California Prop 8

[Common Sense]

those are not discriminating laws. in regards to 18 year olds, that goes to the definition or adult. which up to the point of 18 in the eyes of the law you are considered a juvenile and can not own property, get legally married (without parental consent) hold public legal office or have the same legal standing as an individual over 18. but as soon as you reach 18 years of age, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you automatically have these restrictions lifted. this is not the case with gays. there is not preset defined parameter as to when a ban on gay marriage would be lifted by reaching some arbitrarily defined point in ones life. (same argument goes for being president or holding any other public office)

these laws do not discriminate, they simply set minimum standards that must be obtained. the same way as their are minimum standards that must be met to get a drivers license, or receive a high school diploma or college degree.

on the natural born citizens clause, i personally believe that this could be challenged in court. I do not know what the outcome would be or what the actual legal argument would be, but I would see that in the future, a citizen will challenge this.

What a bunch of horse hockey. As though "goes to the definition of adult" somehow negates the fact that it discriminates against those who aren't, but when a law you DON'T like "goes to the definition of marriage", THAT'S unacceptably discriminatory against couples who don't meet THAT description. Can you be any more hypocritical?

Just for the record, I cannot imagine how you think the Constitution's restriction to natural-born citizens being President could POSSIBLY be challenged in court. On what grounds? What, is Article II of the US Constitution somehow Unconstitutional? Is there some higher law it runs afoul of? Is being President of the United States now a "fundamental right", as government-sanctioned marriage allegedly is? Do tell.

have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.

on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.

per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502

6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.

6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""

and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"

 

[bodecea]

Or to bring this out of the realm of "Ohmigod, you're comparing homosexuals to rapists and murderers!" - because we all know the calm, rational debaters on the other side will take any chance to have a bitch fit and avoid the point - voting laws discriminate against those under the age of 18, marriage laws ALSO discriminate against those under 18, the law concerning who can be President discriminate against those under 35 and not natural-born citizens . . .

those are not discriminating laws. in regards to 18 year olds, that goes to the definition or adult. which up to the point of 18 in the eyes of the law you are considered a juvenile and can not own property, get legally married (without parental consent) hold public legal office or have the same legal standing as an individual over 18. but as soon as you reach 18 years of age, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you automatically have these restrictions lifted. this is not the case with gays. there is not preset defined parameter as to when a ban on gay marriage would be lifted by reaching some arbitrarily defined point in ones life. (same argument goes for being president or holding any other public office)

these laws do not discriminate, they simply set minimum standards that must be obtained. the same way as their are minimum standards that must be met to get a drivers license, or receive a high school diploma or college degree.

on the natural born citizens clause, i personally believe that this could be challenged in court. I do not know what the outcome would be or what the actual legal argument would be, but I would see that in the future, a citizen will challenge this.

What a bunch of horse hockey. As though "goes to the definition of adult" somehow negates the fact that it discriminates against those who aren't, but when a law you DON'T like "goes to the definition of marriage", THAT'S unacceptably discriminatory against couples who don't meet THAT description. Can you be any more hypocritical?

Just for the record, I cannot imagine how you think the Constitution's restriction to natural-born citizens being President could POSSIBLY be challenged in court. On what grounds? What, is Article II of the US Constitution somehow Unconstitutional? Is there some higher law it runs afoul of? Is being President of the United States now a "fundamental right", as government-sanctioned marriage allegedly is? Do tell.

So, you support legalized gender discrimination.

 

[Common Sense]

i have an idea, let make divorce illegal. then maybe we can protect marriage like all these people want to.

 

[bodecea]

i have an idea, let make divorce illegal. then maybe we can protect marriage like all these people want to.

Someone tried to start a petition for a Proposition here in CA to do that very thing....a real "Defense of Marriage" Prop.....for some odd reason, it wasn't getting the signatures.....

 

[Common Sense]

i have an idea, let make divorce illegal. then maybe we can protect marriage like all these people want to.

Someone tried to start a petition for a Proposition here in CA to do that very thing....a real "Defense of Marriage" Prop.....for some odd reason, it wasn't getting the signatures.....

notice how everyone got real quiet about this all of a sudden...

 

[JenT]

Yep. Currently its the law that states only men can get drafted. The consitution is currently neutral on the subject.

And, tell us, what will keep the draft male only? What compelling reason allows the law to discriminate by gender. Share that with us.

