-Rando-
Posts:
4,660
Registered:
Jul 28, '10
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 4,657
User ID: 1,399,276
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
It's certainly off to the supreme court now. Wonder if and when they'll actually hear it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?hp
Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California
LOS ANGELES – A federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution, all but ensuring that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court.
The three-judge panel issued its ruling Tuesday morning in San Francisco, upholding a decision by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who had been the chief judge of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California but has since retired. Like Judge Walker, the panel found that Proposition 8 – passed by California voters in November 2008 by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent -- violated the equal protection rights of two same-sex couples that brought he suit. The proposition placed a specific prohibition in the State Constitution against marriage between two people of the same sex.
The court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by discriminating against a group of people, gay men and lesbians.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,†Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.â€
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
ikkoikki
Posts:
13,961
Registered:
Feb 8, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,960
User ID: 1,347,614
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
Good, let's end this silly issue in this country already so we can focus on more important issues, such as ending discrimination against atheists and marijuana users.
-----signature-----
Chicago Bulls: 43-13
post game gem from Joakim Noah: "We cannot play with our heads down and have a poo poo face. Sometimes we have a poo poo face."
|
|
Link to this post
|
faefrost
Posts:
13,505
Registered:
Apr 27, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,563
User ID: 22,267
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
Breaking, 9th circuit court and HHS secretary just hand 2012 elections to Republicans.
-----signature-----
"You're not just a regular moron
You were designed to be a moron!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Second_Chance
Title: Great One
Posts:
31,389
Registered:
Feb 28, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,770
User ID: 70,935
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
Like!
-----signature-----
I am my brothers' keeper I quit smoking 6/18/02 @ Midnight then started again  Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. Loyal husband to Katriel <--- Blinky wants your soul!!!
|
|
Link to this post
|
Immortal_Haze
Posts:
16,105
Registered:
Jan 31, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,927
User ID: 639,213
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
So this is what the Mayans were talking about??
-----signature-----
 "Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them." FDR
|
|
Link to this post
|
Reapist
Title: Official ACF HIOFI Poster
Posts:
74,991
Registered:
Dec 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 74,235
User ID: 559,475
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
Does this mean Pitt and Jolie can finally get married?
-----signature-----
pkhere: Jebus sometimes you make my arse tired.
Referring to illegal aliens as 'immigrants' is the same as referring to shoplifters as 'shoppers' - Dorvinion
I'd feel bad for Satriani but he got himself into it. - allmightybob_MLF
|
|
Link to this post
|
faefrost
Posts:
13,505
Registered:
Apr 27, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,563
User ID: 22,267
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
-----signature-----
"You're not just a regular moron
You were designed to be a moron!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Gaevren
Title: Wat do?
Posts:
18,183
Registered:
Sep 15, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 17,906
User ID: 967,012
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Only if the state legislature does not run contrary to the US constitution and applicable federal laws.
If the state/people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, that would have been unconstitutional as well, and the federal courts would have been well within their jurisdiction to say so.
-----signature-----
There are no automatic doors, just very polite ninjas
|
|
Link to this post
|
Immortal_Haze
Posts:
16,105
Registered:
Jan 31, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,927
User ID: 639,213
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
I don't think people that approve of gay marriage really care how it got done. End result justifying the means and all that.
-----signature-----
"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them." FDR
|
|
Link to this post
|
Second_Chance
Title: Great One
Posts:
31,389
Registered:
Feb 28, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,770
User ID: 70,935
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Such a profanity theory. A state cannot violate your 14 amendment rights just because they want to and they have some states-appointed sovereign right to do so.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,†Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.â€
-----signature-----
I am my brothers' keeper I quit smoking 6/18/02 @ Midnight then started again Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. Loyal husband to Katriel <--- Blinky wants your soul!!!
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
I look forward to the government getting out of the marriage business so that polygamy and polyandry is no longer criminalized.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Hawkson
Title: I AM AN ASSASSIN (SHH)
Posts:
30,565
Registered:
Oct 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,208
User ID: 478,685
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Prop 8 was funded by a Utah-based religious organization, that has no business being in California politics.
Take that for what you will.
