California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by justinsweatt

 

The reason wasn't actually morality that polygamy was outlawed. It was just sanity. No one in their right freaking mind wants more than ONE wife.

I would add to this that: No one in his right mind wants more than ONE mother in law ...

Guenter

Originally posted by jjkenobi


It's the opposite of unconstitutional for what California has done. They voted as a state on how to handle something not specifically addressed in the Constitution.

What's unconstitutional is for a random judge somewhere to start passing new laws from his seat. That's getting out of control and needs addressed ASAP.

What California did ISexpressly covered in the Constitution. And I quote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And it wasn't a "random" judge "somewhere" It was the proper judge under Article 3 of the Constitution that did his job. Or do you want to get rid of that part of the Constitution too, ehen it doesn't fit your bigoted agenda.
The 14th Amendment doesn't say, "No state shall, except when a bunch of bigots get together and buy an election...." It says, "No state shall...." California did. And got spanked. Actually, the state won. The secretly gay, Mormon boys in bondage lost. Thank goodness.

Nevermind

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Annee]

So, the vote was bought, and only by secretly gay bondage boys.......per your description. Hmmmm, and we wonder where civil debates have gone? I guess one can try and be ignorant while denying ignorance.......just don't see it happening.

reply to post by RRokkyy


Who says marriage is contract to produce children? So are you saying married couples are REQUIRED to reproduce?

And on the notion that homosexuals having children is wrong because of artificial insemination/surrogacy....uhhhh heterosexual couples do the same thing all the time.

reply to post by Pinke


I really, really loved your post. Way to get everything that should be said about the absurdity of it all in one, easy-to-read post. Star!

Two catch phrases get banidied about in the Gay Marriage Debate.

One is, I dont SUPPORT gay marriage.

The other is,

The Gay AGENDA.

Neither catchphrase makes a lick of sense, and when asked to define or explain these vague phrases, the users cannot.

How does one SUPPORT gay marriage? Or not SUPPORT it? The only one who has to SUPPORT it is the individual who CHOOSES it. period. I was married once, and my husband did not SUPPORT me. I dumped him. It had nothing to do with whether Joe Neighbor SUPPORTED my marriage. It was all on me and the hub as INDIVIDUALS.

The Gay AGENDA.

Define agenda, and what exactly is the Gay Agenda? How is one forced into the Gay AGENDA, whatever that may be. How does the Gay AGENDA (whatever this vague notion is) personally affect YOU as an individual? How can any AGENDA involve one as an individual if one does not first PUT themselves INTO the agenda, by CHOICE?

Thanks for clarifying these issues for me, in advance of course.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by hotbakedtater]

Originally posted by Yissachar1


We have had civil unions in the UK for a while now and not a flame did come from heaven... You guys should live and let live..

Oh, but didn't you know? Here in America we were attacked by terrorist (9/11) and got hit by Hurricane Katrina because we allow gays to be gay. /sarcasm

Just a question regarding the US constitution: I understand that one state cannot over-ride constitutional rules even if 100% of the population agreed. But what would be the result if a vote were taken country wide and the majority of all US citizens went against gay marriage? I do not know if all states in the Union were given a chance to vote or only California.

Originally posted by SimplyGord
Just a question regarding the US constitution: I understand that one state cannot over-ride constitutional rules even if 100% of the population agreed. But what would be the result if a vote were taken country wide and the majority of all US citizens went against gay marriage? I do not know if all states in the Union were given a chance to vote or only California.

Depends on the procedure used. If it were a referendum vote for a piece of standard legislation (which, btw, is not currently possible on a federal level), it would still be overturned for the same reasons.

If, however, they vote were to approve a Constitutional ammendment banning gay marriages, then once all of the procedural hurdles are passed, it would be by definition constitutional because it is an amendment to the constitution.