An average woman's general reaction to a 6' man popping her in the jaw. We don't generally fight back by choice or because Obama says so.

 

[JenT]

those are not discriminating laws. in regards to 18 year olds, that goes to the definition or adult. which up to the point of 18 in the eyes of the law you are considered a juvenile and can not own property, get legally married (without parental consent) hold public legal office or have the same legal standing as an individual over 18. but as soon as you reach 18 years of age, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you automatically have these restrictions lifted. this is not the case with gays. there is not preset defined parameter as to when a ban on gay marriage would be lifted by reaching some arbitrarily defined point in ones life. (same argument goes for being president or holding any other public office)

these laws do not discriminate, they simply set minimum standards that must be obtained. the same way as their are minimum standards that must be met to get a drivers license, or receive a high school diploma or college degree.

on the natural born citizens clause, i personally believe that this could be challenged in court. I do not know what the outcome would be or what the actual legal argument would be, but I would see that in the future, a citizen will challenge this.

What a bunch of horse hockey. As though "goes to the definition of adult" somehow negates the fact that it discriminates against those who aren't, but when a law you DON'T like "goes to the definition of marriage", THAT'S unacceptably discriminatory against couples who don't meet THAT description. Can you be any more hypocritical?

Just for the record, I cannot imagine how you think the Constitution's restriction to natural-born citizens being President could POSSIBLY be challenged in court. On what grounds? What, is Article II of the US Constitution somehow Unconstitutional? Is there some higher law it runs afoul of? Is being President of the United States now a "fundamental right", as government-sanctioned marriage allegedly is? Do tell.

have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.

on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.

per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502

6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.

6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""

and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"

Prop 8 added Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

Is that what you're looking for?

 

[bodecea]

And, tell us, what will keep the draft male only? What compelling reason allows the law to discriminate by gender. Share that with us.

An average woman's general reaction to a 6' man popping her in the jaw. We don't generally fight back by choice or because Obama says so.

OK, let us know when you plan on making sense...

 

[Common Sense]

What a bunch of horse hockey. As though "goes to the definition of adult" somehow negates the fact that it discriminates against those who aren't, but when a law you DON'T like "goes to the definition of marriage", THAT'S unacceptably discriminatory against couples who don't meet THAT description. Can you be any more hypocritical?

Just for the record, I cannot imagine how you think the Constitution's restriction to natural-born citizens being President could POSSIBLY be challenged in court. On what grounds? What, is Article II of the US Constitution somehow Unconstitutional? Is there some higher law it runs afoul of? Is being President of the United States now a "fundamental right", as government-sanctioned marriage allegedly is? Do tell.

have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.

on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.

per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502

6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.

6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""

and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"

Prop 8 added Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

Is that what you're looking for?

actually i am looking for the law that was in place prior to prop 8. since prop 8 is the item in questions. what is that basis for it?

 

[JenT]

have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.

on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.

per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502

6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.

6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""

and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"

Prop 8 added Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"

Is that what you're looking for?

actually i am looking for the law that was in place prior to prop 8. since prop 8 is the item in questions. what is that basis for it?

What is the basis for clarifying what marriage is? Clarification. Apparently some are confused about anatomy. Nobody would care, but when those who are confused try to use marriage to demand children are indoctrinated into that confusion, and that pastors disobey God, well then obviously marriage needs to be clarified.

 

[JenT]

And then there's also "crime against nature"

Some examples of the statutes:

Idaho I.C. § 18-6605
Louisiana R.S. 14:89
Michigan MCL § 750.158
Mississippi Miss. Code § 97-29-59
North Carolina G.S. § 14-177
Virginia Va. Code § 18.2-361

 

[Trajan]

I have tried searching for the wording of the marriage statues and have not turned up the text of any of them, just summaries. I did state that most laws use the term husband and wife. Guess what? Those are taken to mean man and women. The consitution does not say right to bear rifles, it says arms, but rifles are implied as arms. Playing word games doesnt help you prove your point.

As for treating a minority, race is specifically banned as a determining factor in the consitution, sexuality (and sex, except for voting) is not. For example the goverment can limit the draft to men. If sex was considered then this would be unconstitutional, and it is not.

