(08-10-2010 08:38 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Regardless of opinions of same sex marriage, this is a terrible ruling. How in the hell can it be argued that the Constitution was in anyway intended to force states to allow same sex marriage?

I'm for civil unions (with the same rights as marriage) and may even be open to calling them marriages outright, but the court had no more right to rule this way than the Queen of England would have had to make this ruling. It was one court overruling the will of the people of a state with no Constitutional backing. This centralization of power is eating into everyone's rights regardless of how they feel about the morality of any individual decision. I fear for this country. A republic is not something we are guaranteed and we are at a real risk of losing it.

I agree.

(08-10-2010 08:49 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-10-2010 04:06 PM)ctkatz Wrote:  so i guess for those who want to argue "state's rights" that the states have the right to re-legalize slavery or deny women and black people the right to vote.

the supreme court ruled a very long time ago that federal law and the federal constitution trump state law and state constitutions every time.

what proposition 8 did and what it stands for in its general terms is that a majority can enforce its views on a minority by popular vote. it would be like forcing everyone to watch the nfl every week and outlawing the nhl even though there are a lot of people who don't like the nfl and who are passionate about hockey. the bill of rights was included to protect the rights of the minority against they tyranny of the majority and to make sure of that, the 14th amendment was passed to make explicitly clear of this.

listen, if you don't want gay marriage DON'T HAVE ONE. but that does not mean that you have the right to tell other people not to have one. there isn't anything illegal about it and it does not hurt any existing marriages either.

The federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it cannot be made to say anything a judge wants it to say. If you let that happen, you are quite literally ending the republic, ending democracy.

To interpret the Constitution, you have to look at what the writers and people of the time generally thought about what they were writing down. That doesn't mean there isn't leeway sometimes as thing are unclear, but if we are a nation of laws (something the Founders heavily emphasized), then we need to use what that the supreme law of the land was actually supposed to mean. This doesn't mean we don't look at modern issues, but we still interpret the Constitution through what was meant at the time of its writing (or the amendments writing). If we want to change it, there are set ways to do that even if they are difficult.

The Constitution is quite clear that where the power isn't given to the federal government, the states remain supreme. This federal division has benefits and drawbacks, but it is crystal clear in the Constitution. There is no way anyone could look at the Constitution from a historic perspective and argue it was in anyway intended to force states to recognize same sex marriage.

fine. then states shouldn't be forced to recognize opposite sex marriages either.

either all men and women are equal or they're not. you cannot have it both ways.

by the way, the wording of the 10th amendment may be the same, but is now interpreted differently. a war and several amendments saw to that.

ckatz, I think your missing the point of the arguement. No one is debating whether or not gays and lesbians should be allowed to be married. We're eventually going to see states adopt laws that allow gays to be married. Be patient and let the system change instead of the Supreme Court doing it for us.

Everybody advises patience. The problem is, most people aren't patient, and nobody is going to make 'em be patient either, especially when it's a mob and they're in a mood for immediate gratification...

You do remember the calculation for the intelligence quotient of your average mob, don't you?

(IQ of most ignorant person in mob)/(number of people in mob) = (IQ of mob)

(08-11-2010 06:46 AM)animus Wrote:  ckatz, I think your missing the point of the arguement. No one is debating whether or not gays and lesbians should be allowed to be married. We're eventually going to see states adopt laws that allow gays to be married. Be patient and let the system change instead of the Supreme Court doing it for us.

i think you're missing mine. it's not about prop 8 per se. i have a big problem with a majority forcing their will on a minority by restricting the actions of the minority, actions which are not illegal or injurious to anyone. if prop 8 had been a proposal to ban personal handgun ownership, i would have a problem with it. if it had been a proposal to ban all places of worship i would have a problem with it. if prop 8 had been a proposal to ban possession and creation of pornography i would have a problem with it. no group of people has the right to tell another other group of people what they can and cannot do especially if no party is harmed by it. you want to talk about mob rule? there it is, cloaked in the blanket of a constitutional amendment ballot initiative.

on your point, how long is enough time to wait for the system to change "eventually"? a year? 10 years? a hundred years? if it weren't for brown v. board i am convinced that in the deep south and maybe some bordering southern states there would still be codified segregation. and there was no attempt by the states to make seperate but equal laws illegal before then. if the supreme court doesn't change the system in some cases it never will get changed. would you argue that we as a nation have been harmed by the end of seperate but equal by the supreme court? we don't need to wait to correct an obvious wrong just because its a popular thing to keep doing the wrong. wrong is wrong and it needs to be stopped before it spreads around making it harder to stop the wrong and it becomes institutionalized.

@bit
gays and lesbians have been very patient in this country when it comes to equal rights. in 2007 they were granted one of the most basic rights and the next year they had that right taken away because a bunch of people found what they were doing abhorrent for whatever reason. you want to tell them to be patient some more after they had that right every other person had for about 8 months?

edited comment

(08-10-2010 01:54 AM)animus Wrote:  Now onto the ruling. For one this is a States Rights issue. A Federal Judge had no right ruling on this case to begin with. I'd feel the same way if this was passed in lets say Georgia and a Religious Federal Judge overturned the bill. The people of California spoken. Its we the people's country. In 5-10 years the people of California would eventually favor gay marriage anyways. Its time for the Feds to "BUTT OUT OF THE STATES BUSINESS".

Let's take this example:

Suppose Kentucky decided to pass an amendment to their state constitution which banned interracial marriages. The amendment had overwhelming support passing with 60% of the vote. Would this amendment be acceptable and constitutionally valid?

The answer is no as the amendment would violate the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. Here is what section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

Under the 14th amendment, no State is permitted to deny rights (life, liberty, property) to any citizens without due process. This clause (Due Process Clause) is of fundamental importance as it guarantees that individuals will be treated fairly and ensures that state governments do not abuse theirs power by acting against their citizens in an arbitrary, oppressive, or capricious manner. At its most fundamental level, due process prohibits the government from taking action against an individual that would result in a loss of liberty or property. IMO, liberties relating to personal relationships, such as marriage, death, and control of one's own body have a unique primacy of place in the hierarchy of freedoms. I would argue that most people are far more concerned that they can control their own bodies and live than they are about petitioning Congress. Thus, in my opinion Prop 8 denies homosexual couples must be viewed as a denial of due process as it violates an individual's right to personal liberty (the same as any interracial marriage ban would).

The second clause (Equal Protection Clause) is also of fundamental importance as it protections citizens from being treated differently by state governments. Essentially, it requires that laws enacted by a legislative body must be applied, and enforced, in an equal and non-discriminatory manner. In other words, States are prohibited from treating certain groups (e.g. white, Christians, males, straights, etc) differently than other groups (e.g. minorities, non-Christians, females, LGBTs, etc). Thus, in my opinion Prop 8 also violates the Equal Protection clause as it extends rights one group (opposite-sex couples) but not to another (same-sex couples) without any sort of rational or proven scientific basis (e.g. children raised in polygamist households develop social/behavior problems).

(08-11-2010 03:17 PM)ctkatz Wrote:  @bit
gays and lesbians have been very patient in this country when it comes to equal rights. in 2007 they were granted one of the most basic rights and the next year they had that right taken away because a bunch of people found what they were doing abhorrent for whatever reason. you want to tell them to be patient some more after they had that right every other person had for about 8 months?

Did I say I was talking about the heterosexually challenged? The mob I was referring to is called "The People"...

my bad.

I say it all the time to coworkers and I go do the same thing. this is what I get for assuming. I thought you were responding to me.

(08-10-2010 06:16 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I suspect that a lot of the people who have suddenly started voicing their approval of polygamy in the past few years are insincere.

It was sarcasm intended to show that "traditional" (read Puritan) values really aren't a valid basis for arguing for limiting personal freedoms.

(08-10-2010 06:16 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  But however that may be, the underlying concept -- that everyone has the "right" to define "marriage" for themselves, and to have that self-definition recognized and upheld by the state and society-at-large -- is well on its way to being implemented in European + American law and custom. This represents a radical shift from all of recorded history and experience (up until approximately 10 years ago)

The banning of slavery in the mid 1900s was a radical shift from all of recorded history and experience. Extending women the right to vote and work outside the home was a radical shift from all of recorded history and experience. The freedom of and from religion was a radical shift from all of recorded history and experience. Rights to privacy, due process, unreasonable search and seizure, child labor laws, minimum wage, environmental laws, etc are all radical shifts as well.

Personally speaking, I'm glad to see that society has advanced to grant individuals more personal freedom and to prevent majority groups (big business, Christians, whites, males, governments, etc) from representing minority groups (individuals, non-Christians, minorities, females, etc).

(08-10-2010 06:16 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  IMO, have no idea of what destructive force will be unleashed by it. But they are bound and determined to make sure that everyone finds out, whether we want to or not.

