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

[ekiosity]

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?

I'm asking where the inequality is. Why is this covered under equal protection?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

To APPLY the law, as written. Here's the difference, one you leftists didn't understand at the time and have yet to grasp:

The state of Florida passed a law, still on the books, that said, "Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department."

This is not confusing or arcane English in any way, shape, or form. Application of the law would require that the court read these extremely clear, concise sentences and conclude that the deadline for election return filing is 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the election, and thus any returns coming in after that time can be ignored by the Secretary of State.

Interpretation of the law, however, involves the court deciding that "making all the votes count" is more important, and invalidating the deadline in order to serve the purpose outlined by their own priorities. Never mind the fact that the legislature couldn't possibly have NOT known when they passed this statute that it would result in some votes not being counted, and obviously deciding that that was NOT the overriding priority.

Now, which do you suppose Article 3 of the Constitution was talking about when it referred to "judicial power"? Well, actually, I know which one you think they meant, but you're wrong.

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

If WHAT is enacted? A Constitutional Amendment? Yes, putting something in the Constitution by definition makes it Constitutional. THAT isn't confusing or arcane English, either.

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

Here, try THIS: Lawyers are taught how to twist and manipulate the law in order to get what they want, regardless of what the law says or what the people intended when they wrote it. As such, I don't give a good goddamn WHAT they are taught about how to accomplish this goal. In fact, I will go so far as to say that lawyers are a goodly chunk of the reason WHY the average rank-and-file voter is pissed off to the point of being up in arms (figuratively, so control your atavistic liberal fear of the populace) at their government on virtually every level, and why people (like me) are feeling it incumbent to read the laws and say, "Now, wait one goddamned minute, what are you trying to pull here?"

So again I say, if you want to try to convince me it is good, proper, and legal for me to accept something that the government is doing, the way to do it is NOT to tell me that it's consistent with other things said government has done, and it's SURE not to superciliously tell me that bunches of other manipulative, word-twisting lawyers agree with the manipulative, word-twisting lawyers in robes who've decided to "do what's best for me", whether I agree with them or not.

Quote me the Constitution, not what some jackass lawyer has decided the Constitution means. If you can't make your argument based on the words in the document, you don't have an argument. Period.

and of course words have to be interpreted.

Only if you're 1) illiterate, or 2) have a vested interest in making the words be something they aren't (ie. a word-twisting lawyer).

define 'general welfare'.

First show me the place where the Constitution uses it as a directive rather than a clarifier of intent.

define 'commerce clause'.

First show me where the words "commerce clause" appear in the Constitution. I find it utterly irrelevant to be asked to define a name that's been assigned to a part of the Constitution as though parsing it has some effect on what the words in the section mean.

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

Spoken like someone who's never done so in her life. "The Bible is easy to understand, but the Constitution needs elitist translation." Puhleeze.

But thank you SO much for taking the chance to shoehorn some of your religious bigotry in the conversation. It's always worthwhile to remind everyone what sort of repugnant, hate-filled person you really are.

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.

Why on Earth do YOU think you are incapable of understanding something without "scholars" to tell you what to think? It's entirely possible that if you made the effort to think for yourself, you might someday become good at it.

Another question: why on Earth do you think that the opinions of YOUR scholars are somehow more valid than the opinions of those who agree with me? Or did you REALLY think I was just making this all up out of my ass, and there was no argument in legal circles on these issues?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The problem here is one of communication. See, YOU define "better for everyone" as "having the issue settled peacefully, with the vast majority of people feeling that they have a say in their government and society, and the discontented minority moving on to work at changing the minds of other voters". But Jillian and her comrades define "better for everyone" as "giving those ignorant hick mouthbreathers in the flyover zone the morally superior society I think they should have, whether they like it or not, because I'm sure that if I pound it down their throats long enough, they'll come to agree with me on what 'morally superior' really is".

You're never going to solve the problem as long as you're speaking different languages.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Really? Prove it.

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

It WAS put to a vote, dimwit. That's why it's in the Constitution.

