Prop. 8 Ruling: "Fantastic" Decision or "Judicial Activism"?

[jillian]

So, what exactly does equal protection mean here? The protection to marry who you want? Because the government doesn't give anyone that right.

what are you asking?

 

[jillian]

equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.

I'm guessing Lonestar's not too fond of the 14th amendment.

Probably not. That pesky little amendment prevents all kinds of "state's rights" things from happening - you know, like institutionalized racism, criminalization of abortion, etc. All the really FUN stuff.

Funny how all the pretend constitutionalists actually hate the constitution. *shrug*

 

[jillian]

Well, that'll teach you to think when you're so painfully ill-equipped for it. Among the things that that sentence DOESN'T say is WHERE the Constitution says ANYTHING about marriage, and when homosexuality became a race.

All the Constitution says is that laws must be applied to everyone in exactly the same way, and they are. Any other contortions you and your activist judges want to perform are just so much bullshit. And no, having the power to force your bullshit on others against their will doesn't make it any less bullshit.

perhaps it's you who is ill-equipped to think.

from loving v virginia

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

in that case, the state made the argument that there was no unequal application of the law because whites could be prosecuted same as blacks if they intermarried.

the court said they were full of it then, too, saying:

We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).

before you criticize someone, you should probably make sure you're correct.

 

[dilloduck]

So, what exactly does equal protection mean here? The protection to marry who you want? Because the government doesn't give anyone that right.

what are you asking?

equal protection----what is it ? How would I know if I had it. Real stuff--not theory.

 

[bodecea]

Well, that'll teach you to think when you're so painfully ill-equipped for it. Among the things that that sentence DOESN'T say is WHERE the Constitution says ANYTHING about marriage, and when homosexuality became a race.

All the Constitution says is that laws must be applied to everyone in exactly the same way, and they are. Any other contortions you and your activist judges want to perform are just so much bullshit. And no, having the power to force your bullshit on others against their will doesn't make it any less bullshit.

perhaps it's you who is ill-equipped to think.

from loving v virginia

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

in that case, the state made the argument that there was no unequal application of the law because whites could be prosecuted same as blacks if they intermarried.

the court said they were full of it then, too, saying:

We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).

before you criticize someone, you should probably make sure you're correct.

I read somewhere...that when that argument was presented to the Justices by the Virginia lawyers, they actually laughed at them.

 

[theHawk]

Of course, and this has been pointed out ad nauseum, my ability to marry a woman and a different womans inability to marry the same woman essentially amounts to gender discrimination. Your logic is twisted and was the same logic that was used prior to Loving v. Virginia to deny interracial couples marriages (and I realize that marriage between people of mixed races and homosexuals are not the same thing but it is twisted logic in both cases none the less). And that recognition by the state and the benefits afforded to married couples by that recognition is why this is even a discussion.

Strawman. As has already been pointed out ad nauseum, the "different woman" in your example CAN and has the ABILITY to "marry" the same woman. The law does NOTHING to prevent that. The government CANNOT interfere with a religious ceremony of marriage. If the two women want to go to a church that will perform a wedding for homosexuals they have every right and ability to do it.

It is PURELY the state recognition that the pro-homosexual liberals want. To justify and validate their immoral behavior. So they can "feel good" about themselves, and march forward with their agenda of allowing open homosexuals to join the military, adopt children...ect....ect....ect...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Equal protection is part of the 14th amendment...in case you had not yet heard.

The law in no way denied anyone the right to get married.
Every man(straight or homosexual) had the right to marry a woman.
Every woman(straight or homosexual) had the right to marry a man.
In fact, the law did nothing to prevent homosexuals from getting "married" to each other, it just said that the state would not recognize it.

Of course, and this has been pointed out ad nauseum, my ability to marry a woman and a different womans inability to marry the same woman essentially amounts to gender discrimination. Your logic is twisted and was the same logic that was used prior to Loving v. Virginia to deny interracial couples marriages (and I realize that marriage between people of mixed races and homosexuals are not the same thing but it is twisted logic in both cases none the less). And that recognition by the state and the benefits afforded to married couples by that recognition is why this is even a discussion.

Only someone thick enough to think that male/female are interchangeable would think it's "gender discrimination" for the law to be aware that genders exist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm guessing Lonestar's not too fond of the 14th amendment.