-----signature-----
Hawkson, Esq.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
|
|
Link to this post
|
combat_mage_sc
Title: Hi. My name is Combat and i'm an alcoholic.
Posts:
41,508
Registered:
Jul 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 266,617
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Sean Penn seen giving himself a pearl necklace.
-----signature-----
.................._@@@__
......_____//____?___\________
- ---o--------BEER-POLICE----@)
-----`--(@)======+====(@)--
|
|
Link to this post
|
-MrBean-
Title: Now With Extra Baldness
Posts:
13,652
Registered:
May 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,376
User ID: 98,822
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Hawkson posted:
Prop 8 was funded by a Utah-based religious organization, that has no business being in California politics.
Take that for what you will.
This.
The Mormons in UTAH threw more money against this proposition than all the other backers combined.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Jezza_Belle
Title: =^.^=
Posts:
62,779
Registered:
Feb 24, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 61,759
User ID: 70,100
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Aerlinthian posted:
I look forward to the government getting out of the marriage business so that polygamy and polyandry is no longer criminalized.
I'll take some of that action.
-----signature-----
( - Y - ) These ones are not real, just FYI. Follow my progress... http://tweetlbug.deviantart.com/
|
|
Link to this post
|
AliHajiSheik
Posts:
3,162
Registered:
Jan 5, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,145
User ID: 755,560
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Second_Chance posted:
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Such a profanity theory. A state cannot violate your 14 amendment rights just because they want to and they have some states-appointed sovereign right to do so.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,†Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.â€
I wonder how Judge Reinhardt feels about affirmative action, among other topics where the law "treats different people differently."
See, this game is fun...
-----signature-----
*yawn*
|
|
Link to this post
|
Hawkson
Title: I AM AN ASSASSIN (SHH)
Posts:
30,565
Registered:
Oct 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,208
User ID: 478,685
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
-MrBean- posted:
Hawkson posted:
Prop 8 was funded by a Utah-based religious organization, that has no business being in California politics.
Take that for what you will.
This.
The Mormons in UTAH threw more money against this proposition than all the other backers combined.
Minor clarification- you're right that they threw all kinds of money at it, but it was to pass it - as the goal of Prop. 8 was to ban gay marriage.
-----signature-----
Hawkson, Esq.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
|
|
Link to this post
|
FineYoungCannibals
Title: Top of the food chain
Posts:
74,939
Registered:
Jul 14, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 73,108
User ID: 822,330
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
you can marry another dude but you can't smoke weed?
lol, cali
-----signature-----
 FYC
|
|
Link to this post
|
combat_mage_sc
Title: Hi. My name is Combat and i'm an alcoholic.
Posts:
41,508
Registered:
Jul 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 266,617
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Californias Blacks and hispanics are the reason prop 8 passed.
-----signature-----
.................._@@@__
......_____//____?___\________
- ---o--------BEER-POLICE----@)
-----`--(@)======+====(@)--
|
|
Link to this post
|
silvadel2
Posts:
4,970
Registered:
Jul 13, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 4,970
User ID: 57,980
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Aerlinthian posted:
I look forward to the government getting out of the marriage business so that polygamy and polyandry is no longer criminalized.
Well isnt it discrimination against islam to not allow 4 wives? This certainly opens the door for that argument.
-----signature-----
Lost postcount 17k; Lost years 9.6; Lost Title: Priceless
The most expensive things in life are free
Asheron's Call 3 // Horizons 2 -- Dragons of Dereth (one can always hope)
1920x1200 is a Monitor. 1920x1080 is a TV without a tuner.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Jezza_Belle
Title: =^.^=
Posts:
62,779
Registered:
Feb 24, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 61,759
User ID: 70,100
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
silvadel2 posted:
Aerlinthian posted:
I look forward to the government getting out of the marriage business so that polygamy and polyandry is no longer criminalized.
Well isnt it discrimination against islam to not allow 4 wives? This certainly opens the door for that argument.
I don't see why there is so much discrimination on who we should and shouldn't love, as long as the people are of age, not being bought/sold... I don't see a problem with multiple marriages.
