Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

WorldWatcher · May 23, 2014

vesper said:
Bravo! Their moral conscience was indeed the ruling factor in their vote. And the dirty little secret is it never would have made it on the ballot if it was not considered constitutionally sound. The legality and constitutionality of anything that goes on a ballot is determined BEFORE it is put up for vote. If a measure is deemed legal and within the guidelines of the constitution and then voted in by the people, no one judge should be able to negate what has been passed by voters. One judge striking down a voted in measure is akin to that judge saying "everyone but me is ignorant".

Alabama placed a vote on their ballot to amend their Constitution to bar interracial marriage. That Alabama Constitutional amendment was invalided by the Loving decision in 1967.

Was Alabama's vote to ban interracial marriage Constitutionally sound?

(BTW & FYI - When a law is found unconstitutional, that law is not stricken from the statutes or State Constitution, it remains in the printing until removed later by legislative action or a new Amendment. In 2000 Alabama finally got around to removing the discriminatory language from their Constitution. 33-years after the Loving decision. The really sad thing is that 40% of the people voted to retain the language even though it was void.)

>>>>

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
You used it in argument, you compared it to civil law, you still cannot show that you even understand this part of your argument.

Your opinions are based on your opinions? Tautology at its finest along with circular logic. Thanks for confirming that there is little or no reasoning going on, that was the point I have been making about your opinions for quite a while here.

I'm not the poster who brought up the banning of prayer. If you think it has no play in this discussion, you need to tell that to the poster.

Yes, I have my opinions. I'm not an expert on the Constitution. I don't care who marries whom. Sorry if that bothers you. I don't pretend to be a Constitutional expert, not even on message boards. I'll leave that to the rest of you.

Gimmesometruth · May 23, 2014

vesper said:
This is the result of people who are lazy and do not take the effort, time and energy to make their case to the public to earn their vote instead judge shop till they find a political appointed one of the same stripes to shove it through for them.

Since when is striking down an un-Constitutional proposition "shoving" anything?

WorldWatcher · May 23, 2014

vesper said:
This is the result of people who are lazy and do not take the effort, time and energy to make their case to the public to earn their vote instead judge shop till they find a political appointed one of the same stripes to shove it through for them.

When you are a citizen of Oregon, you file in Oregon courts. When a federal suit is filed in Oregon federal courts (as they are in all federal courts) there is a random assignment of Judges.

There is no "judge shopping" in federal courts you are limited to the district you can file in based on residency and the judge is assigned randomly by computer program.

>>>>

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

WorldWatcher said:
That fact that they ignored individual liberties is an apriori probability. They didn't vote as to whether THEY should or should not join in marriage to someone of the same sex, that would be a statement of their beliefs in terms of their own conduct. They did vote as to whether OTHERS should or should not join in marriage to someone of the same sex, that is enacting a law to restrict the freedoms of others.

There "intent" isn't relevant at the point they expand their belief when enacting laws that require the government to discriminate against others. That isn't about personal belief, it's an action to restrict others.

>>>>

I don't assume what's going on in people's minds when they walk in to cast a vote on issues. I can't. There's no way to prove what I think.

Most of those in CA who voted for Prop 8 were religious people, so I suspect that it was based on their religious beliefs and not an intent to be mean to their fellow citizens. JMO.

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
This again shows your two faced, contradictory argument, one face says " I support SSM", the other says "We don't know what is right".....completely ignoring that at some point YOU did decide for yourself which is right.

Judge Walker came to his decision by solid fact finding, it has not been faulted, nor will it. To question it is to not understand it......and to question it while saying you support SSM.....is VERY strange indeed.

I support SSM and you're having hysterics about it. Okay. For some reason my opinions are extremely important to you. Am I that interesting?

Dittohead not! · May 23, 2014

chromium said:
Why should bigots have the right to vote is the better question

tres borrachos said:
70% of those bigots in California who voted in favor of Prop 8 in 2008 voted for Barack Obama.

Dittohead not! said:
Is that an argument for them having the right to vote?

tres borrachos said:
I don't think having a right to vote was being argued. At least I'm not arguing about people's right to vote.

It was Chromium who originally brought up the right to vote.

Gimmesometruth · May 23, 2014

tres borrachos said:
I'm not the poster who brought up the banning of prayer. If you think it has no play in this discussion, you need to tell that to the poster.