The legal question of if the proposition was legal is much more interesting, and may have greater standing. However, that would be a question for the state court, and the state court ruled the proposition was valid. The Federal case goes into the "right" to same sex marriage, not the legality of the proposition. In the Federal sphere is where I have an issue, as again, the court is being asked to create a right that doesnt exist, and one that if it should exist, should be legislated.

exactly, you just admitted that the legal definition in California does not specifically say between a man and woman. its not a word game, it is simply that way the law is written. hence we turn to the courts who have the duty to interpret the laws that are passed.

you dont legislate laws to take rights away. you legislate laws to protect rights.

Judge Reinhardt: "Taking away rights is different from not giving them"

Reinhardt and others focused on the state Supreme Court decision that recognized that marriage is a fundamental right and granted it to same-sex couples "Prop. 8 in effect took away those rights"

Supreme Court decision was as followd:

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

this what judges are saying and i guarantee he knows that laws much better than you or I

what are these rights that are being withheld?

 

[bodecea]

I have tried searching for the wording of the marriage statues and have not turned up the text of any of them, just summaries. I did state that most laws use the term husband and wife. Guess what? Those are taken to mean man and women. The consitution does not say right to bear rifles, it says arms, but rifles are implied as arms. Playing word games doesnt help you prove your point.

As for treating a minority, race is specifically banned as a determining factor in the consitution, sexuality (and sex, except for voting) is not. For example the goverment can limit the draft to men. If sex was considered then this would be unconstitutional, and it is not.

The legal question of if the proposition was legal is much more interesting, and may have greater standing. However, that would be a question for the state court, and the state court ruled the proposition was valid. The Federal case goes into the "right" to same sex marriage, not the legality of the proposition. In the Federal sphere is where I have an issue, as again, the court is being asked to create a right that doesnt exist, and one that if it should exist, should be legislated.

exactly, you just admitted that the legal definition in California does not specifically say between a man and woman. its not a word game, it is simply that way the law is written. hence we turn to the courts who have the duty to interpret the laws that are passed.

you dont legislate laws to take rights away. you legislate laws to protect rights.

Judge Reinhardt: "Taking away rights is different from not giving them"

Reinhardt and others focused on the state Supreme Court decision that recognized that marriage is a fundamental right and granted it to same-sex couples "Prop. 8 in effect took away those rights"

Supreme Court decision was as followd:

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

this what judges are saying and i guarantee he knows that laws much better than you or I

what are these rights that are being withheld?

Legal marriage and all the rights, privileges, and protections there in. Gender discrimination.

 

[Trajan]

exactly, you just admitted that the legal definition in California does not specifically say between a man and woman. its not a word game, it is simply that way the law is written. hence we turn to the courts who have the duty to interpret the laws that are passed.

you dont legislate laws to take rights away. you legislate laws to protect rights.

Judge Reinhardt: "Taking away rights is different from not giving them"

Reinhardt and others focused on the state Supreme Court decision that recognized that marriage is a fundamental right and granted it to same-sex couples "Prop. 8 in effect took away those rights"

Supreme Court decision was as followd:

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

this what judges are saying and i guarantee he knows that laws much better than you or I

what are these rights that are being withheld?

Legal marriage and all the rights, privileges, and protections there in. Gender discrimination.

all the rights, privileges, and protections there in.

such as?

 

[bodecea]

what are these rights that are being withheld?

Legal marriage and all the rights, privileges, and protections there in. Gender discrimination.

all the rights, privileges, and protections there in.

such as?

Google legal marriage rights...better yet, let me do it for you:

Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo
Legal Benefits of Marriage - What are the legal benefits of marriage
Legal Rights And Benefits of Marriage Laws, Info, & Legal Help | Library | MyFamilyLaw.com
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are not married yet, this stuff is good to know. If you are already married, I would hope you knew it already....maybe not.

 

[Common Sense]

What is the basis for clarifying what marriage is? Clarification. Apparently some are confused about anatomy. Nobody would care, but when those who are confused try to use marriage to demand children are indoctrinated into that confusion, and that pastors disobey God, well then obviously marriage needs to be clarified.

have you failed to read any of the facts involving prop 8? read any of the posts in the matter? nowhere in the US constitution or the california state constitution does it legally define marriage as between man and woman. i have stated this so many time today yet everyone simply passes over the very important fact. prop 8 tried to insert these words into the state constitution because the california supreme court ruled the following:

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

have you not read this?

then a group put prop 8 on the ballot which passed with a 52% majority fundamentally changing the state constitution.

this was appealed to a federal judge. who then struck down prop 8 as unconstitutional.

any of these facts sounding familiar.... again? there is not argument about anatomy found anywhere in any legal argument.

" Nobody would care, but when those who are confused try to use marriage to demand children are indoctrinated into that confusion"

im not even sure what this sentence means..... before you reply read judge walkers ruling as well as the CA state supreme court ruling before answering.

 

[martybegan]

those are not discriminating laws. in regards to 18 year olds, that goes to the definition or adult. which up to the point of 18 in the eyes of the law you are considered a juvenile and can not own property, get legally married (without parental consent) hold public legal office or have the same legal standing as an individual over 18. but as soon as you reach 18 years of age, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you automatically have these restrictions lifted. this is not the case with gays. there is not preset defined parameter as to when a ban on gay marriage would be lifted by reaching some arbitrarily defined point in ones life. (same argument goes for being president or holding any other public office)

these laws do not discriminate, they simply set minimum standards that must be obtained. the same way as their are minimum standards that must be met to get a drivers license, or receive a high school diploma or college degree.

on the natural born citizens clause, i personally believe that this could be challenged in court. I do not know what the outcome would be or what the actual legal argument would be, but I would see that in the future, a citizen will challenge this.

What a bunch of horse hockey. As though "goes to the definition of adult" somehow negates the fact that it discriminates against those who aren't, but when a law you DON'T like "goes to the definition of marriage", THAT'S unacceptably discriminatory against couples who don't meet THAT description. Can you be any more hypocritical?

Just for the record, I cannot imagine how you think the Constitution's restriction to natural-born citizens being President could POSSIBLY be challenged in court. On what grounds? What, is Article II of the US Constitution somehow Unconstitutional? Is there some higher law it runs afoul of? Is being President of the United States now a "fundamental right", as government-sanctioned marriage allegedly is? Do tell.

have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.

on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.

per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502

6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.

6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""

and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"

You got your order screwed up.

Proposition 8 was IN RESPONSE to the In Re Marriage Cases judgement, not overruled by it. The California Supreme courts review of proposition 8 was only to see if proper procedures were followed, not if its content was within the state constitution.

In re Marriage Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also note in the first few paragraphs that the article shows wording that marriage is bewtween a man and a woman in the california marriage code.

 

[martybegan]

there is actually nothing in the constitution that mentions the word draft.

"The Constitution does not directly mention the word "draft" or even the older "conscription," but its authorization for the Congress to "raise and support Armies" is a clear indication of the same concept - to use the resources of the nation to create or man an army." (Constitutional Topic: The Draft - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net)

the draft was implemented by authorization of congress only.

"Several questions concerning the draft arise each time the United States is threatened with military action, or the United States threatens military action. The first, and most basic, is: "Is the draft constitutional?" The plain answer to this, noted in the introductory paragraph, is that it is. Conscription is clearly anticipated by the Constitution. The Constitution did impose one small but key restriction on a conscripted army - any allocation of funds to support the army can only have a life of two years. Any allocation thereafter must be reauthorized by Congress. Since the House of Representatives is elected every two years, this is a safeguard against runaway armies. If the people are not satisfied with the way a draft is being run, they can elect a House that will not authorize further funding."

hence a draft is constitutional, but nowhere is it defined to include men only.


the supreme court as of 1994 has ruled this:

"The restriction of the draft to just men was challenged in the Supreme Court in Rostker v Goldberg (453 U.S. 57 [1981]). In this case, men brought suit against the SSS, because women were not included in the draft.The Supreme Court ruled against the men, stating that the sole purpose of draft registration is the accumulation of a pool of names of eligible men to serve in combat. Because women were excluded from combat by the armed services, the draft registration as it stood met the need. The Court also said that since the Congress is given exclusive constitutional authority to raise armies, it was disinclined to overrule Congress on this point. The last time the SSS notes that the issue was taken up was in 1994. It concluded that though women, at that time, made up 16 percent of the armed force personnel, and the combat roles for women were expanding, the need to register women for the draft was still not sufficient. It noted that such expansion might be prudent in the future."

several things are mentioned here:

women at the time that this case was brought up, were barred from serving in combat roles in the military. hence being on the front fighting with weapons.

(Women in the military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

the time are changing in allowing women into combat roles. just read the link.

since the draft has not been initiated since 1971, there has been no legal reason to have these claims revisited. now if the draft were reinstated due to some future war, the supreme court again might take up this issue.

