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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I hope they abolish prop 8.

We've had gay marriage legal for a while now in the UK, and apart from a small protest on the day of the first same sex union (it's offical name), there hasn't been anything heard of it since.

It's not officially a "marriage", it is a "same sex union". It grants the same rights but is not allowed in a church, only in a registry office.

I see no problem with it. If all gay people are asking is the same rights under law as a traditional couple then this works. They don't ask to be married in the eyes of God, only under law.

Personally, it made me smile to see an article of the first couple to have their ceremony. So much so that I kept it.




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Boo hoo, Im sure their lives really suffer because the "state" does not recognise them- really oppressing their "rights" eh- well join the club, two sisters who live together in the UK have less rights than gays who have a civil partnership.

Hardly in the Stalin death camp leagues.........



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
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.


*******

courts can't do that. i know it sounds backwards, but they are precluded from issuing what amounts to 'advisory rulings' . . . i forget the case, but it goes way back. courts can't get involved that early in the process. not in california, not anywhere.

courts can (must) rule on the enforceability of laws. it's one of the court's chief powers. laws can be invalid for any number of reasons. 8 looks doomed from my perspective given this court's interpretation of the constitution.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
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 u.s. constitution provides a floor, not a ceiling, with respect to equal protection. a state can afford MORE rights to its citizens under state constitution, it just can't afford FEWER rights.

it's federalism at work. otherwise, why have state constitutions period?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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;


Your interpretation is incorrect. Let's look at the first sentence:

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...

So, the Legislature may propose an amendment or revision IF there is a vote of 2/3 entered into the journal. Otherwise, they may not. The 2/3 vote is REQUIRED.



I tend to agree with the poster above that mentioned the possibility of churches becoming forced to recognize and perform gay marriage ceremonies.


Then you have bought the propaganda. Churches are already protected from this. They don't have to recognize any marriage they don't want to.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
emeraldzeus, I really appreciate your willingness to explain in such clear terms your reasons for opposing gay marriage. I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind.


Originally posted by emeraldzeus
Two, make everyone happy....give them the same rights, but call it something else.


Why? Separate but equal has never been known to work.



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.


How does gay marriage infringe on your rights?



For gays to insist that their marriage is the same, it just isn't.


Of course it isn't. No one is saying that. But I'm straight and my marriage isn't the same as yours, either. But I'm still married. How does my marriage affect yours?



They can't redefine "marriage" and force everyone else to accept that new definition, and not experience backlash.


No one really cares if you accept their definition. You do't have to accept it. How does my definition of my marriage affect you and YOUR definition of your marriage? Can't I define my marriage and you define yours?



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.


No one is telling you to redefine your vows. No one is touching your marriage. Gay marriage has been around for thousands of years, too.


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?


Good question. Why can't you treat gay people as equals and respect that how they define their relationship has nothing to do with you? Why do you feel like you're being robbed of a word?



My feeling is that I don't want what I have with my spouse to be in the same category as the gay lifestyle.


Aren't you "human beings"?
Aren't you "in love"
Do you love music?
Do you love children?

These are all "categories" that gay people are in. You already share many "categories" with gay people. If you're in love with your spouse, then you're already in the same boat as the gay people who want to get married. How is it hurting you?


It is their RIGHT to chose how they want to live their lives,


Unless they choose to get married, right? Then they don't have that right.


However, I want what I have to be DISTINCTLY different in description in the eyes of the law...


Why?

Is this about the law or about your religion, as you stated earlier?

Look, I guarantee you that my marriage is DISTINCTLY different than yours in many ways. How is that affecting you?



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.


How is it different?



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"


But there are more than just Christian marriages and gay marriages. What about secular marriages, like mine? What about financial marriages? Marriages of convenience? Marriages between a an and a woman that have nothing to do with the church? Which would they be called? Something entirely different?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
The day any court voids the vote of the people on ANY issue which a majority have voted on will be a bad day for democracy as a whole.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


ANY decision?

What if the majority wanted to reinstate slavery?
What if the majority wanted to ban gun ownership?
What if the majority wanted to abolish free speech?
What if the majority wanted to declare your lifestyle unacceptable of equality under the law?

The majority has no right to decide certain things. Especially rights, freedoms, and equality of others.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
ummm they did have the 2/3 vote or else the secretary of state would not have placed the amendment on the ballot!


Do you have a source? Here's one.

Source



However, since California Proposition 8 is a "revision" to the constitution, Proposition 8 would have required approval of 2/3 of the California State Senate, 2/3 of the California State Assembly, AND 2/3 of the voters on Election Day. Those requirements and standards were not met with the passage of Proposition 8 on November 5.
...
However, the people of California may not "revise" the Constitution unless 2/3 of the legislature AND 2/3 of the voters approve the revision. Proposition 8 was an attempt to "revise" the California Constitution. Thus, the proper legislative procedures were not followed when Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot.


AND:



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.


California Constitution Declaration of Rights



(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.


Someone needs to do their research, all right.




