Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not in the least. Last year SSCM won at the ballot in all for general election states.
Other states are likely to join the passed by ballot group in 2014 including Oregon, Michigan, and Colorado. Remember it doesn't take (in the grand scheme of things) that many signatures to get something on the ballot - in Colorado it's only 86,105. Laws that were passed based on a 50%+1 majority can be repealed based on a 50%+1 majority.
Look at Maine 2009 rejected SSCM, 2012 repealed it and now it's legal.
>>>>
"Conditioning and Sexual Behavior; A Review"
http://psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
[
What should be bothering people is the specter of voters seeking to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.
Although that such hate still exists in the United States should not be surprising, it should certainly be subject to condemnation by a majority of citizens regardless the jurisdiction. That it is not is troubling, and exists as further evidence that we remain very much in need of the Constitution and its case law to protect all citizens from that hate and ignorance, where fearful reactionaries seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.
[
What should be bothering people is the specter of voters seeking to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.
Although that such hate still exists in the United States should not be surprising, it should certainly be subject to condemnation by a majority of citizens regardless the jurisdiction. That it is not is troubling, and exists as further evidence that we remain very much in need of the Constitution and its case law to protect all citizens from that hate and ignorance, where fearful reactionaries seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.
The largest ignorance of all? That homosexuality is some sort of innate race. It isn't. It's a behavior. And we discriminate against behaviors every day of the week. Don't look for that to change soon. Unless of course you believe the civil and penal code systems of each state shouldn't exist? Already you believe the initiative system shouldn't exist; at least when it comes to Prop 8, am I right?
The Supreme Court in the DOMA Opinion recognizes that homosexuality is a behavior. That's why they said it was only "allowed" "in some states" but not others. They delineated how it becomes legal in some states but not in others. They Upheld that the right of each state's citizenry, via consensus, to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage is a constitutional right of those citizens. And they said it was retroactive that way to the founding of the country.
Since consensus in California is done via the intiative system, Prop 8 is fully legal and binding, and, when challenged at the Supreme Court level on good standing this time, will be found to be valid and all marriages legitimized in law will then be annulled as such.
You can't break the law no matter what type of deviant sex you think is cool and the new fad. Not according to DOMA.
[
What should be bothering people is the specter of voters seeking to deny citizens their inalienable rights motivated solely by animus toward a particular class of persons, absent a compelling governmental interest or legitimate legislative end, only to make them different from anyone else.
Although that such hate still exists in the United States should not be surprising, it should certainly be subject to condemnation by a majority of citizens regardless the jurisdiction. That it is not is troubling, and exists as further evidence that we remain very much in need of the Constitution and its case law to protect all citizens from that hate and ignorance, where fearful reactionaries seek to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.
The largest ignorance of all? That homosexuality is some sort of innate race. It isn't. It's a behavior. And we discriminate against behaviors every day of the week. Don't look for that to change soon. Unless of course you believe the civil and penal code systems of each state shouldn't exist? Already you believe the initiative system shouldn't exist; at least when it comes to Prop 8, am I right?
The Supreme Court in the DOMA Opinion recognizes that homosexuality is a behavior. That's why they said it was only "allowed" "in some states" but not others. They delineated how it becomes legal in some states but not in others. They Upheld that the right of each state's citizenry, via consensus, to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage is a constitutional right of those citizens. And they said it was retroactive that way to the founding of the country.
Since consensus in California is done via the intiative system, Prop 8 is fully legal and binding, and, when challenged at the Supreme Court level on good standing this time, will be found to be valid and all marriages legitimized in law will then be annulled as such.
You can't break the law no matter what type of deviant sex you think is cool and the new fad. Not according to DOMA.
Don't give up your day job barracks barrister.
The Constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS. Be patient.
polygamy and bigamy are also in the 'yet to be determined' category.
If SCOTUS says two person gay marriage is legal, then there will be no defense to deny that same right to bigamists and polygamists.
[
Actually the case Reynolds v. United States where the SCOTUS ruled there was not a right to Multiple Civil Marriages.