Probably not. That pesky little amendment prevents all kinds of "state's rights" things from happening - you know, like institutionalized racism, criminalization of abortion, etc. All the really FUN stuff.

Funny how all the pretend constitutionalists actually hate the constitution. *shrug*

Well, at least you recognize this about yourself and admit it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, that'll teach you to think when you're so painfully ill-equipped for it. Among the things that that sentence DOESN'T say is WHERE the Constitution says ANYTHING about marriage, and when homosexuality became a race.

All the Constitution says is that laws must be applied to everyone in exactly the same way, and they are. Any other contortions you and your activist judges want to perform are just so much bullshit. And no, having the power to force your bullshit on others against their will doesn't make it any less bullshit.

perhaps it's you who is ill-equipped to think.

from loving v virginia

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

in that case, the state made the argument that there was no unequal application of the law because whites could be prosecuted same as blacks if they intermarried.

the court said they were full of it then, too, saying:

We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).

before you criticize someone, you should probably make sure you're correct.

Wow, you can quote bullshit judicial activism to me in order to support MORE bullshit judicial activism. THAT'LL certainly convince me that it's right, proper, and legal for you and your buddies to totally remake society in your own image against the will of the people.

Next time you want to get on your high horse and lecture me about what is and isn't Constitutional, try arguing from - oh, I don't know - the actual CONSTITUTION? "The courts say THIS is Constitutional" only works on disingenuous droolers like you who believe "Constitutional" is defined as "fits the decisions of judges I agree with". (Don't think for a second that anyone has missed the fact that you NEVER, EVER cite court decisions you disagree with as the be-all and end-all of Constitutionality, hypocrite.)

I DID make sure I was correct, and the more you talk, the more convinced I am.

 

[G.T.]

Well, that'll teach you to think when you're so painfully ill-equipped for it. Among the things that that sentence DOESN'T say is WHERE the Constitution says ANYTHING about marriage, and when homosexuality became a race.

All the Constitution says is that laws must be applied to everyone in exactly the same way, and they are. Any other contortions you and your activist judges want to perform are just so much bullshit. And no, having the power to force your bullshit on others against their will doesn't make it any less bullshit.

perhaps it's you who is ill-equipped to think.

from loving v virginia



FindLaw | Cases and Codes

in that case, the state made the argument that there was no unequal application of the law because whites could be prosecuted same as blacks if they intermarried.

the court said they were full of it then, too, saying:

We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).

before you criticize someone, you should probably make sure you're correct.

Wow, you can quote bullshit judicial activism to me in order to support MORE bullshit judicial activism. THAT'LL certainly convince me that it's right, proper, and legal for you and your buddies to totally remake society in your own image against the will of the people.

Next time you want to get on your high horse and lecture me about what is and isn't Constitutional, try arguing from - oh, I don't know - the actual CONSTITUTION? "The courts say THIS is Constitutional" only works on disingenuous droolers like you who believe "Constitutional" is defined as "fits the decisions of judges I agree with". (Don't think for a second that anyone has missed the fact that you NEVER, EVER cite court decisions you disagree with as the be-all and end-all of Constitutionality, hypocrite.)

I DID make sure I was correct, and the more you talk, the more convinced I am.

What does the Constitution say, as far as who's job it is to interpret it?

 

[jillian]

Well, that'll teach you to think when you're so painfully ill-equipped for it. Among the things that that sentence DOESN'T say is WHERE the Constitution says ANYTHING about marriage, and when homosexuality became a race.

All the Constitution says is that laws must be applied to everyone in exactly the same way, and they are. Any other contortions you and your activist judges want to perform are just so much bullshit. And no, having the power to force your bullshit on others against their will doesn't make it any less bullshit.

perhaps it's you who is ill-equipped to think.

from loving v virginia



FindLaw | Cases and Codes

in that case, the state made the argument that there was no unequal application of the law because whites could be prosecuted same as blacks if they intermarried.

the court said they were full of it then, too, saying:

We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).

before you criticize someone, you should probably make sure you're correct.

Wow, you can quote bullshit judicial activism to me in order to support MORE bullshit judicial activism. THAT'LL certainly convince me that it's right, proper, and legal for you and your buddies to totally remake society in your own image against the will of the people.