-----signature-----
( - Y - ) These ones are not real, just FYI. Follow my progress... http://tweetlbug.deviantart.com/
|
|
Link to this post
|
FineYoungCannibals
Title: Top of the food chain
Posts:
74,939
Registered:
Jul 14, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 73,108
User ID: 822,330
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
why would you want 4 wives, i can barely handle one
-----signature-----
FYC
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
FineYoungCannibals posted:
why would you want 4 wives, i can barely handle one
That's because your out of touch with your male roots. It sure isn't because you don't make enough money. Now go slap some ass like you mean it.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
faefrost
Posts:
13,505
Registered:
Apr 27, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,563
User ID: 22,267
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Gaevren posted:
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Only if the state legislature does not run contrary to the US constitution and applicable federal laws.
If the state/people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, that would have been unconstitutional as well, and the federal courts would have been well within their jurisdiction to say so.
All powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are expressly and exclusively reserved for the states. The states do not have to ask permission of the feds unless it is clearly something defined in the constitution. Federal laws cannot typically supercede the state constitutions unless it is in an area that the feds are specifically and distinctly empowered to do so by the Federal constitution. This is further backed up by the new Congressional rules that mandate that every bill put before Congress must reference the specific constitutional powers that would permit or empower the law.
-----signature-----
"You're not just a regular moron
You were designed to be a moron!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ah-Schoo
Title: Fuzzy Caterpillar of Friendliness
Posts:
71,317
Registered:
Aug 11, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 68,974
User ID: 39,247
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Aerlinthian posted:
FineYoungCannibals posted:
why would you want 4 wives, i can barely handle one
That's because your out of touch with your male roots. It sure isn't because you don't make enough money. Now go slap some ass like you mean it.
*you're
-----signature-----
.
Opinion = fact. Anecdote = proof. Political label more important than either of those.
Welcome to ACF, where debate goes to die.
.
"fascist totalitarian secular progressive Zionist intellectually challenged Christian puppets." - Aerlinthina
|
|
Link to this post
|
FineYoungCannibals
Title: Top of the food chain
Posts:
74,939
Registered:
Jul 14, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 73,108
User ID: 822,330
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
Does this mean gays can drink from the same drinking fountain as normal people?
-----signature-----
FYC
|
|
Link to this post
|
-Kiande-
Posts:
17,599
Registered:
Aug 11, '06
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 17,325
User ID: 1,163,396
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Immortal_Haze posted:
So this is what the Mayans were talking about??
-----signature-----
Thunderdome
|
|
Link to this post
|
faefrost
Posts:
13,505
Registered:
Apr 27, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,563
User ID: 22,267
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Second_Chance posted:
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Such a profanity theory. A state cannot violate your 14 amendment rights just because they want to and they have some states-appointed sovereign right to do so.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,†Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.â€
How does definitions of marriage deny anyone equal protections under the laws? What is the point of discrimination? The defining documentation at the federal level not only defines a limitation of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, it in fact requires it as a condition of statehood in the union? Same sex marriage is a good idea whose time has probably come. This is not the same as it being a legal right that can be declared whole cloth out of thin air by a federal court.
-----signature-----
"You're not just a regular moron
You were designed to be a moron!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Kreezerast
Posts:
12,983
Registered:
Dec 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,787
User ID: 561,799
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
This is not the same as it being a legal right that can be declared whole cloth out of thin air by a federal court.
Strawman alert.
This is not what happened. What happened was that the court determined that a law declaring gay marriage illegal was unconstitutional.
They neither manufactured a right, nor created a new law. They simply declared a law unconstitutional which is their job.
-----signature-----
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. - Ralph W. Sockman
|
|
Link to this post
|
Gildash
Posts:
12,162
Registered:
Apr 26, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,035
User ID: 91,605
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Slavery.
Get my point?
-----signature-----
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
AliHajiSheik posted:
I wonder how Judge Reinhardt feels about affirmative action, among other topics where the law "treats different people differently."
See, this game is fun...
Don't count on the phonies at the ACLU taking on that case.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Second_Chance
Title: Great One
Posts:
31,389
Registered:
Feb 28, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,770
User ID: 70,935
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
Second_Chance posted:
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Such a profanity theory. A state cannot violate your 14 amendment rights just because they want to and they have some states-appointed sovereign right to do so.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,†Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.â€
How does definitions of marriage deny anyone equal protections under the laws? What is the point of discrimination? The defining documentation at the federal level not only defines a limitation of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, it in fact requires it as a condition of statehood in the union? Same sex marriage is a good idea whose time has probably come. This is not the same as it being a legal right that can be declared whole cloth out of thin air by a federal court.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
-----signature-----
I am my brothers' keeper I quit smoking 6/18/02 @ Midnight then started again Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. Loyal husband to Katriel <--- Blinky wants your soul!!!
|
|
Link to this post
|
-MrBean-
Title: Now With Extra Baldness
Posts:
13,652
Registered:
May 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,376
User ID: 98,822
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Hawkson posted:
-MrBean- posted:
Hawkson posted:
Prop 8 was funded by a Utah-based religious organization, that has no business being in California politics.
Take that for what you will.
This.
The Mormons in UTAH threw more money against this proposition than all the other backers combined.
Minor clarification- you're right that they threw all kinds of money at it, but it was to pass it - as the goal of Prop. 8 was to ban gay marriage.
You're right. My thought process changed in the middle of my sentence, from "to get the proposition to pass" to "against gays being allowed to marry" and I kinda meshed it together :P
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
jeune
Posts:
5,335
Registered:
May 29, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 5,311
User ID: 1,052,881
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
How does definitions of marriage deny anyone equal protections under the laws? What is the point of discrimination? The defining documentation at the federal level not only defines a limitation of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, it in fact requires it as a condition of statehood in the union? Same sex marriage is a good idea whose time has probably come. This is not the same as it being a legal right that can be declared whole cloth out of thin air by a federal court.
The court did not find a legal right. They invalidated a law that violated the Constitution of the United States.
Marriage is a social construction that has changed through time and cultures... if the state is involved in issuing marriages certificates/ giving benefits to couples then the law needs to be equal to everyone.
-----signature-----
"Whenever the white man treats the Indian as they treat each other then we shall have no more wars. We shall be all alike — brothers of one father and mother, with one sky above us and one country around us and one government for all."
|
|
Link to this post
|
Banelord_FF
Title: Cunstrukshen Werker
Posts:
13,090
Registered:
Jan 3, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,887
User ID: 590,745
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
jeune posted:
faefrost posted:
How does definitions of marriage deny anyone equal protections under the laws? What is the point of discrimination? The defining documentation at the federal level not only defines a limitation of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, it in fact requires it as a condition of statehood in the union? Same sex marriage is a good idea whose time has probably come. This is not the same as it being a legal right that can be declared whole cloth out of thin air by a federal court.
The court did not find a legal right. They invalidated a law that violated the Constitution of the United States.
Marriage is a social construction that has changed through time and cultures... if the state is involved in issuing marriages certificates/ giving benefits to couples then the law needs to be equal to everyone.
And as usual you completely missed the point.
-----signature-----
The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Arc_DT
Title: Mithan said I am smart
Posts:
11,647
Registered:
May 28, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,518
User ID: 683,353
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Aerlinthian posted:
I look forward to the government getting out of the marriage business so that polygamy and polyandry is no longer criminalized.
So did the Romneys, but they got tired of waiting.
-----signature-----
"... We just need a president to sign this stuff... Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president."
-Grover Norquist
.
MICHIGAN - Where the trees are the right height!
|
|
Link to this post
|
Arc_DT
Title: Mithan said I am smart
Posts:
11,647
Registered:
May 28, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,518
User ID: 683,353
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Jezza_Belle posted:
I don't see why there is so much discrimination on who we should and shouldn't love, as long as the people are of age, not being bought/sold... I don't see a problem with multiple marriages.
The problem with traditional polygamy is that the women are chattel. For a multiple marriage to be legal in today's legal framework of equality under law, *all* parties must marry *all* parties, not merely one person acquiring multiple spouses. After all, a marriage is a legal joining of property rights, and one party can't extend and dilute those property rights by unilaterally including another person in the arrangement.
I have no opposition to true group marriages.
