• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

For those who oppose this, may I ask why? How does it effect you? Why do you care what two people do?

Why don't you take a shot at reading the thread. you might find out..........
 
When was the last one to do it NP? How many last year? The year before?

And when are you going to show the legal flaws with this ruling, or will you retract your activist judge comment?

We shall see what happens in November... Hopefully the SCOTUS has ruled on this issue by then
 
We shall see what happens in November... Hopefully the SCOTUS has ruled on this issue by then

Very unlikely that it will have rules by then I think, unless they refuse to hear it.
 
SCOTUS will decide the case. However, 3 judges have rules that prop 8 is illegal, plus rulings that DOMA is illegal. SSM bans are not fairing well in the courts. Now, can you show what part of the ruling you think is flawed that you can accuse those ruling to overturn the law are activist, or will you withdraw the claim?



I expect the SCOTUS to do the right thing and that is to affirm the people of California's vote.
 
For those who oppose this, may I ask why? How does it effect you? Why do you care what two people do?

I have often wondered that myself. I could care less if Adam marries Steve. It will have absolutely zero, zilch, nada, effect on me, my family, my wife, my business or the fishing report in Tarpon Springs. i don't see the harm in letting a fellow human being persue his/her own brand of happiness as long as it doesn't tread on me.

I cannot visualize myself ever putting myself in such a position of arrogance, to the point that I believe it is my right of destiny, to keep another person yoked to my personal religious view of how things should be. Live and let live. As long as it doesn't tread on me. That seems to me to be "more American" but I digress.

But I also realize many have had their opinions influenced by things like religion, upbringing, culture, environment that differ from mine. They believe they have a right to dictate and submit their will upon others. They believe it with all their heart. You will never convince them they are wrong. But, there again, live and let live is a two way street. I respect them even though I do not agree with them and they sometimes dazzle me with their modes of arriving to their brand of logic.

But, whatever. Despite ourselves, America always leans forward towards freedom and liberty. SSM is right around the corner. The grafitti is on the wall.
 
Last edited:
Very unlikely that it will have rules by then I think, unless they refuse to hear it.

I believe that is your sides only hope and I don't see that happening. There is to much involved on this issue........It needs to be resolved...........
 
I believe that is your sides only hope and I don't see that happening. There is to much involved on this issue........It needs to be resolved...........

Actually I do not hope that since I hope that SCOTUS was affirm a broader ruling against all SSM bans.
 
I expect the SCOTUS to do the right thing and that is to affirm the people of California's vote.

The question is whether the ban is legal, and has nothing to do with popularity. Now, what legal flaw do you see in the ruling?
 
No, not at all as I have stated earlier when you brought it up. race, gender are immutable characteristics, sexual orientation is most definitely not immutable. It's all in the brief there CT. :)

Tim-

As I and Walker have both stated, this is not simply a matter of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but also discrimination on the basis of sex. Your refusal to recognize the basic difference between equal application and equal protection as it relates to gender in the Prop 8 case is no different than when segregationists denied the difference so they could use race to enforce interracial marriage bans and other Jim Crow laws. Arguing that people can only marry the opposite sex is no different than arguing that people can only marry the same race. It is an infringement on civil rights via discriminating on the basis of an immutable characteristic.
 
Last edited:
Specifically, what is it, constitutionally, that makes Prop 8 unconstitutional? I'm not saying that it isn't unconstitutional, I just want to know what the specific part of the Constitution is that makes it unconstitutional.

I would think that those who brought Prop 8 to the voters would have to have their heads examined for bringing an obviously unconstitutional initiative before the people.

So I'm wondering if it ain't so obvious.

The constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. When one group of people are denied their rights on the basis of sexual preference, that's unconstitutional. Heterosexual people are allowed both the benefits and responsibilities of being legally married. Homosexuals should have the same opportunities.

What Prop 8 did, IIRC (and there have been so many SSM bills in this state), was to amend the state's constitution so that sexual preference was removed from constitutional protection, and make SSM marriage (which was then legal in California, passed by the voters earler) illegal. Now it's being challenged on a federal level, on the basis that states cannot remove a right that is protected by the federal constitution.
 
Once some one has a right, it becomes harder to take it away. Whether those without that right have to be given it is a separate issue.

The California SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional under the California Constitution, hence amending the constitution.

If the US SCOTUS rules that all such bans on SSM where illegal, then no state could have such a ban. However, that is not the only way they could rule while overturning Prop 8 and finding with the lower courts.

Okay, I've done some more reading on this and it makes more sense. Essentially, Prop 8 didn't remove any state benefits for same-sex unions, it banned the state from recognizing those unions as marriage. This is what the court deemed unconstitutional as the ban had no 'rational basis'. If SCOTUS upheld the ruling it would make further bans on the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage but would not overturn states who did not recognize same-sex unions to begin with. Does that sound about right?

If that's the case, I can't see how this would help same-sex couples purely on the basis of equal benefits under the state. It would increase resistance to same-sex benefits legislation in state's that do not grant them as it would legally require the state's to recognize the unions as marriage.
 
Okay, I've done some more reading on this and it makes more sense. Essentially, Prop 8 didn't remove any state benefits for same-sex unions, it banned the state from recognizing those unions as marriage. This is what the court deemed unconstitutional as the ban had no 'rational basis'. If SCOTUS upheld the ruling it would make further bans on the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage but would not overturn states who did not recognize same-sex unions to begin with. Does that sound about right?