But you have a point. I'm not sure I would trust people like you to vote for the right of others to believe something you don't like. I DO, however, trust the majority of Americans to be better human beings than you are.

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

Of course they are, stupid. That's how they became rights. Where did you think the Constitution came from? The Founding Fathers were out for a walk, kicked a bush, and there it was? God wrapped it around a rock and hurled it at Madison's head?

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.

Would it be better if the minority recognized majority rights instead of taking them away by fiat? Yes, it would be better if people didn't try to make the entire country second-class citizens, fit only to work to support the minority elite, and then try to justify it based on their own delusions of moral superiority.

 

[Luissa]

Yes, and if we were talking about something that's actually protected by law, that would matter. Since nowhere in the law is anyone given the legal right to "marry the person they love" or "marry whomever they want", or whatever so-called right you think homosexuals are being denied, the 14th Amendment does not apply.

The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess the courts can use the 14 amendment when deciding if we get to marry who we want. They used it in regards to race, now why can't they use it regards to sexual orientation?

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State". I think this sentence says it all.

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.

I think I proved your statement wrong, so I guess I am equipped enough.

 

[Luissa]

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.

Really? Prove it.



It WAS put to a vote, dimwit. That's why it's in the Constitution.

But you have a point. I'm not sure I would trust people like you to vote for the right of others to believe something you don't like. I DO, however, trust the majority of Americans to be better human beings than you are.

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

Of course they are, stupid. That's how they became rights. Where did you think the Constitution came from? The Founding Fathers were out for a walk, kicked a bush, and there it was? God wrapped it around a rock and hurled it at Madison's head?

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.

Would it be better if the minority recognized majority rights instead of taking them away by fiat? Yes, it would be better if people didn't try to make the entire country second-class citizens, fit only to work to support the minority elite, and then try to justify it based on their own delusions of moral superiority.

A group of men decided on the first amendment, it was not voted on by the people. But keep going, it is fun to watch you act like you know what you are talking about.

 

[jillian]

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.

nice deflection... having nothing to do with our legal system or showing any understanding of the complexity of the constitution.

To APPLY the law, as written. Here's the difference, one you leftists didn't understand at the time and have yet to grasp:

really? how about before you can apply it, you have to know what it means.

come on snooks, what does 'equal protection' mean?

what does 'cruel and inhuman treatment' mean?

you have to have a complete lack of understanding not to *get* that that is how our system works.

The state of Florida passed a law, still on the books, that said, "Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department."

i'm not getting into bush v gore with you. most attorneys and judges think it's one of the worst decisions ever written.

prior to bush v gore, it was solely the purview of the highest court of a state to determine matters of election law.

what is so difficult about that for you rightwingnuts to understand? and you can call me a 'leftist' all you want. it's meaningless.

Interpretation of the law, however, involves the court deciding that "making all the votes count" is more important, and invalidating the deadline in order to serve the purpose outlined by their own priorities. Never mind the fact that the legislature couldn't possibly have NOT known when they passed this statute that it would result in some votes not being counted, and obviously deciding that that was NOT the overriding priority.

Now, which do you suppose Article 3 of the Constitution was talking about when it referred to "judicial power"? Well, actually, I know which one you think they meant, but you're wrong.

If WHAT is enacted? A Constitutional Amendment? Yes, putting something in the Constitution by definition makes it Constitutional. THAT isn't confusing or arcane English, either.

what are you babbling about? you pathetic creatures who pretend to love the constitution so much want to amend the hell out of it.

there isn't any amendment necessary to require EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

What equal protection IS is where you all get confused and where you show your complete lack of ability to address these issues.

every idiot in the world thinks they're a constitutional expert because some other idiot like glen beck or rush limbot told them they are.

Here, try THIS: Lawyers are taught how to twist and manipulate the law in order to get what they want, regardless of what the law says or what the people intended when they wrote it.

and the extent of your experience with what lawyers learn?

i'll wait... because you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Quote me the Constitution, not what some jackass lawyer has decided the Constitution means. If you can't make your argument based on the words in the document, you don't have an argument. Period.

again for the illiterate like you... the constitution isn't some fundie's bible and anyone who thinks there's only one interpretatation is either a liar or a partisan hack or is just too ignorant for air.

Spoken like someone who's never done so in her life. "The Bible is easy to understand, but the Constitution needs elitist translation." Puhleeze.

i don't think the bible is easy at all.. that's why i think fundamentlist idiots are pathetic,. too.

But thank you SO much for taking the chance to shoehorn some of your religious bigotry in the conversation. It's always worthwhile to remind everyone what sort of repugnant, hate-filled person you really are/

you're just a low-life nutbar, aren't you.

Why on Earth do YOU think you are incapable of understanding something without "scholars" to tell you what to think? It's entirely possible that if you made the effort to think for yourself, you might someday become good at it.

or perhaps there are people who understand things better than you do.

after all, i wouldn't tell you how to clean your bathroom. *shrug*

Another question: why on Earth do you think that the opinions of YOUR scholars are somehow more valid than the opinions of those who agree with me? Or did you REALLY think I was just making this all up out of my ass, and there was no argument in legal circles on these issues?

why are they more valid than someone who knows nothing? because you know nothing. and the fact that there IS argument is EXACTLY my point... it is a joke for you to say that *your* way is correct when people who actually know what they're talking about... or at least know better than a lay person.. disagree.

fahrshteit, nutter?

 

[Zander]

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?

I'm asking where the inequality is. Why is this covered under equal protection?

Here's the way I see it. There are certain benefits to being legally married (and the married people amongst us would say there are also some serious drawbacks! ) Those benefits are not available to same sex partners. That is discrimination. It really is that simple. Essentially "marriage" is nothing more than a state sanctioned legal arrangement.

 

[Father Time]

Has anyone here actually read the entire ruling?

 

[Father Time]

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.

Oh so anytime the law says a man can do something a woman cannot (or vice versa) it's not gender discrimination it's simply being aware genders exist. I gotcha.

I guess the ban on interracial marriage was just being aware that race exists.

 

[Father Time]

Here, try THIS: Lawyers are taught how to twist and manipulate the law in order to get what they want, regardless of what the law says or what the people intended when they wrote it.

Prove it!

 

[ekiosity]

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.

Oh so anytime the law says a man can do something a woman cannot (or vice versa) it's not gender discrimination it's simply being aware genders exist. I gotcha.

I guess the ban on interracial marriage was just being aware that race exists.

Uhhhhhh, what?! If you are equally restricting both genders it's not gender discrimination. A woman can't marry a woman, just like a man can't marry a man. It's like you're saying women are discriminated against because they aren't allowed in men's bathrooms.

 

[Father Time]

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.

Oh so anytime the law says a man can do something a woman cannot (or vice versa) it's not gender discrimination it's simply being aware genders exist. I gotcha.

I guess the ban on interracial marriage was just being aware that race exists.

Uhhhhhh, what?! If you are equally restricting both genders it's not gender discrimination. A woman can't marry a woman, just like a man can't marry a man. It's like you're saying women are discriminated against because they aren't allowed in men's bathrooms.

So I guess you think inter-racial marriage bans are not discriminatory in the least then (that's where your logic takes you). You have a point about the bathrooms though.

 

[Toome]

The principle here is whether or not the judiciary branch's role is to keep the system honest. I think the greater issue is whether or not the people have a right to pass laws that discriminate against a class of persons. And this is basically what you have here: the people of California, by simple majority, decided to deny a fundamental right to a class of persons.

I think there's a line between common law marriage, social unions or any other similar relationship and church ceremonial weddings. In many states, church weddings alone do not give the couple legal standing. Typically, the county requires a legal document that verifies the individuals are now a couple, and that document is verified by the person performing the wedding ceremony, usually the preacher, minister, priest, etc. Gay weddings are not a threat to the church; they have nothing to do with any church doctrine unless that church specifically makes it a part of its doctrine.

From a purely individualist point of view, the government should butt out. If two consenting adults want to pursue legal standing as a couple, then it's no business of anyone else. Otherwise, what we are advocating is another form of the nanny state that decides who can and who can't be married.

From a more pragmatic point of view, marital status affects insurance benefits, tax status, and a host of other similar monetary issues. Does the government have the legal right to impose such restrictions? If so, then when does it not have that right? Or is this absolute? These are the tough questions true conservatives (or those who believe in limited government---however that's defined) ought to consider before running off on a tangent that is based on nothing more than a religious belief.

We are not Iran.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess the courts can use the 14 amendment when deciding if we get to marry who we want. They used it in regards to race, now why can't they use it regards to sexual orientation?

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State". I think this sentence says it all.

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.

I think I proved your statement wrong, so I guess I am equipped enough.

Well, once again you demonstrate how ill-equipped you are for thinking, because you proved nothing except that you're a mindless sheep, "baaa-ing" after whichever liberal elitist is defining reality for you today.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Really? Prove it.



It WAS put to a vote, dimwit. That's why it's in the Constitution.

But you have a point. I'm not sure I would trust people like you to vote for the right of others to believe something you don't like. I DO, however, trust the majority of Americans to be better human beings than you are.



Of course they are, stupid. That's how they became rights. Where did you think the Constitution came from? The Founding Fathers were out for a walk, kicked a bush, and there it was? God wrapped it around a rock and hurled it at Madison's head?

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.

Would it be better if the minority recognized majority rights instead of taking them away by fiat? Yes, it would be better if people didn't try to make the entire country second-class citizens, fit only to work to support the minority elite, and then try to justify it based on their own delusions of moral superiority.

A group of men decided on the first amendment, it was not voted on by the people. But keep going, it is fun to watch you act like you know what you are talking about.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress . . ." - Article 5 of the US Constitution

For a liberal elitist like you, who thinks Constitutionality is determined by nine lawyers in robes for the elucidation of the rest of us peons, to glibly blather about "decided by a group of men" in relation to the Amendment ratification process isn't even "fun to watch". It's just goddamned sad.

I'll take a ratification vote by the duly-elected legislatures of the states over the way YOU think our republic should run any day of the week, thanks.

 

[manifold]

A judge rules on the side of individual liberty and against oppression by the man...



...and so many self proclaimed libertarians say he got it wrong.


Interesting.

 

[Oddball]

A judge rules on the side of individual liberty and against oppression by the man...



...and so many self proclaimed libertarians say he got it wrong.


Interesting.

Individual liberty doesn't need special permission, for which you have to pay for the enactment and dissolution of, from the state.

Real libertarians, such as myself, are for the separation of matrimony and state in all instances...So, it's perfectly consistent when we oppose expanding state imposition into marriage.

Maybe you should get some clarification on the libertarian position from real libertarians, before you make your next mistaken *ahem* assumption.

 

[manifold]

A judge rules on the side of individual liberty and against oppression by the man...



...and so many self proclaimed libertarians say he got it wrong.


Interesting.

Individual liberty doesn't need special permission, for which you have to pay for the enactment and dissolution of, from the state.

Real libertarians, such as myself, are for the separation of matrimony and state in all instances...So, it's perfectly consistent when we oppose expanding state imposition into marriage.

Maybe you should get some clarification on the libertarian position from real libertarians, before you make your next mistaken *ahem* assumption.

Your less libertarian than Ravi... Doood!

 

[Ravi]

A judge rules on the side of individual liberty and against oppression by the man...



...and so many self proclaimed libertarians say he got it wrong.


Interesting.

Individual liberty doesn't need special permission, for which you have to pay for the enactment and dissolution of, from the state.

Real libertarians, such as myself, are for the separation of matrimony and state in all instances...So, it's perfectly consistent when we oppose expanding state imposition into marriage.

Maybe you should get some clarification on the libertarian position from real libertarians, before you make your next mistaken *ahem* assumption.

Your less libertarian than Ravi... Doood!

sigh...Ravi again.

But you are actually correct. I am more of a libertarian than Dud. Dud is an authoritarian anarchist.