Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Madeline]

I think there are a lot of lovely men (and women) on here, boedeca, gay and straight.

 

[traveler52]

The Cons are raging on I see. Nothing new in that. One of their so-call "Arguments" is that there is No Constitutional Right To Homosexual. Well, guess what sports fans, your right. There is no Constitutional Right To Gay Marriage. But neither is there written in The Constitution of The United States of America, a right, a Constitutionally Protected that at that, to Hetrosexual Marriage. No where in our Constitution is Hetrosexual Marriage discussed. There IS NO RIGHT TO MARRIAGE EITHER HETROSEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL In the Constitution.

Marriage is a Social Contract, NOT a religious contract. The Marriage Licence (or in my case A Record of Confidential Marriage was issued by the State of California because my wife and I had lived together for Six Years before we got married. Such a Record of Confidential Marriage is issued by the State).

Jesus (all flag waving, mother loving, apple eating, girl you left pregnant back types) never spoke out against Homosexuality, never. He did hold very strong views of divorce, but NEVER, NEVER DID JESUS EVER SPEAK OUT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY. No, Paul does not count.

It was not that long ago that marriage between Blacks and Whites was illegal. It wasn't that long ago that selling a house in what was once considered "A White Neighborhood." was illegal. Times changed, and with time, the law changed as well.

It does not matter one whit wheather any of the homophobs on this site hate Gays (Except for those Lesbian Adult Vids you love to watch). Rights are not subject to the whim and the will of a few. Civil Rights are for all, not just a few narrow minded bigots who think they have the right to tell others what to do.

It does not matter what your so-called church says, while one can get married in a church if they so choose, they do not live in a church and anyone who thinks that their "Christian Values" gives them the right to tell others who they can love are wrong.

Keep your hate to yourself.

 

[Navy1960]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

The definition of sexual orientation in the laws of the 13 states prohibiting such
discrimination in employment generally establishes the basis for the protection they
provide. The majority of states provide in some form that “sexual orientation” means
heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.4 Except for Vermont and the District
of Columbia, all the definitions include people who are perceived by others to be in,
or are identified with, those three categories, whether or not they actually fall within
one of them. An effect of this is to prohibit discrimination not only against an
employee who is homosexual, for example, but also against an employee whom the
employer wrongly believes is homosexual.

ENDA
California
“Homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” sec. 3(9)
“Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,” including “a perception that the person has
[any of these characteristics].” Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(q)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf

No offense here but it does appear to be a consitutional issue, and if California expressly forbids discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation by law, then a law that is passed that excludes those individuals from marriage which is a civil matter can be seen as a viloation of Equal Protection Clause. Of course there is no constitutional Amendment that gives anyone the right to marry and that is left to the states to decide, however if a state expressly forbids descrimination based on sexual orientation and then passes a law that does it has IMHO violated the 14th Amendment.

Unruh Civil Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.[1] This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[2] This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified at California Civil Code § 51

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

This does not mean that another state cannot pass a law that prohibits same sex marriage IMO.

Prop 8 excludes no one from marriage.

Proposition 8, before it was declared null and void by the federal courts, created a new amendment to the California Constitution which said, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Before it passed, same-sex marriage was a constitutionally-protected right in California; a majority of the justices of the California Supreme Court affirmed this understanding of the constitution in May 2008.
California Proposition 8 (2008) - Ballotpedia)

While I see both sides of this issue from a state level it appears to me, that if California has a law banning descrimination based on sexual orientation then to pass another law that excludes people from obtaining a marriage license or being recoginzed in the state as legally married based on sexual orentation is a equal protection issue and that is why the Judge in this case struck it down and issued a stay.

 

[bodecea]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

The definition of sexual orientation in the laws of the 13 states prohibiting such
discrimination in employment generally establishes the basis for the protection they
provide. The majority of states provide in some form that “sexual orientation” means
heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.4 Except for Vermont and the District
of Columbia, all the definitions include people who are perceived by others to be in,
or are identified with, those three categories, whether or not they actually fall within
one of them. An effect of this is to prohibit discrimination not only against an
employee who is homosexual, for example, but also against an employee whom the
employer wrongly believes is homosexual.

ENDA
California
“Homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” sec. 3(9)
“Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,” including “a perception that the person has
[any of these characteristics].” Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(q)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf

No offense here but it does appear to be a consitutional issue, and if California expressly forbids discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation by law, then a law that is passed that excludes those individuals from marriage which is a civil matter can be seen as a viloation of Equal Protection Clause. Of course there is no constitutional Amendment that gives anyone the right to marry and that is left to the states to decide, however if a state expressly forbids descrimination based on sexual orientation and then passes a law that does it has IMHO violated the 14th Amendment.

Unruh Civil Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.[1] This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[2] This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified at California Civil Code § 51

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

This does not mean that another state cannot pass a law that prohibits same sex marriage IMO.

Prop 8 excludes no one from marriage.

Proposition 8, before it was declared null and void by the federal courts, created a new amendment to the California Constitution which said, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Before it passed, same-sex marriage was a constitutionally-protected right in California; a majority of the justices of the California Supreme Court affirmed this understanding of the constitution in May 2008.
California Proposition 8 (2008) - Ballotpedia)

While I see both sides of this issue from a state level it appears to me, that if California has a law banning descrimination based on sexual orientation then to pass another law that excludes people from obtaining a marriage license or being recoginzed in the state as legally married based on sexual orentation is a equal protection issue and that is why the Judge in this case struck it down and issued a stay.

Once again...GO Navy!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

The definition of sexual orientation in the laws of the 13 states prohibiting such
discrimination in employment generally establishes the basis for the protection they
provide. The majority of states provide in some form that “sexual orientation” means
heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.4 Except for Vermont and the District
of Columbia, all the definitions include people who are perceived by others to be in,
or are identified with, those three categories, whether or not they actually fall within
one of them. An effect of this is to prohibit discrimination not only against an
employee who is homosexual, for example, but also against an employee whom the
employer wrongly believes is homosexual.

ENDA
California
“Homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” sec. 3(9)
“Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,” including “a perception that the person has
[any of these characteristics].” Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(q)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf

No offense here but it does appear to be a consitutional issue, and if California expressly forbids discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation by law, then a law that is passed that excludes those individuals from marriage which is a civil matter can be seen as a viloation of Equal Protection Clause. Of course there is no constitutional Amendment that gives anyone the right to marry and that is left to the states to decide, however if a state expressly forbids descrimination based on sexual orientation and then passes a law that does it has IMHO violated the 14th Amendment.

Unruh Civil Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.[1] This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[2] This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified at California Civil Code § 51

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

This does not mean that another state cannot pass a law that prohibits same sex marriage IMO.

Prop 8 excludes no one from marriage.

Neither did laws prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying

 

[baby_firefly]

Keep your hate to yourself.

You wish to claim rights for one group of people and yet deny another group of people their right of free speech?

 

[bodecea]

Keep your hate to yourself.

You wish to claim rights for one group of people and yet deny another group of people their right of free speech?

Traveler has the power to deny a group their free speech? When did he get that?

 

[rightwinger]

I'm going to try and practice some of Obama's "calm" over this and look ahead:

This needed to happen. See, despite what plenty on the pro-gay marriage side have said, everything the Prop 8 campaign said regarding the supporters of gay marriage -- that they're a litigious special interest group who don't give a damn about the voters insofar as they vote the "right" way, they're anti-religious and have no qualms about attacking the church, they're racist against blacks all while braying about tolerance, that they want this to go into the schools to be "taught" -- has been proven to be correct, to one degree or another.

Gay marriage proponents better hope this ruling maintains, because I bet they're not going to win anything at the ballot box. I don't care how much people say they support gay marriage...time and time again it's been proven that a majority of people don't support it, and things like this imply that those people are hateful bigots, and they will resent that implication. I know I do.

This gay judge decided to tell the several million California voters to go fuck themselves. I can't wait to see how they feel about that.

Why should anyone be allowed to vote on what civil rights others are allowed to have?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

 

[ConHog]

I'm going to try and practice some of Obama's "calm" over this and look ahead:

This needed to happen. See, despite what plenty on the pro-gay marriage side have said, everything the Prop 8 campaign said regarding the supporters of gay marriage -- that they're a litigious special interest group who don't give a damn about the voters insofar as they vote the "right" way, they're anti-religious and have no qualms about attacking the church, they're racist against blacks all while braying about tolerance, that they want this to go into the schools to be "taught" -- has been proven to be correct, to one degree or another.

Gay marriage proponents better hope this ruling maintains, because I bet they're not going to win anything at the ballot box. I don't care how much people say they support gay marriage...time and time again it's been proven that a majority of people don't support it, and things like this imply that those people are hateful bigots, and they will resent that implication. I know I do.

This gay judge decided to tell the several million California voters to go fuck themselves. I can't wait to see how they feel about that.

Why should anyone be allowed to vote on what civil rights others are allowed to have?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

they shouldn't be allowed to of course, but you have no constitutional right to government sanctioned marriage so.................

 

[traveler52]

Keep your hate to yourself.

You wish to claim rights for one group of people and yet deny another group of people their right of free speech?

Traveler has the power to deny a group their free speech? When did he get that?

Oh, well let's see. How about I got my power to denyone group of people the same time that anyone who dared to speak out against the illegal and immoral war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan was called, "Bin Laden Lover." "Saddam Supporter." and "Troop Hater." I got my power when speaking out against an administration that allowed men and women, who had been maimed in combat and warehoused them in room that were black with mold and the people in these rooms were traps to catch vemin and was asked, "Why do you hate the troops." When I dared to even mention the fact that troops were sent into combat without proper body armour or the fact troops had to scavange for armour plating for their vehicles, I heard, "You need to get behind the President."

I took my power the same time that the righties who swallowed bushie baby lies on Weapons of Mass Destruction that never existed.

You ask a question. I have question I have asked for years. "Who gave YOU the right to decide who is or is not an Ameicans for not supporting the war."

I assumed no right that I never had.

Righties assumed rights of Americans, as twisted to suit their purpose.

 

[traveler52]

Keep your hate to yourself.

You wish to claim rights for one group of people and yet deny another group of people their right of free speech?

So, you are admitting that you support and condone the use of hate speech?

Who are YOU to decide who can and/or cannot marry? Who are YOU to decide what medcial procedure a woman can or cannot have?

Your hate speech is older than you are. You need to get better lines.