AND BH PROP 8 did receive a two thirds vote! you might want to research for yourself the persons post you refer to is incorrect about the vote in the California congress.

reply to post by skeptic1
 

It doesn't matter what you think the majority's vote was based on the simple fact is the Majority has voiced their opinion. Now the sore losers are crying to the most liberal courts in the country claiming their rights have been violated.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I've been following this issue from before the election. The bottom line is prop 8 received the required two thirds vote in the California legislature.
It was then placed on the Ballot for the people to vote on. The people voted and the majority said they wanted marriage defined as between a man and woman in the state of California!

California can amend their constitution to define marriage that way, because their is nothing in the U.S. constitution pertaining to marriage being a right. therefore anything not laid out in the constitution is left to the states to regulate. The States are the ones who decide who can or cannot marry because marriage is not a right its a privilege

[edit on 3/5/2009 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.


Okay I will get flamed for this. I DO NOT personally believe this but it needs to be said anyway.

The argument that the anti-gay marriage people use is (even if they don't outright say it .) black people did not choose to be black. Homosexuality is a choice. The argument using race does not hold up in their eyes. So they don't see it as an equal rights issue.

Its wrong but that is the problem.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Why can we not finally evolve and start respecting each other? People are free, we are sovereign. We can make our own choices.

Respect, respect, respect. Honor that. Everyone is equal, no matter what your eyes show you and your ears tell you.

Stay out of our lives government, your ways are old and tiresome.

Be in peace, live in love.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join