What is the State's compelling interest in banning gay marriage?

In order to prohibit something, the State ( government) is supposed to show a compelling interest in prohibiting that activity.

From Websters Law Dictionary:

"In constitutional law, a method for determining the constitutionality of a statute that restricts the practice of a fundamental right or distinguishes between people due to a suspect classification. In order for the statute to be valid, there must be a compelling governmental interest that can be furthered only by the law in question. Also called compelling governmental interest test and, in the case of a state statute, the compelling state interest test."

An example might be, prohibiting drugs in the interest of public health and safety.
Religious beliefs and opinion cannot be endorsed by the state, so that can't be cited.

SO, here's a question.
What is the States compelling interest in banning gay marriage?

In California it is the people with their votes and not the state that wants to ban gay marriage.

Then one judge invalidates 7,000,000 voters ...

Democracy in action?

Originally posted by OldDragger

In order to prohibit something, the State ( government) is supposed to show a compelling interest in prohibiting that activity.

From Websters Law Dictionary:

"In constitutional law, a method for determining the constitutionality of a statute that restricts the practice of a fundamental right or distinguishes between people due to a suspect classification. In order for the statute to be valid, there must be a compelling governmental interest that can be furthered only by the law in question. Also called compelling governmental interest test and, in the case of a state statute, the compelling state interest test."

An example might be, prohibiting drugs in the interest of public health and safety.
Religious beliefs and opinion cannot be endorsed by the state, so that can't be cited.

SO, here's a question.
What is the States compelling interest in banning gay marriage?

Marriage is a contract to produce children.

The Interest is in banning the artificial reproduction of a biological condition that cannot naturally reproduce itself.

Should homosexuals be allowed to buy babies (MJ), or to clone themselves?





[edit on 5-8-2010 by RRokkyy]

reply to post by centurion1211


Please.
Learn basic law and READ The Constitution.
Civil rights are not a popularity contest, Rights are inviolate, not subject to "majority rules".
AND, The State DID prohibit gay marriage by STATUTE, ( law), from a referendum. THAT IS ILLEGALL, ( unConstitutional) unless The State can demonstrate a complelling interest.
You evade the question.

Not taking sides here but the authority of the state here could and will be greatly undermined. Not that there is much left anyway other than the governments guns to back up thier play.

More crap than ever has been gravitating toward the top of the pile over the last few decades. The republic is failing because of oligarchy, pc, elitism.

Folks should know however that the state has been undermining "marriage" for years now. They have already turned it into a sexbased cop out for women. The heaps of its garbage are to be found in all aspects of our world.

Rate over 60% now for divorce who really give a # anyway. And the gays cant waite to be crowned with that mess? Well its only because marriage is so cheep that we are having this conversation.

reply to post by OldDragger


The only interest politicians have in banning gay marriage is that it panders to right-wing religious whackos and their votes.

The constitution is there to PROTECT freedoms and liberties for ALL citizens, and not to give in to "mob rules" of hate and discrimination.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Then one judge invalidates 7,000,000 voters ...

Democracy in action?

Constitutional Republic in action.

You can't mob rule liberty away.

I just hope all the tyrannical lefties are paying attention. I know they're all happy and looney over this loss for the tyrannical righties but lets see how they react when the next violation of liberty comes down the pipe regarding firearms or personal property.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Please.
Learn basic law and READ The Constitution.
Civil rights are not a popularity contest, Rights are inviolate, not subject to "majority rules".
AND, The State DID prohibit gay marriage by STATUTE, ( law), from a referendum. THAT IS ILLEGALL, ( unConstitutional) unless The State can demonstrate a complelling interest.
You evade the question.

Marriage is a legal term. To say that a same sex couple or threesome or foursome is the same as a man and a woman makes no legal sense.

The right of people to live together is a natural right.

I'm really gettting a kick out of how this is a right wing thing only. California is probably the most liberal state in the U.S. and yet the majority are conservatives?????? I think not.

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Please.
Learn basic law and READ The Constitution.
Civil rights are not a popularity contest, Rights are inviolate, not subject to "majority rules".
AND, The State DID prohibit gay marriage by STATUTE, ( law), from a referendum. THAT IS ILLEGALL, ( unConstitutional) unless The State can demonstrate a complelling interest.
You evade the question.

The right of people to live together is a natural right.

Really, there isnt clear sailing here into a "natural rights" position for gay marrige. In that way this issue really does undermine the meanings of natural rights in and on the same philosophical underpinnings that gave birth to the term natural rights.

If Gays were smart they would just shut up and go for the legal clarity here while everyone is asleep and the jacsticks that run this country are in control....if yous start into this area of natural rights you will wake up the tiger. Its ok man you cant have ut all.

"Marriage is a contract to produce children."

