Opposed to Prop 8 - You're Gay!

[CurveLight]

You repeatedly ignore the fact minors can get married but call others stoopid..........

 

[Gadawg73]

As a conservative and a strict Constitutionalist Section 2 is unconstitutional.
Something about the 10th Amendment which Haji knows nothing about.
Original intent was to give states those powers, not the Federal government.
And he wonders why Federal courts have been shooting DOMA down.
Bad law but those with a religous agenda are blind to the Constitution.
Marriage is NOT a power delegated to the Federal government by the US Constitution.
We are a nation of laws, not of men and their different invisible men in the sky religions.
Wham it zero on SET. EP team on line. BREAK

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

The Supreme Court cannot legally strike down prop 8 because marriage is not a fundamental right which has been enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. What it is in fact is a legal contract between persons that is defined by state laws. Judge Walker overturned prop 8 citing two articles in the 14th Amendment: the right to Due Process under the law, and the right to Equal Protection. Both of these are irrelevant in this case because of what I've already mentioned; gay couples (or anyone for that matter) do not have any such 'right'. What they want are the same privileges that they see others enjoying, but this does not mean that they are entitled to them. They can certainly argue that they 'ought' to have what opposite-sex couples do, but they can't claim that they have a Constitutional right to them -- because no such right exists.

If you're still having a problem with this, let me offer an example on the difference between fundamental human rights (guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States), and that of certain privileges which groups or individuals may envy, but aren't necessarily entitled to.

Let's say for example that opposite-sex, boyfriend and girlfriend couples in a given state who have lived together for three months believe that they should have all of the same benefits and privileges that married couples do, and let's say that they've already exhausted all of the means of making this legal in their state, but without success. Well, we already know that there is no Constitutional basis to say that their rights have been infringed upon, since they do not and never have had them, but let's see if we can go on to address the fairness (or lack thereof) for why married couples should have certain legal privileges, but boyfriends and girlfriends who've lived together for 3-months should not.

The marriage contract is ordered around all of the factors which come into play once a man and a woman have joined in a legally-binding contract, and have made vows that they shall never separate until death. Implicit in this union is the intention to bear children, and we know that at least theoretically, all of the biological factors are present in order for this to take place. Now, while the man is more of a 'free-agent' --so to speak, and is not biologically or economically chained to the relationship, arguably -- the woman is. The man can walk out and disappear at any time, and he can continue to support himself and be fine. The woman on the other hand has made certain sacrifices and investments in the relationship which for her are not regainable. She has given "the best years of her life", she may have forfeited a professional career in order to raise children, and if children are present, has a far more binding tendency to stay with them and raise them regardless of what the father decides to do. All of this is why the law requires that a man pay alimony and child-support if he decides to leave his family, but does not require this of women. I could go on, but all I'm really trying to point out here is that the laws regarding married couples are things which have developed over centuries, and have been tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of opposite-sex, married couples, and whatever benefits have been decided upon for them to have would have no relevance in another form of 'union'.