California Prop 8

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Common Sense, Dec 6, 2010.

  1. Common Sense
    Offline

    Common Sense BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    915
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +44
    today a federal appeals court in San Francisco is set to hear arguments in the case of Proposition 8, one of the most contentious and hard-fought legal battles in the history of marriage equality.

    "During the arguments, a three-judge panel will consider two main questions before the court: whether a federal judge erred in ruling the anti-gay marriage initiative unconstitutional, and whether a coalition of Prop. 8 supporters who defended the ballot measure at trial have standing to appeal the case."

    ok people, i know im gonna get a lot of gays are immoral and other crap, but trying to be on an reasonably objective level here, what the opinion on whether this prop 8 is constitutional or unconstitutional? or in other words, does limiting gays from marrying constitute discrimination base on sexual orientation?
     
  2. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,000
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,913
    I thought most of the fight was about the proposition being a modifcation to the constitution, or an amendment, with one having a higher voting requirment then the other.

    Maybe that was the inital fight, but now that it is in Federal court it becomes an argument to whether the california constitution is now at odds with the Federal US consititution.

    To me, the issue boils down to the fact that there is no legal or constitutional precedent to a consitutional right to gay marriage. (also nothing against it either.) One has to go the equal protection route to even attempt the intellectual trapeeze act finding a constitutional right to gay marriage.
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    The Amendment IS Constitutional, The Federal Government has no business intervening. Are you aware that the Federal Judge that ruled it Unconstitutional is gay?

    As for appeal, if the State refuses to do its duty then the people that first argued it have every legal recourse to argue it again.
     
  4. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Nope. There is no power in the US Constitution that makes this STATE amendment Unconstitutional. It is solely a State matter. And the State ruled it Constitutional.
     
  6. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    So, do you agree with people voting to deny a right to a certain class of people?
    How exactly is it constitutional to deny someone a fundmental right?
     
  7. Common Sense
    Offline

    Common Sense BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    915
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +44
    this was Judge Walker's opinion:

    Judge Walker wrote that Prop. 8 served no legitimate government interest. On the contrary, it singled out same-sex relationships as inferior, the result of historical prejudice against gays and lesbians, he wrote. (California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010))

    i would also say that there is also no constitutional right defining marriage is a right for straight people marry only either. it is not specifically written as a protection.

    that was why the proposition was put on the ballot. it was to define marriage as only between a man and woman.

    there are 2 legal arguments here:
    1 - did the people who put prop 8 on the ballot have the legal ability to do this
    2 - was the federal judge wrong to strike down prop 8 based on discrimination

    Gay News | The Advocate | The World's Leading Source for LGBT News and Entertainment
    Prop 8 fight heads to federal appeals court | abc7.com
     
  8. Common Sense
    Offline

    Common Sense BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    915
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +44
    explain why it is constitutional to deny the rights of an individual based on sexual orientation?

    and the federal government is not intervening. they are not the plaintiffs in the suite. 2 gays couples brought suit against the state claiming it as unconstitutional, and that they group the put the ballot on the measure did not have the legal standing to do so. the only government intervention here is that the suit has been brought to a federal court. which is the only place one would be able to take their argument.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2010
  9. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    In Loving the Supreme Court defined marriage as a right. ;)


    So, they either need to define marriage as a religious practice and have the state stay out of it, or not deny a group of people a fundmental right.
     
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no fundamental right for same sex marriages. No discrimination and no injustice. The State has the right to make an Amendment that states JUST that. There is no AUTHORITY in the US Constitution to interfere in this State's business.

    By the way dear, if it is a fundamental right for any two adults that love each other to marry, where do you stand on Incestuous marriages. Further why limit marriage to 2 people? What right have you to deny 3 or more loving people from the supposed fundamental right you speak of?
     

Share This Page