Um, no, marriage is a private contract between two individuals. Children may, or may not, be produced as the result of marriage. What you are implying is that any marriage that does not produce children is not a "real" marriage. May the Gods preserve me from the machinations of idiots and fools.

reply to post by RRokkyy


What complete nonsense!
Nobody is REQUIRED to have children, marriage or not!
Ridiculous.
Nobody that adopts "buys" children. Single people can adopt.

To answer the post's question:

The interest of the people in banning SSM is to try and stop the moral decay of the society. This is quite obvious....

The interest in politicians in making it legal is to hopefully secure their jobs by getting the votes from the gay community...


Just answering the obvious questions...

I am not saying I support or don't support either side, I am just answering the questions of the OP

reply to post by alienreality


How is "moral decay" defined legally?
Isn't that way too broad to be law? Isn't the term itself subjective?
What HARM, comes from "moral decay", that the Government has to protect us from?
How is society harmed?

Preventing loving long term couples from marrying will garner more taxes for the state and make it easier to deny benefits and for that state to recover end-care and medicare costs. Take a look at the state laws and Ombudsman Recovery Acts and that may astonish you if you think medicare is free...it isn't where it comes to end care. Marriage can really hurt or harm you financially.

Aside from the morality police, it's about money and keeping people isolated, and giving the state the ability to shake down single elderly people is one of the big issues here.

Some people would like to plan for their old age and my heart goes out to all loving human couples caught and disrupted (not to mention disrespected) in this legal limbo. Their lives shouldn't continually be put into such chaos for what amounts to for the most - part purely partisan politics.

reply to post by OldDragger


I think it was simply a "defining" what marriage should be. It likely has to do more with "what it takes to hold society together" VS. The rights of those on the fringe. The same reason Marijuana is illegal. They believe it is in the best interest of society as a whole. Idividual rights are automatically discounted when the whole of society could be "affected in a negative manner." Just as an Eighteen year old, can vote, go to war, and kill people for their country, work just as hard as anyone else, are considered legally as adults, who can face prison and the electric chair, yet they are not responsible enough to drink alcohol. P.S. I am 36, so not a teenage rant. Its all about the Government babysitters, who know what's best for us, regardless of age.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Please.
Learn basic law and READ The Constitution.
Civil rights are not a popularity contest, Rights are inviolate, not subject to "majority rules".
AND, The State DID prohibit gay marriage by STATUTE, ( law), from a referendum. THAT IS ILLEGALL, ( unConstitutional) unless The State can demonstrate a complelling interest.
You evade the question.

You first ...

You said: "The State DID prohibit gay marriage by STATUTE, ( law), from a referendum." A referendum approved (repeatedly) by a majority of the people.

The constitution itself comes from the will of the people.

The laws and rights defined in it were voted on - by a majority - at the time the constitution was created and later as amendments were added. But to you, this law is different.

Many of the laws that govern your rights and what can do you do in your every day life were decided by majority votes of the people. But to you, this law is different.

Laws are even judged to be constitutional or not - by a majority - in the case of the courts of appeals and/or the supreme court. But to you, this law is different.

That's the key point - but according to you, this one issue is different.

Seems like you are selectively removing the blindfold from Justitia just because it suits you on this one issue ...

As I said before, democracy in action - not!

I read that the judge making the ruling is gay. That taints his ruling. Since it could be easily said that a straight judge would also taint a ruling, that is the reason this should be and have been decided by a panel of judges - which it will ultimately be.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by OldDragger
SO, here's a question.
What is the States compelling interest in banning gay marriage?

Taxes.

Married couples receive tax credits/breaks. More married couples means less tax income. It's not about morals, ethics, religion or any other argument. It's about taxes, plain and simple.

reply to post by centurion1211


Please,this law is not "different" to me, or to the Constitution.
So, if the majority votes that gun ownership should be illegal, we accept it?
No, because it's un Constitutional, it violates the Second Amendment.
Most laws are not passed by a majority or citizens. We elect people to do that for us, but EVERY law must pass the constitutional test. No exceptions!
It's You that says THIS LAW is different!
Bad reasoning my friend!

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Please,this law is not "different" to me, or to the Constitution.
So, if the majority votes that gun ownership should be illegal, we accept it?
No, because it's un Constitutional, it violates the Second Amendment.
Most laws are not passed by a majority or citizens. We elect people to do that for us, but EVERY law must pass the constitutional test. No exceptions!
It's You that says THIS LAW is different!
Bad reasoning my friend!

I never said all laws are decided by a majority of the people. I said by a majority of the people who can vote on them - whether directly or via elected representatives.

The California constitution allows for referendums by the people. Liberal activist judges subvert the will of the people by "legislating from the bench".

Interesting that you would reference the 2nd amendment, as - based on posts and statements made - many people here and elsewhere on your side of this issue would love to violate the 2nd amendment. Which is the point I made earlier. Love gay marriage and you believe it is constitutional. Hate guns and you believe owning them isn't constitutional. Majority rule was created to decide such issues in favor of the group with the larger constituency.

What's happened here is clearly a "tyranny of the minority".

[edit on 8/5/2010 by centurion1211]