9th Circus Court to rule on Calif prop 8 - change fundamental definition of marriage

[ConHog]

Wow, no wonder we are so fucked up as a country, the people are basically ignored.

Idiots who want to steam roll over the rights of others because "they are icky and we're the majority" should be ignored.

[OCA]

Look I was here in Cali when prop 8 was going about and I can tell you it was nothing more than legal gay bashing ; and worse still, it was an attempt to codify sectarian morality. I just didn't like the precedent and I'm glad it was overturned.

As a Californian and one with virtually all his family and lifelong friends there and one who visited in the heat of that battle there I can assure you your statement is hyperbole at best and blatantly false at worst.

[OCA]

Idiots who want to steam roll over the rights of others because "they are icky and we're the majority" should be ignored.

Just fess up and say "I have no argument"

You fucking suck balls at debating, your getting smoked.

Queers currently have the right to marry........someone of the opposite sex so they currently have every inalienable right as every other American except the right to break the law...................argue against that border jumper lover.

[ConHog]

As a Californian and one with virtually all his family and lifelong friends there and one who visited in the heat of that battle there I can assure you your statement is hyperbole at best and blatantly false at worst.

well , that just clears that up then..................

[OCA]

well , that just clears that up then..................

Glad you recognize that border jumper lover.

[jimnyc]

Idiots who want to steam roll over the rights of others because "they are icky and we're the majority" should be ignored.

I'm confident there are others who have an opposing POV who might think you are the idiot and should be ignored. You're like a typical liberal, thinking only you're POV matters and others should be ignored.

[OCA]

I'm confident there are others who have an opposing POV who might think you are the idiot and should be ignored. You're like a typical liberal, thinking only you're POV matters and others should be ignored.

He is an ivory tower lib, no doubt about that.

[ConHog]

I'm confident there are others who have an opposing POV who might think you are the idiot and should be ignored. You're like a typical liberal, thinking only you're POV matters and others should be ignored.

You completely misunderstand if you think I said that everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot Jim. I am arrogant, but not quite that arrogant. Hell I'll even go so far as to say that there ARE some who agree with my opinion on some subjects who are idiots. Which is no surprise considering that I am of the opinion that about 80% of the population are idiots.

[OCA]

You completely misunderstand if you think I said that everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot Jim. I am arrogant, but not quite that arrogant. Hell I'll even go so far as to say that there ARE some who agree with my opinion on some subjects who are idiots. Which is no surprise considering that I am of the opinion that about 80% of the population are idiots.

Which 80% do you reside in? Are you the first, second or third 20%? You sure as fuck aren't in the other 20%.

[fj1200]

The sheepherder is calling you.

A non-response from you, that's about right.

[logroller]

As a Californian and one with virtually all his family and lifelong friends there and one who visited in the heat of that battle there I can assure you your statement is hyperbole at best and blatantly false at worst.

Your assurance huh? You sound like a lawyer saying "trust me". Please save me your BS here; you beliefs on gay being immoral/sinful/wrong are integral into your reasoning for gays not getting married. As for sectarian, here's some poll data:

Religion % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
Protestant (43%) 65% 35%
Catholic (30%) 64% 36%
Other (11%) 33% 67%
None (16%) 10% 90%
source

prop 8 said "Only a marriage between a man and woman would be vaild and recognized in CA" and voters understood that Prop 8 would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California"
That's what voter's understood -- that Prop 8 would eliminate the right to marriage between two people of a disfavored group; homosexuals.

Two gays can legally do everything a straight couple can, except get 'married'; instead, they get a 'domestic partnership'. Perhaps you're not well versed in case law; there's this little heard of landmark case, Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka, it overturned this other obscure case Plessy vs Ferguson. In the case of Brown, it was an educational institution; in the case before us here, its the institution of marriage.
No reasonable person wants to deny another their right to better oneself, nor the right of two people to intimately bind themselves as one; some just don't want some others in their institution doing it, as CH would say, "ickying up the place". No doubt the majority of voters in the southern states would have supported a state initiative making segregation a constitutional amendment. Anyways, long story short, separate institutions for two different groups of people never are equal-- and the equal protection clause deems this unconstitutional.

