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.

 

Federal court to rule on Calif. ban on gay marriage

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage were anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that considered the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion 18 months after a trial judge struck down the ban following the first federal trial to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married.


Federal court to rule on Calif. ban on gay marriage

As my post history shows, and I even authored a thread on my stance, I am in full support of gay marriage (or unions, or whatever they'd like it to be called). I believe that two gay people that love each other should be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage just like I do. I also believe they should be able to adopt, or conceive a child if possible.

That being said, marriage is not a right covered under the Constitution, not for straight people or gays. It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so it could be covered under the 9th Amendment, but either way, marriage has always been considered a states' issue, which I happen to agree with.

The state of California offered to its citizens a vote to either ban gay marriage or allow it. The LBGT community apparently thought they had a lock on this, and decided to, instead of let the state congress decide on it, to let the people decide on it. They voted to ban it. All of a sudden that had to be the wrong decision! How could it possibly be constitutional?? Something Has To Be Done because the people are wrong!!!

Now it's going to court to decide if the people have a say in what is allowed or not allowed in their state, which is what this amounts to. Democracy, the way that America decides how we are to live with one another, worked perfectly on that day. The people decided what they did or didn't want in their communities. But since it didn't turn out the way the object of the vote wanted, they're suing the people of the state of California for voting.

So, which is it? You occupy cities crying about "no democracy", but when it works as intended, you cry about democracy? If you don't like the outcome, wait the prescribed amount of time for your state and put it to a vote again next time. Right now you're wasting taxpayer funds to bring this to court. Get over it and try again next time. Or try something different.

/TOA
edit on 7-2-2012 by The Old American because: added link to story




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
You're right of course. It's not about democracy or states' rights, or the people, it's about winning. And winning by any means available, some of those means may not be considered proper in most circles.

But I wouldn't get too concerned about the 9th Circuit, they're considered the loons of the federal court system. I'd give 4-1 odds that they will declare Prop. 8 to be unconstitutional on some grounds or another. It will have to be appealed again. Will the Supremes take the case? Just as a guess, and no odds, I think they won't. We live in a strange world.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
As a gay guy I don't ever plan on marriage. Just the ones who want to get marriage are going to be upset. California says yes now no. How confusing.
edit on 7-2-2012 by anthonygillespie2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Prop H8te was passed in California due to incredible support from the Mormon Church next door in Utah among other things.

That whole thing was a fiasco.

As for Gay marriage, what a joke.

The government should not right to tell two consenting adults that they can't take a vow of monogamy or whatever marriage is supposed to be these days.

The fact that they created a legal institution around marriage, that provides more rights to some than others was wrong and they MUST provide equality for these people. It should NOT be an issue voted upon by the people, it should be legislation, as the GOVERNMENT decided to make a LEGAL thing out of it.

This is on them.

It's not a social issue. The arguments against gay marriage are ones of personal belief, and there is no lawful justification for them. They are moot and should be treated as such.

~Tenth

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

Dear tothetenthpower,

Nice to talk with you again, it's been awhile. I'm not as familiar as I should be about the politics behind Prop. 8. The OP seems to be saying that the decision to put it before the people was a tactical error by the LGBT community, and they should live with the results.

How did this thing come to be put before the people? And why, if the people's representatives can vote on an issue, can't the citizens who put them into office vote on it?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
This is the double standard at work, this is most prevalent in Ron Paul supporter. People claim the want state rights and when the states rules against their beliefs they cry to the government to overrule state rights. And what would happen if California said okay to homosexual marriage and the government came in and said that we couldn't do that. The same people would be up in arms about state rights.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Just because a majority of the people believe in something doesn't make it right. Democracy is only "fair" when you're beliefs follow those of the majority. If people were capable, and/or willing, to look at issues in a non biased light and from different angles, then democracy might work all the time.

The real issue at hand is are there any benefits or tax breaks, both federal and state, for being married vs single. Perhaps instead of allowing only married people to file jointly, you allow anyone who is living together to file jointly.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentNoise
Just because a majority of the people believe in something doesn't make it right.

