California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

I have the answer. We must ammend the constitution to make marriage between one woman and one man. Problem solved no more judges rullings no more debate make it constitutional.

reply to post by humbleseeker

I have a better idea, instead of making it a law that defines marriage, how about you make an admendment, that takes away all of the rights in a marriage, that goes along with such: 1) Spouses now can be compelled to testify against each other. 2) No more tax breaks for 2 income families, or children. 3) A marriage is no longer taxed, or requires a license, that it goes back to the religion, and only a church determines who it will and will not marry or allow to divorce. 4) No more automatic that the family inherits the property and monies of the person who dies, no will, then it goes straight to the state. 5) No more same policy insurance for spouses and children, they will each have to have their own individual policy. 6) Spouses may no longer make medical decisions for each other, now a person will have to have those in their records. 7) No more joint accounts or anything of that nature.
Take away all of the tangible and legal bennifits of being married, and you will find the question of gay marriage to dissapear real quickly. Course then the question would be ask, why get married at all?

reply to post by sdcigarpig


I wouldnt mind that I certainly didnt get much bennefit from being married the first time. Oh and I will always have my own checking account. When I read the Bible most men just took woman to be there wife or wives. I dating a girl who I live with that I consoder my wife, we are not married by law but as in the old days I took her as my wife. If I could afford it I would take one more but, I dont think she would like that. What it comes down too with me is my sacered law wich is the bible, and the bible tells me that marriage is between men and woman. It also tells me in the first chapter of Romans that God gave people over to perverse ways of thinking because of there sin and men desierd men and woman desired woman.

reply to post by humbleseeker


thing is that
if an issue is the will of the people
it ain't gonna happen
so we have gay marriage
illegal aliens and anchors
death care
infantacide aka abortion/birthcontroll
on and
on and
on
the list is getting too long to keep up with

[edit on 7-8-2010 by AmericanDaughter]

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


Your right, the will of the people of the United Sates is not like I would want them to be. It looks like I stand by some of your same moral claims. I dont hate gays but feel like there actions are sin
I believe that abortian is murder
I am pro defense/ as in peace through superior firpower
I want to kick all the illegals out of my country
Well thats all for now. Funny thing is the four things I mentioned above use to be what the common American believed in. Now I am the radical.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

I have problems with non-monogamy. It just so happens that the majority of gay men statistically are non-monogamous. Im perfectly happy with monogamous gay marriages.

Then there is no reason for you to oppose this. By the very nature of it a non-monogamous person is not likely to request to be married.

i object though to the LGBT community trying to redefine marriage to where fidelity and monogamy not being valued in marriage.

This is not what they are trying to do, they are trying to get the same legal recognitions of a married heterosexual couple. The straight community has done a bang up job themselves at not valuing fidelity and monogamy in their marriages this isn't the work of the LGBT community, straight people have destroyed the marital values all on their own. Many of the gays asking to be married have the same relationship values you do, they just prefer their own sex.

I dont want this whole gay marriage thing to blow up into some 1960s free love thing to further degrade our moral fiber and push us into the last stage of civilization death:decadence.

If it were really about "free love" do you really think that they would be asking to be married? If anything this would help bring back some of the lost moral fiber, as there would be more committed relationships.

The hippies and the free lovers certainly did that for us in the 1960s. Im sorry but i value sex as something special. Maybe thats why i focus so much on that. Maybe you feel that sex is just some casual thing that can be shared with anything and anyone with no jealousy or hurt feelings. but i cant.

They are not seeking casual relationships they are seeking the same legal protections for their lifetime committed relationships that heterosexual couples have. They are not asking for plural marriages. They are not asking for churches being forced into marrying them either. Churches are not the only places or office that can perform a marriage, they have the right to marry couples as they choose.

I dont have a problem with gay marriage if i KNEW for sure that this would not happen. say its fear or what ever you want. But im a firm believe in the slipper slope argument.

It isn't a slippery slope these people are not trying to turn marriage into some communal love-fest, they simply want the same legal rights for their lifetime/long-term relationships that straight people enjoy. We are already on the slippery slope where marriage is concerned and the gay people had nothing to do with it.

One does not have to be gay to turn their marriage into the adulterous non-committed love-fest that we have now.

I believe that everyone will find this to be very interesting to read and look through.
Prop 8 court documents

This is what the notes are to the entire trial, along with the opinion that the judge has written down. This covers what the questions were, the arguments, and the responses that were put down, along with all revlivent court cases that led to the decision.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness



Oh i knew you people were gonna pull loving vs virginia out your butthole. The problem with this is....sexuality is not a state of being. its not a race. Black and whites dont have a choice of being born the way they are. Being gay is not a state of being.

The same thing you are saying about sexuality can be said about religion and that is also a protected group.

I have read many of your posts about gay marriage and how marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is your opinion. The government already tried to define marriage this way and it was struck down as being unconstitutional. So is banning gays from getting married.

As to your "well they can marry anyone of the opposite sex so they are still getting equal rights" argument, this is illogical. There is no "as long as" condition to equal rights. You are basically saying you can marry anyone you want "as long as" you marry someone of the opposite sex? Would you agree with this statement:

"Yes, you have freedom of religion in this country as long as your Christian. If you choose not to be Christian then it is not my fault you are not exercising your right to equal protection."

Originally posted by Nofoolishness


Just 1 federal judge can crap on any law.....what the hell is this? Who is to say this judge is even right in his ruling? I mean IN HIS OPINION HE IS RIGHT. But what if his opinion is wrong? this is BULLcrap.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

Welcome to checks and balances. We have this in place for a reason. You are also assuming it is his opinion. There is no basis for this claim and judges are FORBIDDEN from ruling based on their opinion. They must carefully explain their decisions and provide examples typically based on previous court cases, etc. on why they ruled the way they did.

