Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Supreme Court on Prop 8: Gay Marriage Legal in California

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 

so, you have no problem with a majority legislating what a minority can or can not do? what if the majority of the voters in mississippi decided that they want slavery again? our country does rely on majority, but not at the expense of the minority.




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I understand the equality thing, but why do gay people want to get married? It doesn't really seem to work for straight people. Plus modern day marriage is something stemming from the catholic church which from my experience of being gay, they don't really like us to much. So why try and fit in with them? I don't ever want to be married. Maybe one day Ill find a guy to spend the rest of my life with, but that doesn't mean I have to stand on a beach or in a church and confess my love to them and tell them Ill be with them for ever. If its real love I don't need all of that or want it. I also understand the filling taxes and all of the legal responsibility and benefits that come with marriage but maybe it time to change those laws instead of just letting people get married to enjoy these thing.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 



Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I understand the equality thing, but why do gay people want to get married?


Certainly not all of them do want to marry.
They each have their own thoughts and opinions and don't think with one brain. But many want the CHOICE. Just like we straight people have.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackthorne
reply to post by zeeon
 

so, you have no problem with a majority legislating what a minority can or can not do? what if the majority of the voters in mississippi decided that they want slavery again? our country does rely on majority, but not at the expense of the minority.


That is a total misrepresentation of my position.

The Supreme Court should have made a ruling, based on the 14th if they thought equal protection applies to homosexuals. They did not. Instead, what they did is say that if the official california legislation doesn't support a majority led ballot measure, it is thus invalid.

So, in your line of thinking then, if Mississippi Legislators wanted to inact slavery again - and the voters passed a ballot inititave to deem it unconstitutional (this is all hypothetical, but following your logic) - then that ballot measure was over turned in the Mississppi District Courts (thus making slavery legal again) and the voters wanted to appeal to the Supreme Court it'd be pointless. Because Mississippi legislators wouldn't defend the ballot measure before the Supreme Court. Thus it makes the whole ballot process invalid.

Majority works boths ways. The point here is that there needs to be checks and balances, and the Supreme Court just removed one of those. The ballot inititave process.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Indeed, Marriage is a choice, one that we don't get an option for and thus the 'voting' to allow same sex marriage, religion has taken the 'word' marriage, but it doesn't always mean it's a 'Religious thing'

when you start dividing groups into what they can and can't do based off Sexuality, Gender and race it becomes discriminative, and that is what this is about, besides the benefits of marriage, it's about being Equal



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 



Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I understand the equality thing, but why do gay people want to get married?


Certainly not all of them do want to marry.
They each have their own thoughts and opinions and don't think with one brain. But many want the CHOICE. Just like we straight people have.


Yes, I'm sorry that should have been worded differently but the meaning behind what I said is still relevant to me. Also I'd hate to be in a gay divorce. I have a feeling they can get quite feisty.
Also I totally believe they should have a choice to get married I just don't understand the personal dissensions to want to get married as a homosexual.
edit on 26-6-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 



Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I understand the equality thing, but why do gay people want to get married?


Certainly not all of them do want to marry.
They each have their own thoughts and opinions and don't think with one brain. But many want the CHOICE. Just like we straight people have.


Yes, I'm sorry that should have been worded differently but the meaning behind what I said is still relevant to me. Also I'd hate to be in a gay divorce. I have a feeling they can get quite feisty.
Also I totally believe they should have a choice to get married I just don't understand the personal dissensions to want to get married as a homosexual.
edit on 26-6-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)


Take what you want, just don't take my wigs!



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 



Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I just don't understand the personal dissensions to want to get married as a homosexual.


Why wouldn't it be the same as straight people's reasons?

To have a family.
To commit to someone for life.
To publicly proclaim one's love and commitment to the world.
To have a lifelong companion.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by eazyriderl_l , zeeon, and Benevolent Heretic
 

Gentlemen,

I think this case is going to go into future law books. It's a sexy subject, and both the reasoning and language of the majority is a little fuzzier than usual.

As zeeon has been insisting, it's fine that you like the result, but have you considered the price paid to get there? California said, even up to the State Supreme Court, that these particular citizens have the right to be heard in court. The US Supreme Court said, "Tough, we don't care what your laws and courts say, we're telling you that those citizens have no right to be heard in court."

Dismissing the state that way, results in another power shift towards the federal government and away from the states. I'm not happy about that.