It makes it legal.


Democracy is only "fair" when you're beliefs follow those of the majority. If people were capable, and/or willing, to look at issues in a non biased light and from different angles, then democracy might work all the time.

So what you are saying is Democracy is only fair when it goes your way? This is hilarious. You do know the purpose of voting and how it works right?


edit on 7-2-2012 by JoshF because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

That being said, marriage is not a right covered under the Constitution, not for straight people or gays. It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so it could be covered under the 9th Amendment, but either way, marriage has always been considered a states' issue, which I happen to agree with.

The state of California offered to its citizens a vote to either ban gay marriage or allow it. The LBGT community apparently thought they had a lock on this, and decided to, instead of let the state congress decide on it, to let the people decide on it. They voted to ban it. All of a sudden that had to be the wrong decision! How could it possibly be constitutional?? Something Has To Be Done because the people are wrong!!!

The people decided what they did or didn't want in their communities. But since it didn't turn out the way the object of the vote wanted, they're suing the people of the state of California for voting.

/TOA
edit on 7-2-2012 by The Old American because: added link to story




Opposition to California's Propsition 8 is NOT based on whether Marriage, itself, is or isn't a constitution right.

As you have noted, it isn't. For anyone, straight, gay black, white, Christian, or atheist.


The issue with Proposition 8 is that, in its implimentation, central, in fact, to, its enactment, It Violated A Basic Right, Protected Under the Constitution for ALL Citizens: The Right To EQUAL Protection Under the Law.


As the just released Circuit Court ruling states:


"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.




"it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently."

The proponents of Proposition 8, when given their "day in court", could not show why the constitutional right to equal protection under the law could, or should be, legitimately denied to gays and lesbians, having singled them out as a "different class of people".


The fact that an unfortunate number of California voters demonstrated an appaling lack of "constitutional awareness" when Prop 8 came up for a vote does nothing to invalidate one of the basic precepts of the constitution.

Ignorance of the Law is not a valid excuse.

Especially when your ignorance violates someone else's right to the same protection you, yourself, enjoy and benefit under.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

Dear tothetenthpower,

Nice to talk with you again, it's been awhile.


Diddo on that
.


I'm not as familiar as I should be about the politics behind Prop. 8. The OP seems to be saying that the decision to put it before the people was a tactical error by the LGBT community, and they should live with the results.


Yes it was as they figured that the court of public opinion would let them win. They were wrong.


How did this thing come to be put before the people? And why, if the people's representatives can vote on an issue, can't the citizens who put them into office vote on it?


Honestly, it's because people are stupid, and can't see the diference between a legal, or lawful issue, or a social opinion issue. Prop Hate was about personal opinion and belief, not making sure that everybody was being given the same rights.

It was framed as a right vs left kind of fight, when people should have been saying " well if we can have these legal rights, why can't everybody?" Instead of was just a campaign of vitrol started and continued by religious propagandists who want to shove their beliefs and societal rules down every body else's throat.

This issue never should have been in the public eye, it should have been handled within the legislature and then court if people wanted to dispute the passed law. Issues of civil liberties and rights should not go before people in a referendum, because the majority will infact impose their will on the minority, effectively discriminating against them.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


I wrote a speech for my speech class last semester advocating that gays should enjoy the same benefits of marriage that straight people do. My argument was that, and still is, that marriage is a contract between two people. Contracts are protected by the Constitution. 100 years ago any person could contract with any other person under the "liberty of contract", and marriage is covered under that. It is, indeed, unconstitutional to legally protect the terms of a contract between persons A & B, but not protect the same terms between persons C & D.

But my post is not about that. The fact of the matter is that the issue was brought to the people in a process by which America has chosen to allow some laws to be passed. The people chose no, and now it's a problem. The people negatively affected by this decision shouldn't then sue the citizens of the state (mainly because you can't sue just the ones that voted against; everyone is being sued, and thus unfairly taxed for it). They should lobby their state legislature to change the law by congressional vote.