-----signature-----
"... We just need a president to sign this stuff... Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president."
-Grover Norquist
.
MICHIGAN - Where the trees are the right height!
|
|
Link to this post
|
Gildash
Posts:
12,162
Registered:
Apr 26, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,035
User ID: 91,605
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,†wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. “The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.â€
F***ing well said.
Damn.
-----signature-----
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
|
|
Link to this post
|
Caoilin
Title: Instigator
Posts:
56,728
Registered:
Nov 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 54,027
User ID: 513,313
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Aerlinthian posted:
I look forward to the government getting out of the marriage business so that polygamy and polyandry is no longer criminalized.
i genuinely don't understand why these are crimes. honestly why in the sweet fk is being "married" to more than one person a felony? that's one of the stupidest things i've ever heard in my life.
-----signature-----
"Cao is really an asexual cricket from outer space" - Bernion
"I just wish you had man bits" - ShalisR
"i'll be your dirty ignorant redneck if you will be my drugged out cripple bitch" - shaggynuts24
"again, I'm stupid" - Brandun
|
|
Link to this post
|
Hyperimiator
Title: Maximus Probus
Posts:
55,497
Registered:
Jul 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 54,624
User ID: 266,347
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
FineYoungCannibals posted:
why would you want 4 wives, i can barely handle one
They have medication for that now.
-----signature-----
The Hyperimiator song http://www.wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=1639&starttime=1:40:35 "You are never going to be able to vote for the revolution. Get that hope out of your mind" -Jerry Rubin http://www.youtube.com/user/Hyperimiator#p/u
|
|
Link to this post
|
ArchrikerHG
Posts:
9,363
Registered:
Feb 20, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,188
User ID: 897,067
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
the only thing I worry about with polygamy/polyandry is how it works out when they divorce with kids.
because right now, the system is TERRIBLE and that's with 1 man and 1 woman, so not even making that many babies...imagine 1 dude with 4 wives...To keep them happy, he's gonna be screwin' just about every day. And if he gets them pregnant, then 3 years later decides he doesn't like the 2nd wife...Does the kid just automatically go with the Mom, even if she's crap?
plus that adds to the tax stuff because of all the extra dependants and just puts a whole new level of complexity on that matter.
-----signature-----
Soo... useless boobs run the world eh?
Sounds about right actually-Alkizmo
The jewel sequins, Hollywood designer clothes and makeup, and flashing LED panorama really
capture the dark cynical hopelessness of the grunge era -Vega
Archriker lvl 250 ret.
|
|
Link to this post
|
AliHajiSheik
Posts:
3,162
Registered:
Jan 5, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,145
User ID: 755,560
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Arc_DT posted:
Jezza_Belle posted:
I don't see why there is so much discrimination on who we should and shouldn't love, as long as the people are of age, not being bought/sold... I don't see a problem with multiple marriages.
The problem with traditional polygamy is that the women are chattel. For a multiple marriage to be legal in today's legal framework of equality under law, *all* parties must marry *all* parties, not merely one person acquiring multiple spouses. After all, a marriage is a legal joining of property rights, and one party can't extend and dilute those property rights by unilaterally including another person in the arrangement.
I have no opposition to true group marriages.
Dogs still are chattel but for some reason you can't put them in fights or do with them what you want.
This game is still fun...
-----signature-----
*yawn*
|
|
Link to this post
|
NonOffensiveName
Title: Touching people in special places all day long
Posts:
27,882
Registered:
Oct 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 27,531
User ID: 444,059
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
AliHajiSheik posted:
Arc_DT posted:
Jezza_Belle posted:
I don't see why there is so much discrimination on who we should and shouldn't love, as long as the people are of age, not being bought/sold... I don't see a problem with multiple marriages.
The problem with traditional polygamy is that the women are chattel. For a multiple marriage to be legal in today's legal framework of equality under law, *all* parties must marry *all* parties, not merely one person acquiring multiple spouses. After all, a marriage is a legal joining of property rights, and one party can't extend and dilute those property rights by unilaterally including another person in the arrangement. I have no opposition to true group marriages.
