Page 115 of 189 FirstFirst ... 1565105113114115116117125165 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,150 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1141
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States of America, not a ballot measure passed by a slim majority of California voters, nor any other ballot measure passed in any other state. The judge determined that the will of the voters in California violated the rights of a minority guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Those rights were equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the right to Due Process. The law is written, "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."

    Supreme Court precedent holds that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right...

    Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."

    Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

    Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

    The right of marriage is the right of two parties to choose a spouse, and with free and mutual consent, join together and form a household where they then consent to support each other and their dependents. If polygamists or any other "alternative lifestyles" wish to argue that the state has an interest in promoting marriage that includes more than two parties or other factors outside this definition, then let them. They must provide evidence to support that they can provide just as stable homes as heterosexual couples and same sex couples. It has been more than adequately demonstrated through evidence in this case that same sex couples are just as capable of providing a stable household and raising children as heterosexual couples. There is no evidence to support that polygamists, pedophiles, etc. are similarly capable.

    The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; by overturning Proposition 8, which sought to mandate gender roles and restrict same sex couples to a culturally inferior institution by excluding them from marriage and the cultural dignity, respect, and stature inherent in marriage. The state has no interest in excluding one group from a fundamental right without rational basis and so the judge was obligated to overturn it.

  2. #1142
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Then why can homosexual unions be defined as marriage? Everyone does have the right to marriage, but marriage is a union between a man and woman, not a union between two men or two women.
    And thus it is discriminatory based on gender by my argument, as a man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man, but a man can't marry a man and ditto for woman and woman. Gender discrimination is unconstitutional if it doesn't meet a rather high standard of necessity and proof, which it doesn't.

    Do you agree that the Constitution can be spun to mean what people want it to mean? Many believe it's unchanging law, and others believe it is a "living document." By the very same Constitution others have ruled that states do have the right to define marriage. Judges interpret the Constitution and make rulings based on that interpretation, but like with all interpretations, they can be wrong and subject to bias.
    I understand all this. However, I am speaking specifically of many of the conservatives on this thread who are simultaneoulsly calling this judge an "activist" while advocating for activist judging by ignoring that constitutionally as of now marriage is a constitutional right.

  3. #1143
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The problem is the courts have found that marriage is a constitutional right even if its not written into the constitution.
    The court found it was specifcally for race alone until this judge.

    Now, I have no problem with people not agreeing with this. I don't know if I fully agree with it.

    However, for all the conservatives that go on and on about "activist" judges...the CONSTITUTION is what gives the judges power to deem what is and isn't constitutional. The courst have found that marriage is a constitutional right. Until that's overturned, basing a court decision on their PERSONAL belief that marriage is not a constitutional right would be an ACTIVIST act.

    If those in favor of disallowing gay-marriage wish to push some court cases challenging the notion that marriage is not a constitutional right I fully support their ability to do so. But you can't complain about "activist" judges and then complain that judges aren't judging contrary to what constitutional currently is.
    Of course we can because there is NO basis in the Constutiion that deals with alternative lifestyles. None, zip, zero. Only a bastardization accomplishes that. This is why we have amendments but folks on the gay marriage side don't want to go that route because they don't have the votes which is the same reason they are trying to shoot down every proposition that the people pass because again, they don't have the votes. Now they want to use a judge to make law. That is exactly why it is called judicial activism.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  4. #1144
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The comparison between gay marriage and polygamy may be just a red herring, but you are missing a point. How people want to marry is not the government's business, whether it is gay marriage or polygamy. The concept that it has to be one man and one woman comes straight from religious teachings. Therefore, the government is violating the First Amendment, with respect to establishment of religion, should it attempt to regulate either gay marriage or polygamy.
    If it's none of the government's business, then why should they be allowed to define marriage at all or offer any legal benefits for it? What religion is established by defining marriage between one man and one woman? Many could say that the Bible support polygamy, so then what religion is being established? The first Amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion and making laws solely based on religion. However, it doesn't mean that people with religious beliefs have no right to vote according to their beliefs simply because they are based on religion. Sense the establishment of this country a church has met within the US Capitol until the Civil War. Many of the founding fathers attended service there, and no one found it to be a violation of church and state to have the nation's capitol house a church. This is because no religion was being established, and no laws were being made due to religion.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  5. #1145
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    How can you deny marriage to polygamists if you consider marriage to be a fundamental right?
    One more time, very slowly

    I....View....It...As...A...Constitutional....Right ...Not...A...Fundamental...One

  6. #1146
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    So Zyphlin, if I am reading you correctly, you don't believe marriage is a fundamental right? Only a constitutional right? Am I missing something?

    Oops, sorry posted at the same time. Ok so I was correct. I need to go smoke a cigarette, I'll be back.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  7. #1147
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,111

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Like I said, read the 14th amendment.
    i have. perhaps you could point out the section where it says oh by the way and you have to give marriage licenses to whomever wants them? or maybe you could point out some relevant debate from the time period that indicates that was the intent?

    the 14th amendment does not read "life has to be fair".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, if the majority is oppressing the minority, it is not up to the minority to "convince" the majority that their oppression is wrong. That's what we have courts for. And this court ruled in favor of gay marriage.


    1. oppressed? that's about as legitimate as the "they're forcing their lifestyle on us" argument having the state legitimize violence against you is oppression. not being able to force your fellow citizens to give you a liscence is not oppression.

    2. and we have courts to enforce the law, as written. not to read "changing standards" or subjective "well i think"'s into it.

  8. #1148
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As long as the government gives benefits to marriages it IS the governments business.

    However, its business has to be conducted in a constitutional way.
    I respectfully disagree. If the government can pick and choose which marriages to give benefits to, then it has violated the 14th Amendment, and therefore it's business is not being conducted in a constitutional way.
    Last edited by danarhea; 08-05-10 at 06:32 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  9. #1149
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,111

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    One more time, very slowly

    I....View....It...As...A...Constitutional....Right ...Not...A...Fundamental...One
    the question remains the same. what gives you the voter the right to impose your morality on marriage?

  10. #1150
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    The court found it was specifcally for race alone until this judge.
    Actually no, it simply found that it was a constitutional right alone.

    Up until now that constitutional right has only proved to be used to show why denying it against race is wrong.

    That doesn't mean it only is limited to race.

    This is like saying the 2nd amendment would be only limited to pistols and rifles because that's all the original cases concerning it were about and the only thing that was thought about at the time of its creation.

    Of course we can because there is NO basis in the Constutiion that deals with alternative lifestyles.
    Obviously you haven't got to my other posts yet. I'll wait, and then you can come back and see why I'm not making an argument with regards to alternative lifestyles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •