Jump to content

sub rosa

california gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Recommended Posts

(CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage - CNN.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support same sex marriage, but I do not think it's constitutionally protected. If the equal protection clause protects same-sex marriages, then it stands to reason that it also protects polygamists. If anyone supports this decision, do you think polygamists are protected by the equal protection clause? If not, why not?

Edited by Sparks4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm support same sex marriage, but I do not think it's constitutionally protected. If the equal protection clause protects same-sex marriages, then it stands to reason that it also protects polygamists. If anyone supports this decision, do you think polygamists are protected by the equal protection clause? If not, why not?

sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the attorneys who brought the suit was ted olson - a republican. he represented george w. bush in the florida fiasco.

and you're welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you democrats for so many gifts in an election year.

according to wikipedia, the judge who made the ruling graduated from u of m (undergrad) and was nominated to the bench by ronald reagan and then george h.w. bush. he is also openly gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
according to wikipedia, the judge who made the ruling graduated from u of m (undergrad) and was nominated to the bench by ronald reagan and then george h.w. bush. he is also openly gay.

should he have recused himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you democrats for so many gifts in an election year.

you're happy about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm support same sex marriage, but I do not think it's constitutionally protected. If the equal protection clause protects same-sex marriages, then it stands to reason that it also protects polygamists. If anyone supports this decision, do you think polygamists are protected by the equal protection clause? If not, why not?

How so?

How long until Shabba come on and tells us how this will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia? I give it a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How so?

How long until Shabba come on and tells us how this will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia? I give it a week.

I finally have the liberty to marry my dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you democrats for so many gifts in an election year.

Just like in 2006 when the New Jersey Supreme Court did the same thing? I'm sure you remember that. I'm sure you also remember the democrats routing the Republicans in the 2006 mid-terms.

This is a local California issue that is rooted in its strange Constitution, it will have no national play. There have been tons of these decisions in various states, some that go one way, some that go another. It has no national play at this point.

If one ever gets to the US Supreme Court, then it will have a national effect. when it does, the Court will certainly side with whatever state is seeking to ban marriage - or it will uphold DOMA - whatever it has to do to keep gay folks from having the same rights as everyone else.

Then the **** will hit the fan. But not now, and not in the 2010 midterms. people are worried about the economy, not what their gay neighbors are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I finally have the liberty to marry my dog

This will be the downfall of america! People running around begging for the right to **** their cat, diddle their babies, and and marry their sisters. if only we could return to a more moral time when we could all hate gay people, black people and we didn't even have to know the names of our mexican gardners. Those were the days....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like in 2006 when the New Jersey Supreme Court did the same thing? I'm sure you remember that. I'm sure you also remember the democrats routing the Republicans in the 2006 mid-terms.

This is a local California issue that is rooted in its strange Constitution, it will have no national play. There have been tons of these decisions in various states, some that go one way, some that go another. It has no national play at this point.

If one ever gets to the US Supreme Court, then it will have a national effect. when it does, the Court will certainly side with whatever state is seeking to ban marriage - or it will uphold DOMA - whatever it has to do to keep gay folks from having the same rights as everyone else.

Then the **** will hit the fan. But not now, and not in the 2010 midterms. people are worried about the economy, not what their gay neighbors are doing.

I agree, there have been decisions like this in many states & it barely makes news now. I think this one is b/c its california where everything is high profile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a federal court, so it's a national issue now isn't it?

I don't see how defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause. Homosexuals still have just as much right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex, thus they have equal protection under the law.

I wish California did not pass this proposition, but if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, it's going to setup an annoying and embarrassing push to pass an anti gay marriage constitutional amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was a federal court, so it's a national issue now isn't it?

I don't see how defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause. Homosexuals still have just as much right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex, thus they have equal protection under the law.

I wish California did not pass this proposition, but if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, it's going to setup an annoying and embarrassing push to pass an anti gay marriage constitutional amendment.

Yeah, because most people differentiate between state court and federal court. come on, it won't be national until it goes to the supremes. if then.

How do you have equal protection if you are denied the benefits that come from marriage if you're not allowed to marry someone of the same sex? if you deny benefits to a person based on their sex - whichis what the state is doing by not letting you have benefits if you marry someone of the same sex - you have to have a rational basis for doing so. The court found - correctly, IMO - that the idea of "preserving the traditional man-woman idea of marriage, or the even less persuasive "best interest of a child to have a male father and female mother, tests were not persuasive.

I think that's legally correct. What basis is there for the law to deny benefits to same sex couples? Because marriage has "always" (and by "always" we mean, in our lifetimes) been between a man and a woman? That doesn't fly with the conception of marriage that has been adopted in western society for the last hundreds of years: love. You marry someone because you love them. On that basis alone, what basis does the state have to tell a person he can't marry a person of the same sex?

You mentioned polygamy earlier. Polygamy is a system that discriminates against women and keeps them in an inferior position vis-a-vis males. Correct? or is there nothing wrong with polygamy? if there isn't, then why shouldn't it be legal? if there is, then there is no parallel between homosexual marriage and polygamy. The equation of the two is a non-issue invented by slippery slope theorists.

This is a sound decision, IMO. Based more on the distinctive wording of the California constitution than anything else. I'm not sure this is the case to become the national test case for gay marriage. And for all my reservations about the abilities of this current US Supreme Court, if Justice Kennedy finds the arguments persuasive - as he has in previous cases involving a state's attempt to criminalize homosexuality - then the case will be decided 5-4 in favor of gay marriage, with the liberals in the ascendancy and the troglodytes in the minority where they belong.

God bless progress.

Why would you find attempts to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to be "annoying"? I can think of a lot stronger words than that. Hateful. Bigoted. Contemptuous. But "annoying"? Annoying is to weak to describe any such attempt at depriving people of the same rights as you simply because they like to kiss boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand why people have such a huge issue with gay marriage. If it's based on their religion that is fine but church and state are separate so religion has no bearing on state/government issues. Is is a moral issue? Everyones moral values are different. What I think is ok may be wrong to others and what others may think is ok could be wrong to me.

As long as couples love each other I don't see the issue here. If they can provide a strong family life to children what is the problem? What gives us the right to say who another can live their life with? Would it be ok to not be allowed to marry your spouse because of different religion, race or social status? It doesn't matter that you love them because your love isn't good enough for others. What matters is that others approve of who you marry. How wonderful that would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really heard a good or compelling reason to deny or ban same sex marriage. Not only that, I frankly never really 'got' why people are opposed to it the extent that they vote to ban it or rail against it. If you are straight, it doesn't impact your life one way or the other. (Note: by 'it', I mean if a gay couple lives together as opposed to being married, it has no bearing on an outsider's life). It's not like 'traditional couple's' liberties are being diminished or takes money out of someone's pocketbook or whatever. It just seems like something done mostly or purely out of pettiness or spite. I guess I just simply don't get it.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it either. I guess there's this fervent need to protect something so special that allows someone like Britney Spears to get married and divorced in 24 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought it was right to legislate people's rights away. It's time this country got past this dumb issue.

If it's based on their religion that is fine but church and state are separate so religion has no bearing on state/government issues. Is is a moral issue?

I agree. However, where I will draw the line is if the government decides that churches HAVE to marry gays.

I finally have the liberty to marry my dog

Actually, PETA would have something to say about that. It's a violation to dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, where I will draw the line is if the government decides that churches HAVE to marry gays.

.

they currently can't tell churches that they have to marry anyone. A Church right now is well within it's right to tell you that they will not perform a ceremony for you.

and it should stay that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mentioned polygamy earlier. Polygamy is a system that discriminates against women and keeps them in an inferior position vis-a-vis males. Correct? or is there nothing wrong with polygamy? if there isn't, then why shouldn't it be legal? if there is, then there is no parallel between homosexual marriage and polygamy. The equation of the two is a non-issue invented by slippery slope theorists.

If a woman wants to marry a married man, then her equal protection rights are being denied just as much as a same sex couple. The more I think about it, the more I actually think I would be OK if this is actually what the Supreme Court rules. If consenting adults agree to get married, perhaps their rights are protected by the constitution. I think my other interruption is valid to. It could go either way.

On moral grounds, I think gay marriage should be legal and polygamy illegal, but the way the constitution is written, they are both either constitutionally protected or not. I do not think there is a way to interrupt the constitution to say one is protected and the other is not. Maybe a constitutional amendment is needed to define marriage as a partnership between 2 people?

Why would you find attempts to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to be "annoying"? I can think of a lot stronger words than that. Hateful. Bigoted. Contemptuous. But "annoying"? Annoying is to weak to describe any such attempt at depriving people of the same rights as you simply because they like to kiss boys.

Ok, what you said :cheeky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let one’s religion define marriage.

Let the state enforce legal unions, and the contracts between the individual parties and between the “united” and the state that they create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm support same sex marriage, but I do not think it's constitutionally protected. If the equal protection clause protects same-sex marriages, then it stands to reason that it also protects polygamists. If anyone supports this decision, do you think polygamists are protected by the equal protection clause? If not, why not?

I don't support same sex marriage, but I don't think saying equal protect clause would also protect polygamists.

As I understand it, the equal protection argument is handled thusly:

A man can marry a woman, this is a given. If a man can marry a woman, but a woman can not marry a woman, then you are discriminating against women. You are denying a woman the right to marry a woman while allowing a man to marry a woman. You are thus discriminating based on sex.

Now, as far as the polygamist, you aren't denying based on sex. You aren't saying a man can marry two women but a woman can't marry two men, you're saying no one, regardless of sex, can marry two people.

Now, my problem with the equal protection is that there are already situations where we accept a difference between men and women. For example, equal protection doesn't give me, as a guy, the right to walk into the women's bathroom at the mall. If I tried to do this and was arrested a judge would laugh at me if I said that keeping me out was discriminating based on my sex.

A woman can not walk around topless in public. Depending on the woman I may not object, but I'm sure there are people who would and her claiming a defense of equal protection would probably not go well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
should he have recused himself?

Hmm... that's an interesting question. I suppose it depends on how strongly he feels about the issue. I don't know that any judge could claim not to have any horse in this race. Marriage is a pretty big issue that effects just about everyone is one small way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't support same sex marriage, but I don't think saying equal protect clause would also protect polygamists.

As I understand it, the equal protection argument is handled thusly:

A man can marry a woman, this is a given. If a man can marry a woman, but a woman can not marry a woman, then you are discriminating against women. You are denying a woman the right to marry a woman while allowing a man to marry a woman. You are thus discriminating based on sex.

Now, as far as the polygamist, you aren't denying based on sex. You aren't saying a man can marry two women but a woman can't marry two men, you're saying no one, regardless of sex, can marry two people.

Now, my problem with the equal protection is that there are already situations where we accept a difference between men and women. For example, equal protection doesn't give me, as a guy, the right to walk into the women's bathroom at the mall. If I tried to do this and was arrested a judge would laugh at me if I said that keeping me out was discriminating based on my sex.

A woman can not walk around topless in public. Depending on the woman I may not object, but I'm sure there are people who would and her claiming a defense of equal protection would probably not go well.

I can buy those arguments. I was thinking about it more this morning, and my polygamy argument is kinda irrelevant. Sometimes I just need to talk through these things, which is why I was asking posters questions in my first post -- I really was interested in what other people thought to help better form my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...