Next time you want to get on your high horse and lecture me about what is and isn't Constitutional, try arguing from - oh, I don't know - the actual CONSTITUTION? "The courts say THIS is Constitutional" only works on disingenuous droolers like you who believe "Constitutional" is defined as "fits the decisions of judges I agree with". (Don't think for a second that anyone has missed the fact that you NEVER, EVER cite court decisions you disagree with as the be-all and end-all of Constitutionality, hypocrite.)

I DID make sure I was correct, and the more you talk, the more convinced I am.

you not understand stare decisis?

judicial activism is bs like the court deciding that a corporation is a *person* or eviscerating anti-discrimination laws by distorting the statute of limitations... applying the law as it exists is what a judge is required to do unless there is a basis for overturning precedent.

bummer being you. don't try to argue before the court, though. i think you'll have issues since you don't understand how it works.

but feel free to cite Dred Scott. It has never been overturned ... I'm sure that it will hold you in good stead.

 

[manifold]

Jillian,

Just so you know...

You are attempting to have an intelligent discussion with someone who earlier in this thread suggested that state governments are not bound by the bill of rights...

so that's what you're dealing with...

 

[dilloduck]

Does the constitution protect my right to marry anything I want ? yes or no ?

Does it protect my right to marry 2 women and 3 men? Yes or no ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

perhaps it's you who is ill-equipped to think.

from loving v virginia



FindLaw | Cases and Codes

in that case, the state made the argument that there was no unequal application of the law because whites could be prosecuted same as blacks if they intermarried.

the court said they were full of it then, too, saying:



before you criticize someone, you should probably make sure you're correct.

Wow, you can quote bullshit judicial activism to me in order to support MORE bullshit judicial activism. THAT'LL certainly convince me that it's right, proper, and legal for you and your buddies to totally remake society in your own image against the will of the people.

Next time you want to get on your high horse and lecture me about what is and isn't Constitutional, try arguing from - oh, I don't know - the actual CONSTITUTION? "The courts say THIS is Constitutional" only works on disingenuous droolers like you who believe "Constitutional" is defined as "fits the decisions of judges I agree with". (Don't think for a second that anyone has missed the fact that you NEVER, EVER cite court decisions you disagree with as the be-all and end-all of Constitutionality, hypocrite.)

I DID make sure I was correct, and the more you talk, the more convinced I am.

What does the Constitution say, as far as who's job it is to interpret it?

Shockingly (at least to people who've never read it, and just depended on someone else to tell them what's Constitutional), the actual Constitution doesn't say shit about "interpretation". And it sure as HELL doesn't say anything about the courts imposing their idea of what the law should be over what the law actually SAYS.

 

[Cecilie1200]

perhaps it's you who is ill-equipped to think.

from loving v virginia



FindLaw | Cases and Codes

in that case, the state made the argument that there was no unequal application of the law because whites could be prosecuted same as blacks if they intermarried.

the court said they were full of it then, too, saying:



before you criticize someone, you should probably make sure you're correct.

Wow, you can quote bullshit judicial activism to me in order to support MORE bullshit judicial activism. THAT'LL certainly convince me that it's right, proper, and legal for you and your buddies to totally remake society in your own image against the will of the people.

Next time you want to get on your high horse and lecture me about what is and isn't Constitutional, try arguing from - oh, I don't know - the actual CONSTITUTION? "The courts say THIS is Constitutional" only works on disingenuous droolers like you who believe "Constitutional" is defined as "fits the decisions of judges I agree with". (Don't think for a second that anyone has missed the fact that you NEVER, EVER cite court decisions you disagree with as the be-all and end-all of Constitutionality, hypocrite.)

I DID make sure I was correct, and the more you talk, the more convinced I am.

you not understand stare decisis?

judicial activism is bs like the court deciding that a corporation is a *person* or eviscerating anti-discrimination laws by distorting the statute of limitations... applying the law as it exists is what a judge is required to do unless there is a basis for overturning precedent.

bummer being you. don't try to argue before the court, though. i think you'll have issues since you don't understand how it works.

but feel free to cite Dred Scott. It has never been overturned ... I'm sure that it will hold you in good stead.

Only a leftist would consider Dred Scott to have "never been overturned" . . . since it was invalidated by a Constitutional Amendment, duly instituted through Constitutional means by the people's elected representatives, instead of handed down from on high by the courts.

But I do thank you for reminding everyone EXACTLY what sort of brilliant, moral leadership so often comes from the Supreme Court. Tell us again how we're supposed to accept their "interpretation" of the Constitution as gospel?

 

[jillian]

Wow, you can quote bullshit judicial activism to me in order to support MORE bullshit judicial activism. THAT'LL certainly convince me that it's right, proper, and legal for you and your buddies to totally remake society in your own image against the will of the people.

Next time you want to get on your high horse and lecture me about what is and isn't Constitutional, try arguing from - oh, I don't know - the actual CONSTITUTION? "The courts say THIS is Constitutional" only works on disingenuous droolers like you who believe "Constitutional" is defined as "fits the decisions of judges I agree with". (Don't think for a second that anyone has missed the fact that you NEVER, EVER cite court decisions you disagree with as the be-all and end-all of Constitutionality, hypocrite.)

I DID make sure I was correct, and the more you talk, the more convinced I am.

What does the Constitution say, as far as who's job it is to interpret it?

Shockingly (at least to people who've never read it, and just depended on someone else to tell them what's Constitutional), the actual Constitution doesn't say shit about "interpretation". And it sure as HELL doesn't say anything about the courts imposing their idea of what the law should be over what the law actually SAYS.

what did you think the job of the judiciary is?

did you think if it's enacted, it's by definition constitutional?

here... try this... learn what lawyers learn their first day in con law maybe then you'll stop making absurd pronouncements:

Marbury v. Madison

and of course words have to be interpreted.

define 'general welfare'.

define 'commerce clause'

this isn't a fundie's bible... you actually have to think.

and why on earth do you think *you* know answers that scholars have been arguing over for more than 200 years.

it's a joke... seriously.

 

[boedicca]

It would have been better for everyone involved if this issue were handled via the legislative process. The first attempt to ban gay marriage on by 62% in CA. Prop 8 passed with only 52% of the vote. The trend was towards public acceptance and a negotiated law that would have broader public support.

All this judge has done is create the Roe v. Wade equivalent for marriage. It's a pyrrhic victory in the long run.

 

[jillian]

It would have been better for everyone involved if this issue were handled via the legislative process. The first attempt to ban gay marriage on by 62% in CA. Prop 8 passed with only 52% of the vote. The trend was towards public acceptance and a negotiated law that would have broader public support.

All this judge has done is create the Roe v. Wade equivalent for marriage. It's a pyrrhic victory in the long run.

if segregation were put to a vote today in certain parts of the country, segregation would still be legal.

would you want to put your right to practice your religion up for a vote?

of course not. rights aren't subject to a vote.

would it be better if the majority supported minority rights? yes, it would be better if people didn't try to make other people second class citizens and then try to justify it based on their own biases.

 

[bodecea]

It would have been better for everyone involved if this issue were handled via the legislative process. The first attempt to ban gay marriage on by 62% in CA. Prop 8 passed with only 52% of the vote. The trend was towards public acceptance and a negotiated law that would have broader public support.

All this judge has done is create the Roe v. Wade equivalent for marriage. It's a pyrrhic victory in the long run.

if segregation were put to a vote today in certain parts of the country, segregation would still be legal.

would you want to put your right to practice your religion up for a vote?

of course not. rights aren't subject to a vote.

would it be better if the majority supported minority rights? yes, it would be better if people didn't try to make other people second class citizens and then try to justify it based on their own biases.

Which is EXACTLY what the Pro-Prop H8 lawyers admitted during presenting their case.

 

[boedicca]

It would have been better for everyone involved if this issue were handled via the legislative process. The first attempt to ban gay marriage on by 62% in CA. Prop 8 passed with only 52% of the vote. The trend was towards public acceptance and a negotiated law that would have broader public support.

All this judge has done is create the Roe v. Wade equivalent for marriage. It's a pyrrhic victory in the long run.

if segregation were put to a vote today in certain parts of the country, segregation would still be legal.

would you want to put your right to practice your religion up for a vote?

of course not. rights aren't subject to a vote.

would it be better if the majority supported minority rights? yes, it would be better if people didn't try to make other people second class citizens and then try to justify it based on their own biases.

You're wrong - and being racist again. There is no objective evidence that the majority of people in the country would vote for segregation.

The point I made, which clearly went over your head, was that progress has been made in gaining public acceptance. A legislative solution is far less divisive than judicial activism. The judges "maxmimalist" ruling risks alienating people who would support gay marriage but don't support judges legislating from the bench.

Process matters. And in this case, the process reeks.

I voted against Prop 8, btw - so don't bother accusing me of being a homophobe.