For those of us who remember the last Draft, it was all based on how many new bodies each branch estimated they needed over a 12 month period. The lottery numbers drawn were used based on that need....For example, if the needs could be filled by pulling men from only the first 12 dates drawn...that was the end of it for that year. Obviously, if one does not want to be drafted...it is in your best interest to have as many in the pool as possible. That is why I predict that if the Draft is reinstated, it will be a man who sues to include women....essentially doubling the pool.

Now, still waiting for that compelling legal reason that women would be excluded in the future.

JHFC, I am not arguing that women should not be drafted, just that having a male only draft is both constitutional and legal. Common Sense showed a case above where the court validated the rule.

If congress passes a law that says women are eligible for the draft then it would be legal.

Again, I',m arguing mechanics, not outcomes.

 

[Common Sense]

What a bunch of horse hockey. As though "goes to the definition of adult" somehow negates the fact that it discriminates against those who aren't, but when a law you DON'T like "goes to the definition of marriage", THAT'S unacceptably discriminatory against couples who don't meet THAT description. Can you be any more hypocritical?

Just for the record, I cannot imagine how you think the Constitution's restriction to natural-born citizens being President could POSSIBLY be challenged in court. On what grounds? What, is Article II of the US Constitution somehow Unconstitutional? Is there some higher law it runs afoul of? Is being President of the United States now a "fundamental right", as government-sanctioned marriage allegedly is? Do tell.

have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.

on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.

per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502

6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.

6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""

and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"

You got your order screwed up.

Proposition 8 was IN RESPONSE to the In Re Marriage Cases judgement, not overruled by it. The California Supreme courts review of proposition 8 was only to see if proper procedures were followed, not if its content was within the state constitution.

In re Marriage Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also note in the first few paragraphs that the article shows wording that marriage is bewtween a man and a woman in the california marriage code.

i apologize you are correct in the timeline. as Prop 8 was in response to the Re Marriage Case.

although i am correct in that marriage was never defined by "law". Prop 22 was a statute:

"The Act (Prop 22) added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry"

 

[JenT]

What is the basis for clarifying what marriage is? Clarification. Apparently some are confused about anatomy. Nobody would care, but when those who are confused try to use marriage to demand children are indoctrinated into that confusion, and that pastors disobey God, well then obviously marriage needs to be clarified.

have you failed to read any of the facts involving prop 8? read any of the posts in the matter? nowhere in the US constitution or the california state constitution does it legally define marriage as between man and woman. i have stated this so many time today yet everyone simply passes over the very important fact. prop 8 tried to insert these words into the state constitution because the california supreme court ruled the following:

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

have you not read this?

then a group put prop 8 on the ballot which passed with a 52% majority fundamentally changing the state constitution.

this was appealed to a federal judge. who then struck down prop 8 as unconstitutional.

any of these facts sounding familiar.... again? there is not argument about anatomy found anywhere in any legal argument.

" Nobody would care, but when those who are confused try to use marriage to demand children are indoctrinated into that confusion"

im not even sure what this sentence means..... before you reply read judge walkers ruling as well as the CA state supreme court ruling before answering.

And why wouldn't we read what US Supreme Court Justices wrote before Texas v Lawrence? Just because you have some profane activist judges imposing their will over the people, does that make it right?

Just like the abuse of rights with Planned Parenthood making a business out of abortion mills just because a few isolated extreme cases were supposed to opt for abortion, so are gay and lesbian groups demanding access to our kids in public school to indoctrinate. The unintended (often covertly intended) consequences of these idiotic rulings are changing our nation for the worse.

Homosexuality is not a race, it's a behavior, a perverted crime against nature that has caused the spread of sexually transmitted disease to explode like wildfire. Confusion of functions of various body parts has had dramatic consequences, and all the coverups and mountains of money trying to prove otherwise can't cover up the facts. Colons are meant to ABSORB, and they do, much to the death of many wonderful people that tragically died of AIDS.

And that public schools can be used to indoctrinate kids to experiment with such seriously harmful practices is nothing short of shocking.

THAT is what your judge walker is promoting. And that's what the people of California voted against.

It's unfortunate that the gay activist groups use something like gay marriage to pound their way into public schools. If you don't like that people are against gay marriage, blame those groups.