Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[mal]

But I'm sure judges were angels when the Chicago and DC gun bans were overturned, right?

Which Constitutional provision or amendment deems a state-issued license for anything as a right?

Equal protection, Dude....it's not the license per se...it's that the government provides the license with all the rights, protections, and privileges to one group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...and denies that same license to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...without a valid (for the welfare of the people) reason.

And you have a Right to Marry... But you don't have a Right to Redefine what it Naturally and Legally is.



peace...

 

[Oddball]

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

That's not true. In Loving, the State refused to issue a license to a mixed-race couple. The Court struck down their miscegenation law. The State HAD to issue the license if the two were otherwise qualified to be married, because marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right. If your position were correct, the State could deny a license on the basis of race or religion as well, which they cannot.

Right...A marriage between people of opposite sex.

Nonetheless, I defy you to find any legal definition which specifies a license agreement as a right.

 

[Yurt]

SCOTUS should have an easy time knocking this little gem down:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license..." - Walker

Prop 8 does nothing of the kind. Gays are not even mentioned in Prop 8.

Relax. This won't stand.

nah...intent or legislative intent is always a factor...

there is no doubt prop 8 was solely about denying gays the right to marry, it came about as a direct response to californis sct allowing gay marriage

 

[bodecea]

The terms "license" and "freedom" are mutually exclusive.

A license is the property of the person or state granting the privilege.

Are you saying marriage is a privilege?
Because in Loving the Supreme Court established that marriage is a right.

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

BTW, if states wish to pass laws authorizing statutory gay marriage, I couldn't care less.

Then, to be equal...DROP the state licensing...with all the privileges, protections, and rights that come with it....for ALL. I'm ok with that as long as there is equality.

 

[bodecea]

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

That's not true. In Loving, the State refused to issue a license to a mixed-race couple. The Court struck down their miscegenation law. The State HAD to issue the license if the two were otherwise qualified to be married, because marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right. If your position were correct, the State could deny a license on the basis of race or religion as well, which they cannot.

Right...A marriage between people of opposite sex.

Nonetheless, I defy you to find any legal definition which specifies a license agreement as a right.

You are not listening to my posts, are you?

 

[Oddball]

But I'm sure judges were angels when the Chicago and DC gun bans were overturned, right?

Which Constitutional provision or amendment deems a state-issued license for anything as a right?

Equal protection, Dude....it's not the license per se...it's that the government provides the license with all the rights, protections, and privileges to one group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...and denies that same license to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...without a valid (for the welfare of the people) reason.

The issue here definitely is the state-issued license, per se.

You're perfectly free to marry any man -gay or not- you want, under a statutory marriage.

Otherwise, you'll have to go the common or contract law route.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

That's not true. In Loving, the State refused to issue a license to a mixed-race couple. The Court struck down their miscegenation law. The State HAD to issue the license if the two were otherwise qualified to be married, because marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right. If your position were correct, the State could deny a license on the basis of race or religion as well, which they cannot.

Right...A marriage between people of opposite sex.

Nonetheless, I defy you to find any legal definition which specifies a license agreement as a right.

Whether it is opposite sex or not doesn't relate to your argument concerning a license. It is clear after Loving that a State cannot deny a license to a mixed-race couple. That's because marriage, including getting the license from the State to carry it out, has been recognized as a fundamental right.

People can argue about whether that fundamental right extends to same-sex couples, but your argument that the fact there is a license makes it a privilege is nonsense. A state can't withhold a license for Constitutionally-impermissible reasons.

 

[Yurt]

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

That's not true. In Loving, the State refused to issue a license to a mixed-race couple. The Court struck down their miscegenation law. The State HAD to issue the license if the two were otherwise qualified to be married, because marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right. If your position were correct, the State could deny a license on the basis of race or religion as well, which they cannot.

Right...A marriage between people of opposite sex.

Nonetheless, I defy you to find any legal definition which specifies a license agreement as a right.

my understanding is that, this isn't about the "right" to get the license....rather, the right to be treated fairly and equally under the law in applying for that license...see generally loving v. virginia

 

[LuckyDan]

SCOTUS should have an easy time knocking this little gem down:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license..." - Walker

Prop 8 does nothing of the kind. Gays are not even mentioned in Prop 8.

Relax. This won't stand.

nah...intent or legislative intent is always a factor...

there is no doubt prop 8 was solely about denying gays the right to marry, it came about as a direct response to californis sct allowing gay marriage

Au contraire, my friend. Prop 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Gays are not excluded from that definition and are not singled out.

Easy.

 

[Yurt]

SCOTUS should have an easy time knocking this little gem down:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license..." - Walker

Prop 8 does nothing of the kind. Gays are not even mentioned in Prop 8.

Relax. This won't stand.

nah...intent or legislative intent is always a factor...

there is no doubt prop 8 was solely about denying gays the right to marry, it came about as a direct response to californis sct allowing gay marriage

Au contraire, my friend. Prop 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Gays are not excluded from that definition and are not singled out.

Easy.

why was the prop initiated? what prompted it?

 

[mal]

Are you saying marriage is a privilege?
Because in Loving the Supreme Court established that marriage is a right.

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

BTW, if states wish to pass laws authorizing statutory gay marriage, I couldn't care less.

Then, to be equal...DROP the state licensing...with all the privileges, protections, and rights that come with it....for ALL. I'm ok with that as long as there is equality.

One Judge in San Fran does the Predictable and the Talking Dumptruck is sounding like this is Settle Law...

Classic.

The 9th... Then the SCOTUS.

Bring it.



peace...

 

[Oddball]

Are you saying marriage is a privilege?
Because in Loving the Supreme Court established that marriage is a right.

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

BTW, if states wish to pass laws authorizing statutory gay marriage, I couldn't care less.

Then, to be equal...DROP the state licensing...with all the privileges, protections, and rights that come with it....for ALL. I'm ok with that as long as there is equality.

I'm all for that.

But when is the gay community going to pull their collective heads out of their asses, and even consider the approach of abolishing statutory marriages as an option?

My answer to that: The people driving the "right" to a statutory marriage issue are a bunch of far leftist wackos, who believe that all which is good and just flows from Big Daddy Big Gubmint.

 

[Steerpike]

The interesting thing when this gets to the Supreme Court: Kagan has already said she doesn't see a right to gay marriage in the Federal Constitution. Will she stick to that or change her mind?

 

[Oddball]

That's not true. In Loving, the State refused to issue a license to a mixed-race couple. The Court struck down their miscegenation law. The State HAD to issue the license if the two were otherwise qualified to be married, because marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right. If your position were correct, the State could deny a license on the basis of race or religion as well, which they cannot.

Right...A marriage between people of opposite sex.

Nonetheless, I defy you to find any legal definition which specifies a license agreement as a right.

my understanding is that, this isn't about the "right" to get the license....rather, the right to be treated fairly and equally under the law in applying for that license...see generally loving v. virginia

Quit accepting the premise.

 

[Oddball]

The interesting thing when this gets to the Supreme Court: Kagan has already said she doesn't see a right to gay marriage in the Federal Constitution. Will she stick to that or change her mind?

I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth.

 

[Steerpike]

The interesting thing when this gets to the Supreme Court: Kagan has already said she doesn't see a right to gay marriage in the Federal Constitution. Will she stick to that or change her mind?

I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth.

I suspect you'll be proven right if this issue goes to SCOTUS.

 

[Valerie]

The public voted overwhelmingly for no gay marriage. A judge overturned this for activists who aren't content with just working out contractual agreements on the side like rational people. Therefore you have taken away the will of the people and supplanted it with activist special interest. People don't LIKE that when their vote is nullified by an asshole judge looking play social engineer because they feel entitled to.

It will be interesting IF it turns out SCOTUS bans gay marriage nation wide though. Willing to accept THAT decision too? The majority of Americans, particularly minorities would rejoice their will would matter.

if the public voted overwhelmingly against equal rights for Blacks would you be so ready to support it?

Civil rights are not to be voted on.

Really? So you're saying the people have no right to vote directly on the laws that govern their lives by direct referendum? Huh. So I guess we're really ruled by judges who aren't elected then because they decide what the rules mean and who can make them as long as they agree. Interesting. So much for your faith in direct democracy. I guess it only matters when it agrees with you.

oh... and one small fallacy to point out. Gay 'rights' are not Civil Rights, it's a behavior and/or lifestyle choice, not a state of existence like skin color is. (and don't bother trying to advocate otherwise to me, I don't give a fuck what you believe. It's not the point of this thread.)

The issue is one of ignoring the will of the people for an activist minority. BTW, if civil rights is not to be voted on, I guess there's no right to vote on many other 'rights' too, like property rights so zoning is out of line (now I can put my oil derrick in my back yard in the city and dog fighting pit in the garage), or behavior rights, so I can put my porn shop next to your church and sell to your kids, or health rights, welcome back smoking in movie theaters and bye bye drinking age!

You sure on this attitude? All sorts of referendum voted ordinances out there that can be done away with. Please... let's go back to life before the temperance movement existed. That'll be FUN!

We're not a direct democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic.


Marriage laws are State laws. Statutes. Mostly OLD Statutes.

Each state has it's own State Constitution which is also legally bound to be federally constitutional.


California State constitution allowed the ballot process for this vote but these votes are always subject to constitutional review.


The first section of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution says:


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.

 

[mudwhistle]

EXCLUSIVE 1:26 PM PT: CA Prop 8 held to be unconstitutional under due process and equal protection. Will be released at 2 PM PT...
Judge strikes down -- IN 138 PAGE RULING -- 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'...

JUDGE: PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS...

JUDGE: Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.

'Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians'...

'Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians'...

JUDGE: THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER...

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS DO NOT SATISFY CALIFORNIA’S OBLIGATION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO MARRY...

---

From Drudge...



peace...

Bet Modbert, GayBiker, Curvelight, and Ravi are doing handsprings now.

Now they can get Married.

 

[LuckyDan]

nah...intent or legislative intent is always a factor...

there is no doubt prop 8 was solely about denying gays the right to marry, it came about as a direct response to californis sct allowing gay marriage

Au contraire, my friend. Prop 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Gays are not excluded from that definition and are not singled out.

Easy.

why was the prop initiated? what prompted it?

To define marriage.

 

[Steerpike]

Au contraire, my friend. Prop 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Gays are not excluded from that definition and are not singled out.

Easy.

why was the prop initiated? what prompted it?

To define marriage.

Yeah, but marriage has been around for centuries. What prompted the sudden need to "define" it? Answer: the need to prevent gays from marrying people of the same sex.