Dogs still are chattel but for some reason you can't put them in fights or do with them what you want. This game is still fun...
so now youre comparing dogs to people? Wow you're really reaching...
-----signature-----
Q: What's an AW?
A: A whore that likes attention
|
|
Link to this post
|
Hyperimiator
Title: Maximus Probus
Posts:
55,497
Registered:
Jul 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 54,624
User ID: 266,347
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
Well if the Supreme Court which is so predominately Republican asserts the tyranny of the majority, then face it, fascism isn't far off.
-----signature-----
The Hyperimiator song http://www.wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=1639&starttime=1:40:35 "You are never going to be able to vote for the revolution. Get that hope out of your mind" -Jerry Rubin http://www.youtube.com/user/Hyperimiator#p/u
|
|
Link to this post
|
notmforce2k
Posts:
96,434
Registered:
Oct 9, '11
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,235
User ID: 1,430,866
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Ah-Schoo posted:
Aerlinthian posted:
FineYoungCannibals posted:
why would you want 4 wives, i can barely handle one
That's because your out of touch with your male roots. It sure isn't because you don't make enough money. Now go slap some ass like you mean it.
*you're
Thank you!
Unfortunately, now I have to think of something to say on the issue here. Hmmmmmmm......
GEEZ OBAMA.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
JD_HOGG
Posts:
19,975
Registered:
Mar 18, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,893
User ID: 1,285,011
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
|
I don't think "acquire" is the right word to use when getting married. What a man actually does is relinquish some of his rights.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Hyperimiator
Title: Maximus Probus
Posts:
55,497
Registered:
Jul 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 54,624
User ID: 266,347
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
JD_HOGG posted:
I don't think "acquire" is the right word to use when getting married. What a man actually does is relinquish some of his rights.
Yeah and he gets a new one, the right to stay broke! 
-----signature-----
The Hyperimiator song http://www.wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=1639&starttime=1:40:35 "You are never going to be able to vote for the revolution. Get that hope out of your mind" -Jerry Rubin http://www.youtube.com/user/Hyperimiator#p/u
|
|
Link to this post
|
AliHajiSheik
Posts:
3,162
Registered:
Jan 5, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,145
User ID: 755,560
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
NonOffensiveName posted:
AliHajiSheik posted:
Arc_DT posted:
Jezza_Belle posted:
I don't see why there is so much discrimination on who we should and shouldn't love, as long as the people are of age, not being bought/sold... I don't see a problem with multiple marriages.
The problem with traditional polygamy is that the women are chattel. For a multiple marriage to be legal in today's legal framework of equality under law, *all* parties must marry *all* parties, not merely one person acquiring multiple spouses. After all, a marriage is a legal joining of property rights, and one party can't extend and dilute those property rights by unilaterally including another person in the arrangement. I have no opposition to true group marriages.
Dogs still are chattel but for some reason you can't put them in fights or do with them what you want. This game is still fun...
so now youre comparing dogs to people? Wow you're really reaching...
You aren't real good at reading, which is sad, but I'll get over it.
"The problem with traditional polygamy is that the women are chattel." is what I was referencing. I don't know whether it is true or not, the history of polygamy isn't of interest to me.
-----signature-----
*yawn*
|
|
Link to this post
|
Poit-Narf
Title: Cleric of Juan
Posts:
47,276
Registered:
Jul 11, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 46,296
User ID: 943,679
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
Breaking, 9th circuit court and HHS secretary just hand 2012 elections to Republicans.
I was actually thinking the opposite. If yesterday is any indication, the 9th Circuit Court just handed Santorum the Republican nomination. Which means Obama is pretty much guaranteed a second term.
-----signature-----
"I think so, Brain, but there's still a bug stuck in here from last time." Rift: Deepstrike/Guardian Poit (Mage), Point (Rogue), Popit (Cleric), Poiyt (Warrior) http://immortal-guild.com/ "You're so heterophobic" -Lyli
|
|
Link to this post
|
JD_HOGG
Posts:
19,975
Registered:
Mar 18, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,893
User ID: 1,285,011
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Poit-Narf posted:
faefrost posted:
Breaking, 9th circuit court and HHS secretary just hand 2012 elections to Republicans.