What happens if gays are allowed to married? The only things I can think of is that states will have to issue more marriage licenses (and collect more revenues in the process) and the wedding industry will receive a boost to their economy. Oh, and we may end up with less homophobia and more well-adjusted kids (Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests)

(08-10-2010 06:16 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Do you really think that's the reason (or even one of the main reasons) slavery was abolished (in the places where it has been abolished)? Seriously?

Slavery was abolished for a variety of factors. Some were economic in nature (slaves revolting/damaging crops and the decline of profits from slave produced goods), but one cannot deny that social forces did not play a very strong factor as well.

(08-10-2010 06:16 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Such a republic cannot endure when a single judge can declare his personal views to be immune to the democratic process, and effectively write them into the basic law, as Vaughn Walker purported to do a few days ago in his courtroom in San Francisco. I would think, even for people who approve of "gay marriage," the dangers of such declarations should be clear. But if they aren't clear by now, they probably never will be.

1. It is your opinion that the judge's ruling was based off of his personal views. It is my opinion that his decision was based firmly on the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty, and property for all citizens.

2. The judicial branch is an necessary part of the American government as it serves as a check on and balance to legislative and executive power. This concept is essential as it ensures that the minority is not oppressed by the majority. This idea of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is the central reason why we have checks and balances and why the United States was founded as a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy (See Federalist paper #10).

3. Our country was established in a way that gave the judicial branch the power to decide whether laws are constititional or not and how laws are meant to be interpreted. With the exception of criminal trials, every judicial decision is an opinion based decision as every decision is based on how a particular judge or judges interpret a given law. That is why the written explanation of a ruling is called a judicial opinion.

(08-11-2010 05:48 PM)ctkatz Wrote:  I thought you were responding to me.

Nope. I was directing my thoughts toward animus' comment...

As for the determination of who can and who can't have a sanctioned marriage, the government should not legislate these issues. These are personal issues for each person to work out on their own, and nobody should force their idea of the right way to live down the throat of another person, whether it be by legislation or other means. If people wish to band together for sexual, financial, or other reasons, and they care about each other, why should it matter what sex they are? My sentiment is, 'whatever floats your boat, as long as you don't rock mine'. If the Moral Majority, or some other group, has a problem with this, they should discuss it in church, and keep their mouths shut in public...

Wars have been fought over this, and still it goes on...

I said time and time again I beleive that gays should be allowed to get married. Hell right now i'm thinking about getting a petition started to legalize all drugs. Lets say the people say no to the proposition when they vote for it. I'd still be frustrated if a Judge found the end result unconstitutional even if the Judge ruled in my favor. We just have to go about this the right way through the consitution. My basic point in my arguement.

i still think you miss my, uofl07, and bitcruncher's point.

you cannot make a law or an amendment that legislates revoking rights to people who are harming no one. it violates the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution which trumps all. in other words, proposition 8 should never have been put to a vote because enforcing it would have been unconstitutional on its face. would you like me to gather up a bunch of people in pennsylvania to sign a petition to get the penn state legislature to put on the ballot a constitutional amendment that says something that you do is now illegal?

gay marriage is not the central issue. taking away rights from law abiding citizens is. citing an ethereal moral reason for taking away rights is the worst reason for taking away rights. prop 8 was a ballot initiative funded by people who had the worst reason for taking away rights and played on the ignorance and intolerance of people to get it passed, the black people especially. how they could not see that this was the exact same issue they went through in the 1960s when their own civil rights were being threatened is beyond me.

ballot initiatives shouldn't be used that way, and i think you know that.

I agree that gay marriage is not the central issue here. And I also agree with the 14th amendment arguement here. I agree that this shouldn't have been brought to the people in the first place. But it did. If this Judge was so concerned he should've deemed the vote unconstitutional before the first vote was taken 2 years ago. This could end up with an amendment to the 14th Amendment when its all said and done. I just think we need to go about this the right way. Congress should step in immediately and start having committee hearings to fix this problem, and write an amendment to the 14th Amendment. It can and should be done.

But unfortunately we have incompetant leaders that refuse to look at this issue.

Too bad congress won't look at the other civil liberties that are violated on a daily basis like wire taping and reading emails ect under the unconstitutional Patriot Act.

Lurking on the thread since my last post, it really strikes me how people can live on this same earth and yet have worldviews so profoundly at odds from one another. To say that we "disagree" really does not quite capture it. Cliches about ships passing in the night don't quite, either. Somehow, it's more basic than that; the very words we use have different meanings to us. In a very literal sense, we talk past one another. In a very literal sense, we have nothing to say to one another, even if the talking itself does not stop.

Ignorance can be educated away. But stupid is forever...