>>>>
Well at least they are consistent, because they just ruled in DOMA that gay marriage isn't a right either and that it is up to each state's consensus to say "yes" or "no" to it. This consensus was described and therefore guaranteed as a constitutional right "in the way the Framers of the Consitution intended".
Again, read the fine print. SCOTUS said in DOMA that gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states"... the same way polygamy must be handled as it makes its debut in various state's consensuses.
The case addressed Federal discrimination when the States said "Yes" and the Federal government said "No".
The DOMA case didn't address the question as to whether States can say "No".
Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other
Page 16
In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393,
Page 17
The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce
What state law, pray tell, legitimizes gay marriage against the will of the Prop 8 intiative? ie: where is it written in state law that gay marriage is a legal and legitimate institution as ratified by the governed in their initiative/consensus system? Where is the proposition that was laid before the people in California to vote upon in consensus, that ratifies and delineates gay marriage as legal in that state?Page 17
In De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570 (1956), for example, the Court held that, “[t]o decide who is the widow or widower of a deceased author, or who are his executors or next of kin,” under the Copyright Act “requires a reference to the law of the State which created those legal relationships” because “there is no federal law of domestic relations.” Id., at 580. In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction.
as of December 18, 2013, the date of this post...
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
heres an interesting article about how a judge relaxed rules against polygamy in part due to federal court rulings on same sex relationships
Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR
heres an interesting article about how a judge relaxed rules against polygamy in part due to federal court rulings on same sex relationships
Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR
heres an interesting article about how a judge relaxed rules against polygamy in part due to federal court rulings on same sex relationships
Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR
It may be interesting but its completely irrelevant to the issue of same-sex couples 14th Amendment right to access marriage, as polygamy is not marriage.
Here is the court decision -->> https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78heres an interesting article about how a judge relaxed rules against polygamy in part due to federal court rulings on same sex relationships
Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR
The court did not relax Civil Law's against polygamy, the law also made it illegal for cohabitation for consenting adults - that was the part that was struck.
>>>>
Here is the court decision -->> https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78heres an interesting article about how a judge relaxed rules against polygamy in part due to federal court rulings on same sex relationships
Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR
The court did not relax Civil Law's against polygamy, the law also made it illegal for cohabitation for consenting adults - that was the part that was struck.
>>>>
not sure you've got it described quite right either. In itself it probably isnt that bad of a ruling.
But where will federal courts end up going if they follow gay-marriage advocate logic?
incorrectly because you seemed to imply the opposite of the laws response to limiting consenting, cohabitating adults, but i think it was just poor wordingSince the only portion of the law found unconstitutional was about government limiting consenting, cohabitating adults and didn't impact the portion pertaining to polygamy at all, then how did I describe it incorrectly?not sure you've got it described quite right either. In itself it probably isnt that bad of a ruling.
Maybe they will recognize the ability to Civilly Marry multiple partners, maybe that their is a compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage to two consenting adults.But where will federal courts end up going if they follow gay-marriage advocate logic?
The "Slippery Slope" argument (which was used to deny interracial Civil Marriage equality) was not legally valid to deny interracial couples, it's not legally valid to deny same-sex couples, it's not legally valid to deny multiple partner Civil Marriages.
What will happen though is that arguments for multiple partner Civil Marriages will be weighed on their merits as to whether (a) such laws are subject to heightened or strict scrutiny if found to target a specific group (which they don't since they have general applicability), (b) or if they are grounded on rational logic - rational basis - (which they are because of the geometric complexity of multiple partner Civil Marriages from a government perspective.*****************************
There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.
- 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
- 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
- 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to scew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.
Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.
However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.
Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.
In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status: .....................
>>>>
you said "The "Slippery Slope" argument (which was used to deny interracial Civil Marriage equality) was not legally valid to deny interracial couples"
The slippery slope argument was not used to deny interracial marriages,....a slope from where to where?....but you thought youd get another opportunity to play on the emotional tug of interracial marriage so you did.
congratulations, you found some obscure references.
the recent Utah decision does show that maybe the slippery slope argument is valid. Tho I would say its use in interracial marriage was not valid as the only restriction u are lifting is the factor of race.