I mentioned that the majority is tough to follow in this one. Even Benevolent Heretic, who is a pretty sharp guy, gets it pretty much entirely wrong (except for the proposition's history).


The SC didn't say it was unconstitutional, they just said they declined to uphold Prop 8.
Not quite. They said the citizens had no right to try to defend Proposition 8, so without defenders, it fails.


But the California courts said, "No, Prop 8 is unconstitutional" (according to the California Constitution) and struck it down.
So, the Prop 8 people appealed to the US Supreme Court and they declined to rule on it, leaving it up to the California courts, which had ruled Prop 8 as unconstitutional (according to the California Constitution).
Actually this is significantly wrong. Only one level of California court said it was unconstitutional, the Appellate Court and the State Supreme Court said it was perfectly constitutional. Prop 8 was good to go.

If the Supreme Court had left it up to the California courts, the result would have been the opposite, Proposition 8 would have been ruled fully constitutional. Instead the US Supreme Court said the California Appellate Court, and Supreme Court had no business even hearing the case, so we have to go down to the first trial court for the decision.

This was an ugly decision. The result doesn't matter to me, but the thinking is warped. Have whatever celebration you want, but remember to mourn, too.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Prop 8 Decision



After the California Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the California Constitution, state voters passed a ballot initiative known as Proposition 8, amending the State Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


I said: "The California Constitution allowed same sex marriage.
Some people introduced Prop 8 and it passed."



Respondents, same-sex couples who wish to marry, filed suit in federal court, challenging Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and naming as defendants California’s Governor and other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws. The officials refused to defend the law, so the District Court allowed petitioners—the initiative’s official proponents—to intervene to defend it. After a bench trial, the court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and enjoined the public officials named as defendants from enforcing the law.


I said: "But the California courts said, "No, Prop 8 is unconstitutional" (according to the California Constitution) and struck it down."



Those officials elected not to appeal,but petitioners did. The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court: whether official proponents of a ballot initiative have authority to assert the State’s interest in defending the constitutionality of the initiative when public officials refuse to do so. After the California Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit concluded that petitioners had standing under federal law to defend Proposition 8’s constitutionality. On the merits, the court affirmed the District Court’s order.

As this Court has repeatedly held, such a “generalized grievance”—no matter how sincere—is insufficient to confer standing.


I said: "So, the Prop 8 people appealed to the US Supreme Court and they declined to rule on it, leaving it up to the California courts, which had ruled Prop 8 as unconstitutional (according to the California Constitution)."

Can you tell me where I got it wrong?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

You are right and I was wrong, (kind of, in a limited way.) I was wrong in thinking that the two top layers of California's system found the Propposition to be Constitutional, it was only the top layer, the State Supreme Court. So, let's take another look.


I said: "The California Constitution allowed same sex marriage.
Some people introduced Prop 8 and it passed."
And I said that you had the history of the Proposition right. Cut me some slack, will ya? It's a tough day.


I said: "But the California courts said, "No, Prop 8 is unconstitutional" (according to the California Constitution) and struck it down."
This is where I admitted my error. The two lower courts declared it unconstitutional. The State Supreme Court said it was Constitutional. And had it been returned for the State's decision, Prop. 8 would be constitutional under the State Supreme Court's ruling. According to the US Supreme Court's decision:

Later that year, California voters passed the ballot initiative at the center of this dispute, known as Proposition 8. That proposition amended the CaliforniaConstitution to provide that “


This post was part of a special Halloween Homage to Orson Wells.
Jumping out from behind the server and shouting BOO!
nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Cal. Const., Art. I, §7.5. Shortly thereafter, the California Supreme Court rejected a procedural challenge to the amendment, and held that the Proposition was properly enacted under California law. Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 474–475, 207 P. 3d 48, 122 (2009). According to the California Supreme Court, Proposition8 created a “narrow and limited exception” to the state constitutional rights otherwise guaranteed to same-sex couples. Id., at 388, 207 P. 3d, at 61.



I said: "So, the Prop 8 people appealed to the US Supreme Court and they declined to rule on it, leaving it up to the California courts, which had ruled Prop 8 as unconstitutional (according to the California Constitution)."
As I mentioned, at the state level it had been determined to be Constitutional. If it had been left up to the California courts, the decision would have been the opposite. What the US Supreme Court said was that the State Supreme Court and the Appellate Court had no authority to look at the case. So the decision of the lowest court had to stand with no opportunity for any appeal or review.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Originally posted by charles1952
Cut me some slack, will ya?