And guess what? This isn't just one judge voting this way. Again, checks and balances come into play. The people can now appeal this ruling and take it to the supreme court where 9 judges then make their ruling after taking the other judges ruling into consideration.

IF the Supreme Court agrees with his ruling then there is still further action to be taken and that would be to try to add a Constitutional amendment. The only way this has typically be done (which is one out of two ways) is for two-thirds of the senate and house to vote for the amendment. THEN the two-thirds of the states must affirm the amendment. This is incredibly hard to do especially given the fact it would be the first time in history in which we have amended the Constitution to specifically exclude a group of people from enjoying certain rights.

It has been said many times in this thread and most people don't seem to get the point. This judge did not just "crap" on this law. He ruled it unconstitutional. He did not say, "you know I THINK gays should get married so I'm going to rule against this law". Give me a break. He deemed it to be in direct violation of the constitution under due process and equal protection along with other laws on the books in which he named in his ruling.

A majority of people can rule to make something law as long as it is in accordance with the constitution. It's really that simple.

One of the issues with gay marriage is children. Although gay persons already often raise children and have very limited ability to adopt, marriage makes adoption easier. And after they get the right to marry, their priority for adopting an infant or small child will be equal with heterosexual married couples for reasons of discrimination.

If you search Google, you'll see stories about research indicating that children raised by gay people are many times more likely to show a homosexual orientation when they hit puberty. I don't know if the research is reliable or not, but you can read about it online.

Another issue in this respect: imagine yourself a boy in high school. How are other kids going to treat him if they find out he has two "dads" who are married?

Gay rights activists argue that children of interracial couples had the same problem, but that wasn't a good excuse to keep interracial marriage illegal. But is it really the same? Is it? I don't know. I'm just pondering that right now.

But there is more to marriage than just two people declaring their dedication to one another. It establishes a solidified family unit for those who wish to have children or adopt one. And when gays get the right to marry, that means there will be an additional person of the same gender who will be entitled to "parental rights" of a child.

Originally posted by MeNotKnow

If you search Google, you'll see stories about research indicating that children raised by gay people are many times more likely to show a homosexual orientation when they hit puberty. I don't know if the research is reliable or not, but you can read about it online.

Please provide source.

What do you wanna bet - - it is religious based.

Because real research shows there is no bias either way: straight or gay parents.

reply to post by MeNotKnow


The issue that you brought up, does have pros and cons on gay adoption. But with any change, there is always an awkward time. There really has not been any real impact studies as to what would happen if a child was raised by a same sex couple at all. More and more children these days are often left alone, being a latchkey child, or see their parents split up in messy divorces. Ultimately, when it comes to adoption, the thought needs to be on what is good for the child and what household is stable to provide an environment that will lead to the child being raised to be a good member of society. As with all statistics on issues where there has not been a lot of studies, the studies do not provide an accurate picture. As with all things, there are both good and bad cases when it comes to adoption. The weight of equality has to be weighed in all things of the law. If a gay adoption case were to go to court, the court would ask the following question:
Not withstanding of sexual orientation, if the head of household was independently wealthy, could that home provide what was good for the child, or would the child be better left to travel between foster homes or end up in a home where the head of household is not so wealthy? What role does religion hold in this issue, one that would check and ensure that the welfare of the child is taken care of, or one where it seeks to enforce its own sense of morality on the greater public?
For every study that says it is a bad idea, there is an opposite study that says it is a good idea. I believe that all of this should be taken one step at a time, and that careful records are to be taken and looked at, tracking the progress of the children. There are some households and people out there that would be suitable for children, just as there are other households and people that are not suitable for children.

"I want to do X! We should put it to a vote of the people because they'll agree with me!"

Please vote:

Yes [ ]
No [x]

"What?!!? They voted NO??!! Well it's unconstitutional to vote no! The people are stupid and shouldn't have a voice!"

Yeah, that's what happened. The big picture here is that the votes of the people mean exactly SQUAT. They put it to a vote. The people voted against. Move on and try again next time.

reply to post by Quaght

No, the law was challenged on the grounds of constutionality. The people to get upset at are those who were suppose to defend the law. The majority of the professional witnesses did not show up to court, the lawyers and team there to defend prop 8 did not know answers to the questions the judge asked. He may have stuck down the law, but he put everything on hold, sending it up to the next court to make the decisions.

Originally posted by MeNotKnow
One of the issues with gay marriage is children. Although gay persons already often raise children and have very limited ability to adopt, marriage makes adoption easier. And after they get the right to marry, their priority for adopting an infant or small child will be equal with heterosexual married couples for reasons of discrimination.

If you search Google, you'll see stories about research indicating that children raised by gay people are many times more likely to show a homosexual orientation when they hit puberty. I don't know if the research is reliable or not, but you can read about it online.

Another issue in this respect: imagine yourself a boy in high school. How are other kids going to treat him if they find out he has two "dads" who are married?

Gay rights activists argue that children of interracial couples had the same problem, but that wasn't a good excuse to keep interracial marriage illegal. But is it really the same? Is it? I don't know. I'm just pondering that right now.

But there is more to marriage than just two people declaring their dedication to one another. It establishes a solidified family unit for those who wish to have children or adopt one. And when gays get the right to marry, that means there will be an additional person of the same gender who will be entitled to "parental rights" of a child.

I believe that all of those points were argued and refuted in the Proposition 8 ruling. Most of those assumptions were based on old and biased data that have since been dis-proven, and is simply circulated by the proponents of said resolution to instill fear and garner support. Read the actual final ruling... it really was one sided and overwhelming in support of gay marriage once accurate information was considered.

Proposition 8 Final Ruling