If that's the case, I can't see how this would help same-sex couples purely on the basis of equal benefits under the state. It would increase resistance to same-sex benefits legislation in state's that do not grant them as it would legally require the state's to recognize the unions as marriage.

Pretty much. I have a blog entry here on the forum that deals in some depth with the court rulings on SSM. it is now outdated since it does not cover this ruling but might help explain some of the issues. I put alot of time into researching and making a nonpartisan look at the topic.

Edit: about your last paragraph: DOMA is almost certainly going to be overturned(the vast majority of legal scholars all agree with this, including most conservative ones). When DOMA is overturned the federal government will have to recognize those married as married, which carries an insane number of benefits under federal law. Civil unions do not carry those federal benefits.
 
Last edited:
Oh good lord, do you only come to this forum to rag on gays every time we have a victory?

Perhaps he protests too much?

I better leave that thought alone. I'm more interested in why he or anyone thinks people can't decide the meaning of marriage for themselves?
 
I wonder, back in the day, when the gubberment mandated that all states must adhere to various civil and anti-discrimination rights, how many people would have voted against it.

My great grand pappy would roll over in his grave to see a black man walking down the street holding a white girls hand. Imagine him standing in line at a McDonald's, with people of all races, eating at the same place. He would have a heart attack.

Some things never change in humanity I suppose.

Progress may be slow but it is inevitable.
 
The constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. When one group of people are denied their rights on the basis of sexual preference, that's unconstitutional. Heterosexual people are allowed both the benefits and responsibilities of being legally married. Homosexuals should have the same opportunities.

What Prop 8 did, IIRC (and there have been so many SSM bills in this state), was to amend the state's constitution so that sexual preference was removed from constitutional protection, and make SSM marriage (which was then legal in California, passed by the voters earler) illegal. Now it's being challenged on a federal level, on the basis that states cannot remove a right that is protected by the federal constitution.
Yes, it seems that CA Prop 8 supporters were trying to correct what they deemed to be the wrong approach to granting gays equal protection.

Prop 8 supporters wanted to retain the long-held traditional definition of marriage.

Once successful, they were amendable to modifications in civil union law to expand protections for gay couples equal to married straight couples.

The constitution is thereby respected with regard to commited couples.
 
Yes, it seems that CA Prop 8 supporters were trying to correct what they deemed to be the wrong approach to granting gays equal protection.

Prop 8 supporters wanted to retain the long-held traditional definition of marriage.

Once successful, they were amendable to modifications in civil union law to expand protections for gay couples equal to married straight couples.

The constitution is thereby respected with regard to commited couples.

The problem with this, as mentioned above, is that when DOMA goes away, there will still be no federal benefits for civil unions, nor a large likelyhood of identical benefits being established. Even if you do establish identical benefits, then you have a situation where the only difference is in name, which makes two sets of identical laws kinda stupid.
 
Well more states are opting for and amendment defining gay marraige as a union between a man and a woman. Nope as a practicing Catholic I will never be ready to say that the blessed sacrament of marraige should include 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 2 women, a brother and sister in a non sexual union for the benefits, same for a father and daughter or a mother and son al in non sexual relationships..........That is just me though Redress and don't come back and tell me that can't happen because it can.

But you seem to have no issue with Adultery.....just sayin.
 
No, I am not saying that, and in fact this is not the case. The backers of Prop 8 (the state in theory, but not actuality in this case as the state declined to support prop 8 in court) have the burden of showing that there is at least some evidence that there would be a negative impact from SSM. Simply believing it would is not enough, you have to have a rational reason to believe it.

No, they don't, unless Smith is incorrect here. To quote more fully:

ln equal protection analysis, rational basis review "is not a license for courts to judge the Wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices." Heller, 509 U.S. at 319 (internal quotation marks omitted). A classification "neither involving
fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong presumption of validity." Id.

"Such a classification cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose." Id. at 320.

The government is not required to "actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification"; rather, a classification "must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, the government "has no obligation to provide evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification." Id. The measure at issue "is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

"[T]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis Which might support it Id.

Correct, and his arguments regarding whether Romer is applicable are fine, and beyond my level of knowledge of the law to comment on. The word rational is used strictly in reference to the level of scrutiny. I am not saying his arguments are irrational.

Even in that sense, he is defining and applying a rational basis throughout his opinion.

I find it unlikely that SCOTUS will be swayed by this argument.

The argument you refer to being this?

The parties argue about whether this analysis subjects Proposition 8 to heightened scrutiny rather than rational basis review. ln my view, while Plaintiffs may give a correct accounting of California law, it does not necessarily follow that the optimal parenting rationale is an illegitimate governmental interest, because it contradicts existing laws on parenting and the family.

The parenting rationale will not be the question before the Supremes. Prop 8 will be.

Rational review is the lowest possible level of scrutiny that would apply, and it is quite likely that a higher level of scrutiny would in fact apply.

That's really what it will come down to, or should. The level of scrutiny. Why do you or the legal scholars you refer to feel that it will be anything more than a rational basis? What precedent is there for it? For marriage laws like Prop 8 or gay rights in general?

I do not know enough on the case referenced to comment.

That in reply to this.

lndeed, in Baker v. Nelson when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint

I don't know the case either, but just taking Smith at his word, it seems to be on point. A denial of a license to a homosexual couple seems analagous to an Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

We'll see. Should be fun!
 
Last edited:
The constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. When one group of people are denied their rights on the basis of sexual preference, that's unconstitutional.

With regard to marriage, what precedents are there to support that? States have been allowed to regulate marriage for, oh God, years now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom