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 Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
This has just broken. The California court of appeals just struck down California Prop 8 as being unconstitutional.

Both sides have indicated that they will appeal to the 9th Court, which will likely side with overturning the proposition, bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.

Items contained in the decision include:

'Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians'...

'Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians'...

JUDGE: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL�S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER...

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA�S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY


[edit on 4-8-2010 by dolphinfan]




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
...bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.


Which will uphold the California court. It IS unconstitutional. Hey, at least one part of the government is working. One out of 3 isn't good though but I'll take it in this day and age.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
whats the point of voting as a state when one person can over turn it? Unconstitutional or not im speeking in the mannor of the voice of a state vs the voice of one judge.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Well hopefully they can settle this matter and let people marry who they wanna marry before the entire state is underwater! (just joking people!)



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Call me someone "who will burn in hell forever",
, but just what is wrong with gay marriage? Seriously, how does it hurt anyone?

Meanwhile, it's sort of amusing to me, that an amendment to the Calif. constitution was voted on by the citizens, and passed, thus following the rules, but found to be unconstitutional......just saying........


Of course I realize it is a much deeper and more complicated issue than what it appears to be on the surface. Just had to say that, too.......

Off topic, but sort of along the same lines, anybody else remember a few years ago when some sort of group decided that the U.S. Constitution was unconstitutional because it referenced God and claimed the group was going to challenge the constitution in court? Heh.......

Okay, before someone calls me ignorant, of course God is not referenced in the U.S. Constitution!
I just found that amusing, as well.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
whats the point of voting as a state when one person can over turn it? Unconstitutional or not im speeking in the mannor of the voice of a state vs the voice of one judge.


Well this is going to go before the 9 that matter. It's not 1 person, it's the SC ruling on the Constitution. The Constitution trumps all. If I'm not wrong there are more conservatives on the SC right now than liberals. 5-4, I think but they will still make the right decision. Not like they are up for reelection. History is their legacy.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


That was the point I made on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Everytime a story like this drops, we should all set our watches to count down from 72 hours.

This is one of those topics that gets people misdirected in advance of a strategic move.

Keep your heads about you.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
whats the point of voting as a state when one person can over turn it? Unconstitutional or not im speeking in the mannor of the voice of a state vs the voice of one judge.



Just because it was voted for doesn't make it right (See numerous past and current presidents.)


That's the reason we have this process, if a law is unconstitutional it is meant for a court to decide such.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I think it is pathetic that this is even an issue. Might as well ban inter racial marriage too.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by camaro68ss
whats the point of voting as a state when one person can over turn it? Unconstitutional or not im speeking in the mannor of the voice of a state vs the voice of one judge.


Well this is going to go before the 9 that matter. It's not 1 person, it's the SC ruling on the Constitution. The Constitution trumps all. If I'm not wrong there are more conservatives on the SC right now than liberals. 5-4, I think but they will still make the right decision. Not like they are up for reelection. History is their legacy.


yes its 5-4 conservative to lib ratio right now and i dont belive in gay marriage but i do belive the law is unconstitutional. what im trying to say is when the majority of the people want to change law should they have the power to do so?



[edit on 4-8-2010 by camaro68ss]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I've always wondered what part of the constitution provides the right to marry at all.

Perhaps it is in that whole "pursuit of happiness" business. When you think about it in that way, banning gay marriage certainly seems unconstitutional.

There clearly are no disadvantages to society that can be clearly articulated by banning gay marriage, just as there are none that can clearly and quantitatively articulated that support heterosexual marriage.

The "sanctity of marriage" rubbish is only one thing and that is a desire to harm, by law, homosexuals



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Dunno which of the three threads was here first, so....

Good. Constitution upheld. That's what judges are there for, even if the people vote against what it right.

It's none of the government or anybody else's business who anybody marries or doesn't marry. That's between people and their gods, if they have gods.

Bet this is gonna suck for those fake libertarian Constitutionalists who ran around for years opposing gay marriage because it's somehow morally wrong or affects someone else's rights



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
I've always wondered what part of the constitution provides the right to marry at all.

Perhaps it is in that whole "pursuit of happiness" business. When you think about it in that way, banning gay marriage certainly seems unconstitutional.


I think this is the last hurdle from our parents and grandparents society. Did you know that they had to make a law saying interracial marriage was legal? I think that was in '46. I'm not sure without checking. Once we have pure seperation of church and state we'll be better off, socially.


The "sanctity of marriage" rubbish is only one thing and that is a desire to harm, by law, homosexuals


Which has no basis in the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly.

Now i know the judge is not making laws but he is changing them or over turning them with out a legislative assembly. is a judge at this point a dictator with the power to over turn the voice of the people?

regardless of the ruling or law we are talking about.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The judge upholding the Constitution is now a dictator? By what logic?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
The judge upholding the Constitution is now a dictator? By what logic?


lol im just asking questions. im not saying he is one. all im saying is is it right to turn down the voice "majority" of the people.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
The judge upholding the Constitution is now a dictator? By what logic?


lol im just asking questions. im not saying he is one. all im saying is is it right to turn down the voice "majority" of the people.


If it's unconstitutional, yes.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
ATS is just too much sometimes.
Rights are NEVER subject to a vote, the majority does not rule.
EVERY FREAKIN DAY, ATS'ers gripe about the Constitution being ignored, then you gripe when it's followed!
The Constitution is THE standard by all American law is measured, do you want it followed or not? Or only for hetros? Civil rights are NOT subject to a popularity contest! LEARN YOUR CONSTITUTION!
LEARN HOW AMERICAN LAW WORKS!



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
It's about time.

I knew this fiasco would make it through the courts and that a judge would strike it down.

A republic is a beautiful thing when it works.

Now, let's settle in and watch all the anti-gay propaganda that will pour into the state of California before it gets to the SC.

It's also a sad thing, when Constitutional Judges are labeled as Dictators.

The Constitution is to be followed, not interpreted..

~Keeper




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join