California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

I don't think the lawsuit they will be addressing is the issue of same-sex marriages at all, but whether a single judge has the authority to overrule the will of the people. Sure, many out there will ignore that the judge empowered himself to overrule a majority vote because his ruling is in sync with what they believe. What about when a judge overrules a majority vote on something that isn't in sync with the majority of the people, like raising taxes or forced community service for kids?

reply to post by black cat


It's not about majority anything.
LEARN BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!
Majority rule is not the way America is governed!
Rights are not "voted on". Do YOu want the majority deciding what rights YOU have?
Sorry, you just couldn't be more wrong if you tried!

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by black cat

 

It's not about majority anything.
LEARN BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!
Majority rule is not the way America is governed!
Rights are not "voted on". Do YOu want the majority deciding what rights YOU have?
Sorry, you just couldn't be more wrong if you tried!

Democracy, sir. It is totally about the majority rule in a Democracy. If I were wrong then we wouldn't need elections to decide POTUS, we would just need an individual to appoint one. Whether this is about rights or laws, the issue is the judge overturning a proposition endorsed by a majority of the people. I'm sure you wouldn't be fine if the government overrode something you voted against.

A vote on a civil rights matter is totally different than voting on an elected official.

And beside that your argument is invalid...the vote of the people does not decide who the president is anyway, the electoral college does.

People like to go on about marriage being sacred, but the divorce rate says people behave otherwise.

They say that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't make babies. Well Heterosexual couples do plenty of things in the bedroom that have absolutely nothing to do with baby making.
Your friends and neighbors have some kinks that you would never imagine, but that is there business, because they are consenting adults.

I just heard a blurb on CNN that I found both amusing and timely...just think of the jobs Gay marriages might create. The wedding and party industry will get a huge boost from this. Clothing retailers will get a boost from all the party outfits being bought for these weddings.

Committed Monogamous couples are a good thing for society, it should be encouraged IMO.

reply to post by black cat


You do realize that the United States of America is not a democracy right? It's a Federal republic. I think you have some reading to do.

Of all of the three parts of the government, the one part that has to justify in writing all decisions made, is the court. The judge, must write up not only his or her judgement, but also the reasoning behind that judgement, often citing the different laws and based such on precident and rulings that have come before.
The ruling by the judge when it comes to fighting the laws, are automatically go to a federal court, then to a superior and finally the Supreme court of the United States. In this process, each and every judge who sits on the bench, not only has to read what is written down, but also must add to it, so it is more than just one persons thoughts on the subject that makes the difference, but the voices of those sitting on the bench now and in times past.
I read through the ruling by the judge that was made and what the reason for the decision of the court makes a lot of sense, as there are 2 parts that did not sit well with the Judge who made the ruling.
The first part is the question of what to do with all of the people who got married before the law went into effect. Is it right to give a person a right and then take it away in such a short amount of time? The law left all of the same sex couples who did get married, hanging in limbo. Think for a moment, you are suddenly given the right to drive a vehicle, get a liscence and then are told you have that right. Then later that year, a law goes into effect stating you no longer have that right, that for a bit of time you got to enjoy, is that correct, and is it equal treatment under the law?
The other aspect that was pointed out by the judge is that the law is flawed on the basis as it sets up a system where it would discriminate against those who are gay, and in a committed relationship, putting the man/woman relationship as superior to one of the same sex relationship.
This is clearly wrong, as there can be no distinction under the eyes of the law if a person is in a same sex relationship or another. The law can not set one group over another, as that would open the door to legalized discrimination, that this country so long ago fought against at the expense of so many people who just wanted to do the right thing.

Originally posted by gluetrap
A vote on a civil rights matter is totally different than voting on an elected official.

And beside that your argument is invalid...the vote of the people does not decide who the president is anyway, the electoral college does.

But the electoral college vote is still a majority rule. 2nd line.

Originally posted by black cat
But the electoral college vote is still a majority rule. 2nd line.

But thankfully in a democratic republic the Supreme Court makes the rules. Not the people. I could point to people, even here, that would throw out the Constitution to suit their needs. Not so with the SC.

Originally posted by janon
reply to post by black cat

 

You do realize that the United States of America is not a democracy right? It's a Federal republic. I think you have some reading to do.

If that's true then why are we promoting Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and not a Republic? 2nd line.

The US is a constitutional republic, which functions through the process of representative democracy.

This is the same thing they are pushing for in Iraq. They call it democracy because that is the word most people understand and recognize and it conveys the basic principle quite well.


en.wikipedia.org...
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

And here is a blurb from Wiki about the reasons for checks and balances and a constitution even within the seemingly fair democratic process.

en.wikipedia.org...
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.[7][8] However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated – through the use of balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.[9][10][11]

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government or constitutional protections of individual liberties from democratic power, it is possible for dissenting individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[12] and procedurally.[13] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.[14][15]

Originally posted by black cat
If that's true then why are we promoting Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and not a Republic? 2nd line.

Ask the MIC. They are the ones in charge. I doubt that they will give you an answer though. It's not like they are or have felt like they are beholding to the American people.

reply to post by black cat


According to precident set in the 1800's and in the power of the constitution, yes a judge sitting on a federal court, in the appeals court and in the Supreme Court of the United States, do have the right to strike down any law that is deemed to violate the constitution of the united states. It is a recourse that the people of the United States have against bad laws.

Originally posted by black cat
I don't think the lawsuit they will be addressing is the issue of same-sex marriages at all, but whether a single judge has the authority to overrule the will of the people. Sure, many out there will ignore that the judge empowered himself to overrule a majority vote because his ruling is in sync with what they believe. What about when a judge overrules a majority vote on something that isn't in sync with the majority of the people, like raising taxes or forced community service for kids?

It is sad day for America (Idiocracy anyone) when the majority vote is made up of a majority of folks who fail to comprehend what the constitution means. If it is a majority of morons who fail to vote according to the constitution, then thank the Lord we have Judges who are still versed in upholding it. This should never have beena Prop to begin with!

Originally posted by black cat

Originally posted by gluetrap
A vote on a civil rights matter is totally different than voting on an elected official.

And beside that your argument is invalid...the vote of the people does not decide who the president is anyway, the electoral college does.

But the electoral college vote is still a majority rule. 2nd line.

When the electoral college disagrees with the majority vote of the actual people then there is a real problem IMO.

So if out of 10 people, 7 voted that you would no longer be allowed to eat salad more than twice a week just because you have red hair, then that ruling should stick because the majority said so?

Or should there be a check/balance that says it is wrong because it infringes on your rights to live as you choose.

Bravo, this is the essence of freedom, what this country is supposed to be about, not any medievei religious notion of marriage.

Originally posted by black cat
I don't think the lawsuit they will be addressing is the issue of same-sex marriages at all, but whether a single judge has the authority to overrule the will of the people. Sure, many out there will ignore that the judge empowered himself to overrule a majority vote because his ruling is in sync with what they believe. What about when a judge overrules a majority vote on something that isn't in sync with the majority of the people, like raising taxes or forced community service for kids?

The issue here isn't forced community service or raising taxes.The judge ruled based on the contents of the constitution.

The argument against same sex marriage is ideological. Ideological arguments hold no weight in a court of law.

~Keeper

why did we even vote on this?

waste of money. like another user said, they should have caught this before it was put on the ballot.

and they wonder why were broke.

i guess there's no point in voting for the future legalization of another controversial issue, even though its on the ballot.

a judge will just overturn that too.

probably overturn our next election as well.... wouldn't be surprised.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by LurkerMan]

reply to post by hotbakedtater


You are absolutely right hotbakedtater, I commend this Judge for knowing the law and implementing it. We are all equal under the law or we're not. Thank you for the voice of sanity.

Now I have a question.

The Judge that ruled in this case was Homosexual. His ruling would allow him to be married and thus could benifit financialy from his ruling.

Would this be an ethics violation?