I'm arguing with the poster who made a false comparison between prayer and civil law, you cannot see how it was false and instead argue about who brought up the subject first. The argument is not who brought up the concept first but to what it is being compared to.

Yes, I have my opinions. I'm not an expert on the Constitution. I don't care who marries whom. Sorry if that bothers you. I don't pretend to be a Constitutional expert, not even on message boards. I'll leave that to the rest of you.

I am not questioning your Constitutional expertise, I am questioning your support in light of your oppositional argument.

WorldWatcher · May 23, 2014

tres borrachos said:
I don't assume what's going on in people's minds when they walk in to cast a vote on issues. I can't. There's no way to prove what I think.

Most of those in CA who voted for Prop 8 were religious people, so I suspect that it was based on their religious beliefs and not an intent to be mean to their fellow citizens. JMO.

See that's what I don't care about. "What was in their minds."

We are talking about Civil Marriage and not Religious Marriage which are two completely different things. Civil Marriage of course being that which exists as a function of government and Religious Marriage that which exists as a function of the individual religious organization.

As I said, not being rude to you sir, I could care less what there beliefs were - my disagreement is with their actions to have the government discriminate against law abiding, tax paying, consenting, adult citizens for no compelling government interest.

>>>>

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

Dittohead not! said:
It was Chromium who originally brought up the right to vote.

Okay, yes he did. I'm not sure what he was arguing. I know that every citizen has the right to vote. I don't believe there is a caveat to that right that says "if we think you're worthy of this privilege". I would never advocate the idea of limiing a citizen's right to vote because I don't like that person. Would you?

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

WorldWatcher said:
See that's what I don't care about. "What was in their minds."

We are talking about Civil Marriage and not Religious Marriage which are two completely different things. Civil Marriage of course being that which exists as a function of government and Religious Marriage that which exists as a function of the individual religious organization.

As I said, not being rude to you sir, I could care less what there beliefs were - my disagreement is with their actions to have the government discriminate against law abiding, tax paying, consenting, adult citizens for no compelling government interest.

>>>>

I'm not a sir, as evidenced by that little pink thing in my user panel.

I also disagree with their vote, but it wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with what people vote on. Happens every election cycle.

Gimmesometruth · May 23, 2014

tres borrachos said:
I support SSM and you're having hysterics about it. Okay. For some reason my opinions are extremely important to you. Am I that interesting?

I hardly think noting your repeating of oppositioal argument while reading that you supposedly support SMM is "hysterical", on the contrary, I think your two faced arguments are.

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
I'm arguing with the poster who made a false comparison between prayer and civil law, you cannot see how it was false and instead argue about who brought up the subject first. The argument is not who brought up the concept first but to what it is being compared to.

I am not questioning your Constitutional expertise, I am questioning your support in light of your oppositional argument.

Then he shouldn't have brought prayer into the discussion, but since he did, I addressed it in my response.

What do I oppose? SSM? Nope. So what difference does it make that I support it or more importantly, why I support it? Now you're arguing for SSM with someone who also thinks it's acceptable. You're arguing with yourself if that's what you're looking to do. If I say "Smoking marijuana should be legal" and someone says to me "I think it should be legal because I don't care if people smoke marijuana", why would I waste my fingers launching into a diatribe on why it's acceptable to smoke pot to that person? He/she wouldn't need to be convinced that my reasons are the right ones. That person agrees with my opinion of the overarching issue.

Dittohead not! · May 23, 2014

chromium said:
Why should bigots have the right to vote is the better question

tres borrachos said:
70% of those bigots in California who voted in favor of Prop 8 in 2008 voted for Barack Obama.

Dittohead not! said:
Is that an argument for them having the right to vote?

tres borrachos said:
Okay, yes he did. I'm not sure what he was arguing. I know that every citizen has the right to vote. I don't believe there is a caveat to that right that says "if we think you're worthy of this privilege". I would never advocate the idea of limiing a citizen's right to vote because I don't like that person. Would you?

No.
What I wold do is make jokes about people having voted for Obama.

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
I hardly think noting your repeating of oppositioal argument while reading that you supposedly support SMM is "hysterical", on the contrary, I think your two faced arguments are.

Why do you find me so fascinating?

And why do you care, honestly, why I support SSM?

Two faced means you say one thing and do another behind someone's back. If I say I support SSM to people who want to marry a gay partner, and come on here to say they same thing, that isn't two faced. Sorry.

