Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[ConHog]

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.

Doesn't matter, its still not a RIGHT. It is a PRIVILEGE. The state can't refuse you a driver's license without cause either, but that is not a right. There is a difference otherwise the phrase "all the rights and privileges" would be unnecessary.

 

[LuckyDan]

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.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

I wanna be the flower gurl.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

That wasn't the issue I was responding to. Someone above claimed that Prop 8 didn't really have to do with gay marriage because it doesn't mention gays. Which is, of course, nonsense.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

At the federal level, yes. But some states have instituted as well a direct democracy outlet through popular referendum. This is NOT unconstitutional as it only pertains to state laws.

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

Yes? And? So are laws against murder. I don't see people saying they're out of date. Marriage statues do not have 'best used by' dates, and do not spoil.

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

I argued that before. As long as it does not violate the federal constitution, it can do wahtever it wants in it's own constitution.

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

Judicial review is not universal, but in this case it was reviewed, and the judge has made a poor decision based on social engineering, not law.

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.

I see nothing here that deprives anyone of life, liberty or property. Nobody died, was imprisoned or denied property. There is no proof that homosexuality is genetic in nature, a race, color or creed to be protected. Nor is it proven to be a gender. As it stands now, it is a behavior of unknown cause or source. It could even be a birth defect or disease (beware before using that as a basis for protection, you may get 'cured'). We don't know as of now.

So the 14th amendment is no protection.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Just not all to each other... Poligamy is still illegal.

 

[Yurt]

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.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

 

[jillian]

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.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

you're right... gays have been unmarried for centuries... millennia, actually. the beautiful thing is that as we've grown as a society, they no longer have to remain closeted. they CAN live freely and happyily with their partners. and that honesty about their lives allows them to stand up and request they be treated like you, me and everyone else.

saying that 'suddenly they need to be married' is as beside the point as saying in the 1950's... 'what? black people can't go to separate schools anymore?'

 

[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.

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.

not at all...as i said above

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

 

[Valerie]

Is there ever a good reason for productive, law abiding, contributing members of society being denied any of the rights, privileges and benefits that said society provides?

No

 

[Yurt]

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.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

you're right... gays have been unmarried for centuries... millennia, actually. the beautiful thing is that as we've grown as a society, they no longer have to remain closeted. they CAN live freely and happyily with their partners. and that honesty about their lives allows them to stand up and request they be treated like you, me and everyone else.

saying that 'suddenly they need to be married' is as beside the point as saying in the 1950's... 'what? black people can't go to separate schools anymore?'

exactly...dan's argument is essentially, that why do blacks all of a sudden want the special right or privilege to attend white schools...when they have their own schools already

 

[Yurt]

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.

?

 

[LuckyDan]

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.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

Intra-gender marriage would be a special right, since gays currently have, and have always had, the same rights straights have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

 

[Yurt]

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.

and what prompted that? californians just did that out of the blue...you mean since california has been a state, no one knew what marriage meant?

interesting theory dan

 

[Steerpike]

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

Intra-gender marriage would be a special right, since gays currently have, and have always had, the same rights straights have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

It wouldn't be a "special" right, because heterosexuals would also be able to marry someone of the same sex if they wanted. This argument doesn't make sense.

 

[jillian]

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

you're right... gays have been unmarried for centuries... millennia, actually. the beautiful thing is that as we've grown as a society, they no longer have to remain closeted. they CAN live freely and happyily with their partners. and that honesty about their lives allows them to stand up and request they be treated like you, me and everyone else.

saying that 'suddenly they need to be married' is as beside the point as saying in the 1950's... 'what? black people can't go to separate schools anymore?'

exactly...dan's argument is essentially, that why do blacks all of a sudden want the special right or privilege to attend white schools...when they have their own schools already

that's why sometimes the courts have to lead society rather than the other way around. same as the courts did during the civil rights era.

i'm very proud of the attorneys who handled that case and the judge did a great job.

 

[Woyzeck]

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.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

Well, that's not entirely true. It's a bit foggy, but there may have been gay marriage in Roman times, at least until it was outlawed by Constantine.

 

[WillowTree]

Judge to people. Vote if ya want to. It don't matter. Election don't matter.

 

[Yurt]

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

Intra-gender marriage would be a special right, since gays currently have, and have always had, the same rights straights have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

no it wouldn't...anymore so than allowing blacks the equal opportunity to marry someone of a different race...

it is not a special right, it is equal treatment under the law to obtain a marriage license and since homosexuality is not illegal, it is unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to obtain a marriage license, just as it was unconstitutional to forbid interracial marriage

 

[ConHog]

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.

It's been around for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. gays have been around for centuries, too. Suddenly they can't be happy unless they marry other gays?

I might just as easily ask why homosexuals suddenly feel they need special rights, but it doesn't matter. The question before the court will be the constitutionality of Prop 8. Kagan will not vote as Stevens would have. Or at least isn't expected to. We'll see.

Well, that's not entirely true. It's a bit foggy, but there may have been gay marriage in Roman times, at least until it was outlawed by Constantine.

Slavery and killing Christians were legal in Rome to, is that where you're heading with this?