I was honestly asking that you point out my error. No need to be defensive.
I will cut you all the slack you need.


What the US Supreme Court said was that the State Supreme Court and the Appellate Court had no authority to look at the case.


Yes, because the people bringing the appeal were not, in any way, affected by it. If you bring a lawsuit and cannot show how it hurts you, you don't have a case.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

I should have put a smiley next to the request for slack. After all, you're the primary one make me jump around and rethink everything. I'm grateful for that, not complaining.


Yes, because the people bringing the appeal were not, in any way, affected by it. If you bring a lawsuit and cannot show how it hurts you, you don't have a case.
You're right. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a standing issue, but that's where the problem is.

The top two levels of the California court system, said basically "We know what the Supreme Court's position on standing is. The California Proposition system is different and we intentionally want our concerned citizens to be able to deal with this kind of question through the courts. So, we will grant them the authority and standing to do that, just for our state."

The Supreme Court said, "Sorry, you can't do that. We'll tell you who can come into your courts and when. We're telling you that, regardless of your laws and rulings, you guys can't even consider this case."

Oh, it's a win for marriage equality all right, but man, is it U-G-L-Y. I'm more upset by the reasoning than about the outcome.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Hurray!
A true victory for anyone who isn't a bigot!

And yes, I say that shamelessly. If you disagree for any reason other than "It's not enough" or "It's not soon enough" then I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but you're a bigot.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

I should have put a smiley next to the request for slack. After all, you're the primary one make me jump around and rethink everything. I'm grateful for that, not complaining.


Yes, because the people bringing the appeal were not, in any way, affected by it. If you bring a lawsuit and cannot show how it hurts you, you don't have a case.
You're right. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a standing issue, but that's where the problem is.

The top two levels of the California court system, said basically "We know what the Supreme Court's position on standing is. The California Proposition system is different and we intentionally want our concerned citizens to be able to deal with this kind of question through the courts. So, we will grant them the authority and standing to do that, just for our state."

The Supreme Court said, "Sorry, you can't do that. We'll tell you who can come into your courts and when. We're telling you that, regardless of your laws and rulings, you guys can't even consider this case."

Oh, it's a win for marriage equality all right, but man, is it U-G-L-Y. I'm more upset by the reasoning than about the outcome.

With respect,
Charles1952


If Californians want their judgements to be considered more final that that of the Supreme Court's, maybe the bigoted half of your red-and-blue checkered state should consider succession.


Otherwise, realize you're not above the law.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yes what has happened in this case is same sex marriage was sanctioned in California. Prop 8 passed and unsanctioned by the State. By this sequence of events the State had to prove that it was in the interests of the State to remove rights it had previously granted which is why Prop 8 was struck down to begin with.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 



Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I just don't understand the personal dissensions to want to get married as a homosexual.


Why wouldn't it be the same as straight people's reasons?

To have a family.
To commit to someone for life.
To publicly proclaim one's love and commitment to the world.
To have a lifelong companion.


You defiantly don't need to get married to some one to do any of those things. Maybe I'm just different from every one else. But to me you don't have to be married to proclaim your love for some one or to make a commitment to them. Its kind of like the old school way of letting some one know you love them. What I'm trying to say is maybe its time to come up with different way of expressing ourselves and representing ourselves as a couple that is original and unique for every couple instead of just doing the same old thing that don't work most of the time any way. I mean if you want to get married more power to you and I hope you find happiness, but I'm just gonna do my own thing.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Welcome to America where 8 million people can vote against something and it can still get overturned.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cass1dy09
Welcome to America where 8 million people can vote against something and it can still get overturned.


So you want to live in a land where 8 million people can take away your rights? Because in this case that is exactly what happened.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by cass1dy09
 


We're not an actual democracy, and that's a good thing. Do you have something you consider near and dear to your heart that you believe is a right? Should others be able to take that away with a small margin? Black people are a minority, if the majority decided they shouldn't have equal rights and protections it would be just as reprehensible.

BenevolentHeretic I was very happy to read this news today. I think this is going to be a pivotal moment in our history, and that 50 years from now people will be saying "No crap, why didn't this happen sooner!". It's not done, but it's a step, and every step in the right direction is a good one.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join