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.


If that's true, it should be fairly easy for you to show that to me. What's your source on that piece of data? Everything I've read says the opposite.



The bottom line is prop 8 received the required two thirds vote in the California legislature.


If this is true, then you are right. But I can't find where this is true and you're the only person I have read who makes this claim. What is your source?

From One of California's Senators



Senator Leno’s resolution memorializes the Senate’s opposition to Proposition 8 because it is an improper revision of the California Constitution and was not enacted according to the procedures required by Article XVIII to the State Constitution. This Article mandates that a proposed revision of the California Constitution must originate in the California Legislature and be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature before being submitted to the voters.


Please show me why I should believe you over this Senator.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
The majority has no right to decide certain things. Especially rights, freedoms, and equality of others.


I suggest that you rethink that particular comment.

In this particular issue of Gay marriage if the courts were going to ultimately rule on it then that issue should have never been given to the people to vote on to begin with.

Democracy exchanged for minority rule is not a trivial issue, there is too much at stake here. Regardless of the issue, the people have spoken here and to void that now sets a very dangerous precedent.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
ANY decision?


pretty much that is how it SHOULD be



What if the majority wanted to reinstate slavery?


If that was the will of the majority of a country then unfortunately this would have to happen



What if the majority wanted to ban gun ownership?


see above



What if the majority wanted to abolish free speech?


see above




What if the majority wanted to declare your lifestyle unacceptable of equality under the law?


see above




The majority has no right to decide certain things. Especially rights, freedoms, and equality of others.


actually they do



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


What exactly is at stake here?

That is what I can never understand about this argument.

Is the problem the Courts over-ruling a vote that never met the requirement to be on the ballot in the first place or is the problem allowing gay marriage?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Despite i'm straight, what i really REFUSE to accept that there is any form of discrimination versus someone who simply LOVES someone else, NO MATTER THE SEX: it's maybe even worse than racial discrimination, not sure which one of the two is worse: what i know for sure is that this should NOT happen on 2009.
And...

What they are trying to punish now? The "insane" sexual attraction or the love beyond every barrier, stronger than any preconception? Are we sure that we need to go to Afghanistan in order to bomb the talibans? It sounds like they are way closer than we thought.




[edit on 6/3/2009 by internos]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Personally I have no problem with gay marriage, but I am only one person, one vote.... I didn't vote for Obama either.

The legalities should have been argued and resolved long before the people of California voted on it.

What is at stake here is democracy itself.

If anything they should consider all the legal issues and compromise with a new referendum then resubmit that to the people for a new vote... and live with whatever that outcome may be.

If in the future you find yourself living under minority rule you will know a new frustratingly painful reality of what was at stake here and more clearly what was lost IF this court is successful in voiding the votes of the people.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
pretty much that is how it SHOULD be


Fortunately, the founding fathers disagree with you.



If that was the will of the majority of a country then unfortunately this would have to happen


Have you actually read the founding documents?

I suggest you educate yourself on this matter.

Learn the Constitution



America's Constitution is far from an endorsement of majority rule. The founders did believe in voting to select who should be entrusted with the power of government, but the more important, prior question they asked was: "What power will the federal government be granted?" The overwhelming consensus in those classically liberal days was that goverment should leave society and economy alone.
...
The Constitution contains several non-majority rules to protect Americans against abuse of their rights by their government, such as the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional federal laws, regardless of how many votes they received, the presidential veto power, as well as the right of the Congress to impeach the president. In that, it reflected our founders' antipathy toward pure majority rule.

James Madison said "democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Thomas Jefferson warned that "[an] elective despotism was not the government we fought for," and that "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." Alexander Hamilton asserted that "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy."




actually they do


No, actually, they don't.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Fortunately, the founding fathers disagree with you.


Yeah, I reckon gay marriage was legal back then don't you
Reckon it would have passed the "founding fathers" interpretation heh, dont kid yourself



Have you actually read the founding documents?

I suggest you educate yourself on this matter.




I dont need education, I was saying what SHOULD happen



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Me, too.

Prop 8 had the backing of a religious group. I'm beginning to conclude that a marriage defined as "between a man and a woman" continues to provide a refuge for some religious/non-religious people to say, "Look, I can't be gay, because I'm married to a woman/man!"

To be married to a person of the opposite sex, when one really would rather be married to the same sex, makes that marriage a sham. The person who remains in a sham marriage is being selfishly deceitful to themselves, to their partner and family, and to their church. Surely, the effects of a sham marriage do more harm than a same-sex marriage created out of love.

We must no longer deny same sex marriage in order to provide man/woman marriages as a legal closet to hide in. For this reason alone, Prop 8 should be voided.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
Yeah, I reckon gay marriage was legal back then don't you


Marriage law is and has always been left to the states.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Marriage law is and has always been left to the states.


Yep, loads of gay marriages back then


[edit on 6-3-2009 by blueorder]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
And slavery was legal and black people couldn't marry and women couldn't vote. Ah... the good old days, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join