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

Dittohead not! said:
No.
What I wold do is make jokes about people having voted for Obama.

In a country of 300 million+ people, we won't all vote the same way. Nor should we. That's what makes this country great. And votes are cyclical. There are people who make jokes about people who voted for Bush. There are people who make jokes about people who voted for Obama. But nobody (or at least not me) advocates for people's rights to vote being taken away from them, as far as I know.

Gimmesometruth · May 23, 2014

tres borrachos said:
Why do you find me so fascinating?

And why do you care, honestly, why I support SSM?

Two faced means you say one thing and do another behind someone's back. If I say I support SSM to people who want to marry a gay partner, and come on here to say they same thing, that isn't two faced. Sorry.

This is 2 faced....

tres borrachos said:
I've never voted to ban marriage but it seems pretty obvious that the end result of a ban on gay marriage means that they can't get a marriage license and have their unions recognized as a marriage.

You can't ban prayer because you don't need the government's approval to pray in your shower.

.....because, again, it is reducing marriage down to "a piece of paper" while ignoring that there is a huge difference between civil law and religious practices. Equating civil contracts to prayer while reducing civil contracts to "pieces of paper" is not supporting SSM.

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
This is 2 faced.........because, again, it is reducing marriage down to "a piece of paper" while ignoring that there is a huge difference between civil law and religious practices. Equating civil contracts to prayer while reducing civil contracts to "pieces of paper" is not supporting SSM.

Two faced means I wasn't being honest. I was.

A marriage license is a piece of paper giving legality to a union. I never in my 50+ years on this Earth have known anyone who got married and when asked why they were getting married, gave "The Consitutional allowed me to get married" as their reason for marrying. I married my husband because I fell in love with him and wanted to spend my life with him, not because we were Consitutionally allowed to marry or because we could enter into a civil contract.

Why do I fascinate you so much?

WorldWatcher · May 23, 2014

tres borrachos said:
I'm not a sir, as evidenced by that little pink thing in my user panel.

I also disagree with their vote, but it wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with what people vote on. Happens every election cycle.

My apologies Ma'am.

A fine day for you and a blessing on all of yours.

>>>>

vesper · May 23, 2014

WorldWatcher said:
Alabama placed a vote on their ballot to amend their Constitution to bar interracial marriage. That Alabama Constitutional amendment was invalided by the Loving decision in 1967.

Was Alabama's vote to ban interracial marriage Constitutionally sound?

(BTW & FYI - When a law is found unconstitutional, that law is not stricken from the statutes or State Constitution, it remains in the printing until removed later by legislative action or a new Amendment. In 2000 Alabama finally got around to removing the discriminatory language from their Constitution. 33-years after the Loving decision. The really sad thing is that 40% of the people voted to retain the language even though it was void.)

>>>>

What does the proposal to delete a constitution’s archaic language affirming segregation have to do with this discussion other than to present another strawman? Instead of focusing on the fact that when the people had an opportunity to change it, the people VOTED to amend their constitution. No you focus on the archaic language in their constitution. When prop 8 was placed on the ballot in California it was already found constitutionally sound according to their state. The people voted and a political appointed judge stripped their votes from them. Hey why bother to vote at all? Let whatever political party in power with an agenda use their political appointed justices to tell us how things will be because that is exactly what is happening and you want to talk about unconstitutional, there's a good place to start.

tres borrachos · May 23, 2014

WorldWatcher said:
My apologies Ma'am.

A fine day for you and a blessing on all of yours.

>>>>

No worries WW. It happens to me all the time. I think the population of DP must be heavily weighted in favor of men. :mrgreen: That's good with me because I'm not a girly girl anyway.

Have a great Friday and blessings to you & yours as well!

WorldWatcher · May 23, 2014

vesper said:
What does the proposal to delete a constitution’s archaic language affirming segregation have to do with this discussion other than to present another strawman? Instead of focusing on the fact that when the people had an opportunity to change it, the people VOTED to amend their constitution. No you focus on the archaic language in their constitution. When prop 8 was placed on the ballot in California it was already found constitutionally sound according to their state. The people voted and a political appointed judge stripped their votes from them. Hey why bother to vote at all? Let whatever political party in power with an agenda use their political appointed justices to tell us how things will be because that is exactly what is happening and you want to talk about unconstitutional, there's a good place to start.