Not sure what the normal timespan is for an ammendment to be ratified, but I know some of them have taken several decades.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Please explain how it is a "fallacy" to say that not letting gays marry violates their equal rights? In every state, two consenting adults that want to get married can go in front of a priest, preacher, pastor, rabbi, shaman, Imam, justice of the peace, Wiccan priest/priestess, Lucifarian priest/priestess, or whomever they want to marry them (as long as the person marrying them has a license to marry but the state cannot discriminate on that either). The state requires they have a marriage license as a way of proving this marriage occurred. You don't have to have one, but you won't be recognized by the state government as being married and therefore will not receive certain tax breaks, insurance benefits, hospital permissions, inheritance benefits, etc.

It is unconstitutional for the state to say two gay people cannot be recognized as being married for the simple fact that they are being denied their right to have their marriage recognized because they did not chose a partner that the state deems appropriate. Who is the state to say which two consenting adults can marry? It is called discrimination and it is not the governments job to make decisions based on ideologies/religious beliefs that do nothing to infringe on the rights of others.

I do not see the fallacy here. You can't just throw the word "fallacy" around without backing it up. Just because you disagree with me does not make my argument a fallacy. A fallacy is an argument that has no logical reasoning behind it and can usually be easily proven to be illogical or unreasonable. If you going to say that this argument is a "fallacy" then I would ask you to point out what type of fallacy it is.

Originally posted by SimplyGord
Just a question regarding the US constitution: I understand that one state cannot over-ride constitutional rules even if 100% of the population agreed. But what would be the result if a vote were taken country wide and the majority of all US citizens went against gay marriage? I do not know if all states in the Union were given a chance to vote or only California.

I think marriage is still a state issue.

I was wondering if the government could declare gay marriage legal nationally. But - I'm not sure they can because of state rights.

Yes but the Federal can still set the foundations of what is acceptable based on equality and the Constitution, for all states are obligated to this.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Yes but the Federal can still set the foundations of what is acceptable based on equality and the Constitution, for all states are obligated to this.

Think it could happen?

Do you think the Federal will declare all gay marriage legal?

reply to post by hotbakedtater


I hate that whole "gay agenda" crap. I have not seen one single instance of gays asking for any law to be passed that would give them any special rights others do not have, nor have I seen an instance of gays trying to turn the whole world gay. The absurdity that if we let gay people marry then next is pedophiles getting to marry children and people marrying goats. I cannot believe people buy this stuff.

reply to post by nunya13


Not everyone can legally marry the person of their choice. Therefore, it is a fallacy that they are being treated any different. Not all types of relationships can, nor should they be equal. By elevating one group, at the peril of another, as the arguement goes, you're making somone a second class citizen. Well, in one way or another we are all second class citizens by that definition, so therefore, yup, fallacy.

reply to post by Annee


I don't for the same reason you already mentioned....marriage is a state right. However, the states are still beholden to the constitution so they cannot pass laws that violate it. Legalizing gay marriage in a state is one thing, it is completely another to pass a law that denies the recognition of gay marriages because it is a law that discriminates against a certain group of people and denies them a right that the majority have. Being gay is not illegal so why can't gays be married? You can think being gay is wrong based on ideology/religious beliefs, but the state cannot discriminate on that basis.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Please explain an instance where a person cannot legally marry a person of their choice other than a minor. When has a state every out and out denied two consenting adults be allowed to marry.

edit to add:

Also explain how allowing gays to marry elevates them above other groups and puts them in "peril".

[edit on 5-8-2010 by nunya13]

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't for the same reason you already mentioned....marriage is a state right. However, the states are still beholden to the constitution so they cannot pass laws that violate it. Legalizing gay marriage in a state is one thing, it is completely another to pass a law that denies the recognition of gay marriages because it is a law that discriminates against a certain group of people and denies them a right that the majority have. Being gay is not illegal so why can't gays be married? You can think being gay is wrong based on ideology/religious beliefs, but the state cannot discriminate on that basis.

OK- - didn't some states out of fear -- change their constitution stating marriage is between a man and woman?

Ya know - - seeing what is happening in other states - - took preventative measures.

Then what?

Originally posted by ~Lucidity


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.

Unless the judge is gay.

Not taking an issue on gay or not but it has been the governments business. It would be nice if we could go back to something between our gods but the the fact is that legal partnerships will still remain under the regulation of the courts, staits/fags/dikes whatever.