I was actually thinking the opposite. If yesterday is any indication, the 9th Circuit Court just handed Santorum the Republican nomination. Which means Obama is pretty much guaranteed a second term.
And what if Santorum wins? Before you laugh it off, the same people who would vote for Santorum flocked to the polls to elect Bush to two terms. Sheesh that's a depressing thought.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
DarthMord
Title: The Wannabe Evil Guy
Posts:
13,265
Registered:
Jun 4, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,077
User ID: 146,707
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Part of the compact that allows a State to be a member of the United States is that all state laws must be legal and in accordance with the United States Constitution. Any law that is not legal under the United States Constitution (and its Amendments) is void and unenforceable.
The real problems crop up when people start using today's definitions on yesterday's words. The words used in the document were used for a reason and that was largely in part due to the meaning of the words chosen at the time of their usage in the documents. Not their modern day definitions.
-----signature-----
Retired: AC, 11/25/05.
CoH/V, Virtue Server, Global @darthmord
LoTRO, Meneldor, 65 Hunter, Gilborthal & others
"Bipartisanship: When Democrats and Republicans agree on the right way to stick it to the People." -Dorvinion
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
DarthMord posted:
Part of the compact that allows a State to be a member of the United States is that all state laws must be legal and in accordance with the United States Constitution. Any law that is not legal under the United States Constitution (and its Amendments) is void and unenforceable.
The real problems crop up when people start using today's definitions on yesterday's words. The words used in the document were used for a reason and that was largely in part due to the meaning of the words chosen at the time of their usage in the documents. Not their modern day definitions.
Yep that is why we have Affirmative Action, welfare, progressive taxation, undeclared wars, hate crime laws, etc etc.
It's a good thing our rulers obey the constitution! Whew!
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
JD_HOGG
Posts:
19,975
Registered:
Mar 18, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,893
User ID: 1,285,011
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
DarthMord posted:
faefrost posted:
What astonishes me is how many think that this is a good thing?
For the record I do support gay marriage. The reasons to allow it outweigh the reasons against it. But it must come from the Legislature. There is no other way.
What happened here today was a federal court (with a long sordid history of similar behavior) overturned a states constitutionally protected sovereignty and created state law from the federal bench. They overturned legitimate state constitutional actions with absolutely no basis or precedent beyond "we think so". This is NOT how we are governed. Just because the outcome may be what a lot of people want does not in any way legitimize this process or this courts actions. The state of California and more directly the people of California had spoken on this issue. Right or wrong. It was within their sovereign rights to do so. Just as it was within New Yorks sovereign rights to choose to legislatively change the existing laws and allow such an evolution of societal mores.
Part of the compact that allows a State to be a member of the United States is that all state laws must be legal and in accordance with the United States Constitution. Any law that is not legal under the United States Constitution (and its Amendments) is void and unenforceable.
The real problems crop up when people start using today's definitions on yesterday's words. The words used in the document were used for a reason and that was largely in part due to the meaning of the words chosen at the time of their usage in the documents. Not their modern day definitions.
Right on. The state of California has no authority to ban two people from getting married. The ban is unconstitutional. The court wasn't legislating. They were overturning an unjust law. They got it right.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
JD_HOGG
Posts:
19,975
Registered:
Mar 18, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,893
User ID: 1,285,011
|
Subject:
Breaking: Court strikes down gay marriage ban in California!
|
Aerlinthian posted:
DarthMord posted:
Part of the compact that allows a State to be a member of the United States is that all state laws must be legal and in accordance with the United States Constitution. Any law that is not legal under the United States Constitution (and its Amendments) is void and unenforceable.
The real problems crop up when people start using today's definitions on yesterday's words. The words used in the document were used for a reason and that was largely in part due to the meaning of the words chosen at the time of their usage in the documents. Not their modern day definitions.
Yep that is why we have Affirmative Action, welfare, progressive taxation, undeclared wars, hate crime laws, etc etc.
It's a good thing our rulers obey the constitution! Whew!
They do obey the constitution. Read the supreme court challenges. Or are you saying that supreme court rulings are unconstitutional?
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
