California Prop 8

[Common Sense]

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?

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Luissa]

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.

If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?

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.

 

[Luissa]

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.

If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?

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.

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?

 

[Common Sense]

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.

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

 

[Common Sense]

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.

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.

 

[Luissa]

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.

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

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?

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.

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?

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?

 

[Luissa]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

 

[martybegan]

If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?

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.

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?

We deny certian classes of people rights all the time, via due process. Criminals are denied the right to vote, and during incarceration the right to freedom.

The role of the constitution is to prevent goverment from taking away the rights in explicitly states (freedom of press, bear arms, jury trial etc.) The goverment can always grant MORE rights, but cannot grant less than the constitution allows. Remember the only two things the constitution bans PEOPLE from doing explicitly is owning slaves, and brining booze into a state/county that is "dry."

To me there is no right for or against gay marriage, or marriage in general in the constitution. At that point it becomes purely a legislative manner. Only upon going the amendment route does it become a consitutional matter.

 

[jillian]

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.

If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?

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.

you usually make a better effort at an argument than that.

are you claiming that the state can give fewer rights than the federal government if they feel like.

you know that's wrong...

as for whether the judge was gay, who cares.

was thurgood marshall incorrect when he made rulings on civil rights issues?

what an absurd thing to even mention.

 

[Luissa]

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.

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?

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?

If you want to marry your brother you should be able to, if you want to marry five people you should be able to. If you are of age, you should be able to marry whomever you want.

Who gets to define a fundmental right? Do you have a problem with people defining gun rights?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

 

[Luissa]

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.

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?

We deny certian classes of people rights all the time, via due process. Criminals are denied the right to vote, and during incarceration the right to freedom.

The role of the constitution is to prevent goverment from taking away the rights in explicitly states (freedom of press, bear arms, jury trial etc.) The goverment can always grant MORE rights, but cannot grant less than the constitution allows. Remember the only two things the constitution bans PEOPLE from doing explicitly is owning slaves, and brining booze into a state/county that is "dry."

To me there is no right for or against gay marriage, or marriage in general in the constitution. At that point it becomes purely a legislative manner. Only upon going the amendment route does it become a consitutional matter.

Through due process.
Which is a little different than denying a group of people a fundmental right.

 

[jillian]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

marriage is not NOW a fundamental right. it IS and HAS BEEN a fundamental right.

but feel free to take it up with Justice Warren.

Loving v. Virginia

 

[Luissa]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

I think I just stated before that I don't support THOSE infringements, and please show where I ever stated I did.

 

[Luissa]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

I do love how this post is right below where I stated I don't support those infringements. LOL

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

Answer my questions. If Marriage is now a fundamental right and has no parameters defined by States, WHY is polygamy still illegal? Why are incestuous marriages between consenting adults STILL illegal? And why do YOU support THOSE infringements on what you call a Fundamental right?

marriage is not NOW a fundamental right. it IS and HAS BEEN a fundamental right.

but feel free to take it up with Justice Warren.

Loving v. Virginia

So you oppose bans on Incestuous Marriages and you support Polygamy?