/TOA



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Three quick thoughts:

1) Did anyone take my bet at 4-1 odds?

2) The Court said a "legitimate reason" was needed. Frankly, tothetenthpower, this should worry you. The court said we would have upheld Prop. 8 if there had been a legitimate reason for it, and we will decide what "legitimate" means. Why worry? It has the worst of two worlds. It allows for the public to vote on a human rights issue, but it maintains control over whether the vote means anything. All based on the fuzzy word "legitimate." Which of course, means "If we like it."

3) I'm surprised the panel split 2-1. It seems that if they had drawn a slightly different group of three from the court, Prop. 8 would be in. Of course, now the lawyers study the arguments and decide whether to appeal to the full 9th Circuit.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
way to let the government trample on a state's rights. Everyone remember this once the vote to legalize marijuana comes around and gets passed, then we will see how many people agree with what the government can and can't do to states.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The government should not right to tell two consenting adults that they can't take a vow of monogamy or whatever marriage is supposed to be these days.


I agree. Marriage should be a private matter, period. Government (state or federal) should not have to get involved at all, there's no reason for them to. How is a religious, homosexual, interracial, polygamist marriage going to effect your life?? People should mind their own businesses, but you'll find yourself in disagreement with many 'small government' conservatives on this.


It's not a social issue. The arguments against gay marriage are ones of personal belief, and there is no lawful justification for them.


bingo.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'm a Christian, "small government" (somewhat) conservative and I could really care less if gay people get married. I completely agree that it's a private, personal issue and it should not be up to the government - state or local - to "give permission" to two people to get married.

As for any other Christians who may oppose gay marriage, how does a same sex marriage affect your beliefs or your life in any way? Like I stated in the other thread, Jesus Himself hung around with the "sinners" of His day while calling out the self righteous church people on their hypocrisy and judgementalism. Who do you think you are to tell other people what they can or can't do as long as they are not hurting anyone.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


The people voted for bigotry so the people are wrong.

When democracy is used to reinforce bigotry and hatred then it no longer represents the people but rather the mob.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
It is saddening that we need a Supreme Court to strike down crap like that.


You would think that people had gotten smarter and less narrow-minded.
edit on 7-2-2012 by Whipfather because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Marriage is not just about reproduction, and same-sex marriage does not have to be about gay relationships. Though marriages can be conducted in a church that is not required, and it is the state or county government that issues the marriage license. It is a civil contract between two people that grants them familial and property rights along with other benefits.

Same-sex marriage is not necessarily for gay relationships - example: Two lifelong friends find themselves in advancing age, both having gone through failed relationships earlier in their lives. In this instance they have no children. Both now over 60 years of age, they have property and no heirs, and both have the usual medical problems that accompany advancing age. Their friendship has endured throughout their lives and they have no one else left but each other they can trust to look after themselves should one become incapacitated, no one to carry-out their wishes regarding their healthcare nor their properties, no next-of-kin. They decide they can now benefit from a same-sex marriage and their "partner" will have hospital visitation rights along with rights over their community property, and they will have authority to medically and financially carry out each others' wishes.

I see this as a good thing.


edit on 7-2-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by The Old American
 


The people voted for bigotry so the people are wrong.

When democracy is used to reinforce bigotry and hatred then it no longer represents the people but rather the mob.


The people voted because the issue was put to them to do so. Asking someone to vote yes or no on something then crying "foul" and suing them because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to is not how voting works. If they weren't sure of the outcome, they should've let the state congress decide it, not the people.

/TOA



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
. . . marriage has always been considered a states' issue, which I happen to agree with.


Why? I've asked this question before and no one ever answered it.

There may have been reason 200 years ago with only 13 states. But how is that even logical today?

Voting on an Equality of a Civil Right? Isn't there something in the Constitution about protection of minorities from majority?

Marriage should be everyone's right and Federal.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join