You miss the time from of the comparison. Alabama's repeal was a footnote to the main point. Alabama voted to deny interracial marriages, the State Constitutional amendment was overturned by the Loving decision. Why have you not been complaining that the SCOTUS "Stripped their votes" (meaning the people of Alabama that voted to enact the amendment)?

BTW - When a State Constitution is amended, the Amendment becomes part of the State Constitution so State courts (as in the California Supreme Court) are bound by that law. In Strauss v. Horton (the in-state challenge to Prop 8) the court noted that "Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause." in that it provided for an exception to the State Equal Protection clause and therefore their hands were tied. At that point the challenge had to move to federal court to challenge the discriminatory amendment against the Federal Constitution.

>>>>

Amandi · May 23, 2014

Gimmesometruth said:
This is 2 faced.........because, again, it is reducing marriage down to "a piece of paper" while ignoring that there is a huge difference between civil law and religious practices. Equating civil contracts to prayer while reducing civil contracts to "pieces of paper" is not supporting SSM.

That is your opinion. Mine is as long as she would vote for SSM she is supporting it. That is all legal mariage is to me too, a piece of paper that grants the couple to handle some legal matters as one person. Also, a person could support same sex marriage and still think it isnt a constitutional issue. People have different opinions and you wont change them by accusing them of doing things or calling them names.

vesper · May 23, 2014

WorldWatcher said:
You miss the time from of the comparison. Alabama's repeal was a footnote to the main point. Alabama voted to deny interracial marriages, the State Constitutional amendment was overturned by the Loving decision. Why have you not been complaining that the SCOTUS "Stripped their votes" (meaning the people of Alabama that voted to enact the amendment)?

BTW - When a State Constitution is amended, the Amendment becomes part of the State Constitution so State courts (as in the California Supreme Court) are bound by that law. In Strauss v. Horton (the in-state challenge to Prop 8) the court noted that "Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause." in that it provided for an exception to the State Equal Protection clause and therefore their hands were tied. At that point the challenge had to move to federal court to challenge the discriminatory amendment against the Federal Constitution.

>>>>

The Ninth Circus Court's ruling was a very narrow one as it asserted that the voter-approved statewide initiative cannot limit the name "marriage" to heterosexual couples. Rather bazaar as those in support of Prop 8 defined marriage between a man and a woman overwhelmingly in regard to their moral conscience. But it isn't surprising that the Ninth Circus Court would rule in such a way because it is primarily made up of 68% Democrat appointed justices. And it isn't surprising to the rest of us to find in the news today that the overwhelming majority of the recent justices overturning state's bans on same sex marriage are also Democrat appointed justices. Justice my foot. It's an abuse of power.
Majority of judges behind wave of gay marriage rulings were Democrat-appointed | Fox News

WorldWatcher · May 23, 2014

vesper said:
The Ninth Circus Court's ruling was a very narrow one as it asserted that the voter-approved statewide initiative cannot limit the name "marriage" to heterosexual couples. Rather bazaar as those in support of Prop 8 defined marriage between a man and a woman overwhelmingly in regard to their moral conscience. But it isn't surprising that the Ninth Circus Court would rule in such a way because it is primarily made up of 68% Democrat appointed justices. And it isn't surprising to the rest of us to find in the news today that the overwhelming majority of the recent justices overturning state's bans on same sex marriage are also Democrat appointed justices. Justice my foot. It's an abuse of power.
Majority of judges behind wave of gay marriage rulings were Democrat-appointed | Fox News

You are attempting to move the goal posts.

I posted about Strauss v. Horton in response to what you said "When prop 8 was placed on the ballot in California it was already found constitutionally sound according to their state." The "state" (the State court system) did not invalidate Prop 8 because Prop 8 amended the State constitution that courts are bound by.

Now you are moving to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which is a Federal court, not a State Court. The State court didn't invalidate Prop 8, the federal court did. Just like the federal court by "stripping the votes" of the people of Alabama that voted to include an interracial ban in their Constitution.

*************************************

Straight question: Do you agree or disagree with the courts decision in Loving which resulted in the invalidation of the Alabama ban on interracial marriage that the citizens of that state voted to put in their State Constitution?

>>>>

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

HoHoHo

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

master political analyst

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

HoHoHo

master political analyst

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

Well-known member