[Little-Acorn]

Direct democracy (such as California with its ballot propositions) can have problems, of course.

To give an extreme example: Suppose the people of CA put a prop on the ballot that said you could take black people off the street in Calif, put them in chains, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and crappy food & housing. And at the next election, the prop got 55% of the vote, and passed.

Pretty quickly, of course, someone would bring a suit and a Federal judge would throw out the proposition, on grounds that it directly violates the 13th and 14th amendments.

Obviously, ballot propositions cannot be the final word, immune from any challenges or strikedown by Federal judges... IF they violate the US Constitution, as this example obviously does.

The question over Prop 8 is not whether Fed judges should have the power to strike it down. The question is whether it violates the US Constitution.

Does it?

Prop 8 codifies the fundamental definition of "marriage", which is a union between man and woman. It provides, of coourse, that a gay man or gay woman can also get married, just as a hetero man or woman can. They just can't marry the same sex (and neither can heteros). Same-sex couples are excluded. Does that violate the 14th amendment's guarantees of equal rights? Same-sex couples can have Civil Unions, of course (and so can opposite-sex couples), with all the rights and privileges of an actual marriage, but the gay advocates say that that's a case of "separate but equal", which doesn't fly.

Suppose Calif passed a ballot proposition saying that men cannot go into a public women's bathroom or locker room; and women can't go into a men's. That's traditional already, just as marriage always has been, but this propositions codifies it (makes it an actual written law). (For all I know, maybe there are already such laws on the books?) The proposition would be another example of codifying "separate but equal" facilities.

Would this proposition, also be thrown out by the same Federal judges? Should it be?

[logroller]

Suppose Calif passed a ballot proposition saying that men cannot go into a public women's bathroom or locker room; and women can't go into a men's. That's traditional already, just as marriage always has been, but this propositions codifies it (makes it an actual written law). (For all I know, maybe there are already such laws on the books?) The proposition would be another example of codifying "separate but equal" facilities.

Would this proposition, also be thrown out by the same Federal judges? Should it be?

It could be, yes. Whether it should, or not, would depend on the two separate facilities having a disparate difference. (In the prop 8 case, both parties agreed that marriage is different than domestic partnership; that marriage is superior and domestic partnership is inferior.) AND, someone, man or woman, would actually need to have a grievance and have standing to do bring a suit-- jurists don't simply go looking for problematic laws.

[OCA]

Your assurance huh? You sound like a lawyer saying "trust me". Please save me your BS here; you beliefs on gay being immoral/sinful/wrong are integral into your reasoning for gays not getting married. As for sectarian, here's some poll data:

Religion % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
Protestant (43%) 65% 35%
Catholic (30%) 64% 36%
Other (11%) 33% 67%
None (16%) 10% 90%
source

prop 8 said "Only a marriage between a man and woman would be vaild and recognized in CA" and voters understood that Prop 8 would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California"
That's what voter's understood -- that Prop 8 would eliminate the right to marriage between two people of a disfavored group; homosexuals.

Two gays can legally do everything a straight couple can, except get 'married'; instead, they get a 'domestic partnership'. Perhaps you're not well versed in case law; there's this little heard of landmark case, Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka, it overturned this other obscure case Plessy vs Ferguson. In the case of Brown, it was an educational institution; in the case before us here, its the institution of marriage.
No reasonable person wants to deny another their right to better oneself, nor the right of two people to intimately bind themselves as one; some just don't want some others in their institution doing it, as CH would say, "ickying up the place". No doubt the majority of voters in the southern states would have supported a state initiative making segregation a constitutional amendment. Anyways, long story short, separate institutions for two different groups of people never are equal-- and the equal protection clause deems this unconstitutional.

In order for queers to be protected under any equal rights or protection clauses it musr first be determined that they are born that way and not that way by choice...............that has yet to happen.

By default they are not a minority and not subject to those protections.

[ConHog]

In order for queers to be protected under any equal rights or protection clauses it musr first be determined that they are born that way and not that way by choice...............that has yet to happen.

By default they are not a minority and not subject to those protections.

Can you show me where that is a requirement in order to have equal rights?