Page 57 of 189 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967107157 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #561
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Those that equate homosexuality with that of gender, and slavery are so off base, it make my stomach boil. There is no evidence of that at all.
    Same sex marriage is all about gender.

    The fact is that the ballot initiative was approved as "CONSTITUTIONALY" valid. Hence the constitution was made crystal clear. It is not unconstitutional to define marriage between one man, ,and one woman.
    It is unconstitutional to give a man a right a woman does not have and vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Irrelevant.. Color and homosexuality have nothing in common! I am not "predisposed" to being black, or white...
    But you are predisposed to being male or female.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    The founders never made it an issue because it was unforseeable to allow gay marriage. How could they have known that gays would want to be married? How can 4% (at best) of the population affect society? Why should it? It's the "why should it" that has a test. That of immutablity, and innateness. Prove that, and you have a case, don't, and you have no leg to stand on.
    It's 100% of society since 100% of us are male or female. (and the issue is SAME SEX marriage)

  2. #562
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    One unelected judge can overturn the will of the people. A flaw in our system? I think so.
    Please contact your High School and have them fire the Civics teacher immediately.

    Thank you.

    Also--just so you know--One Judge did his job. It's a process, an important one to make sure state laws and state constitutions don't violate the U.S. constitution. The amended CA constitution is currently in violation of the 14th Amendment. That's all.

  3. #563
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Please contact your High School and have them fire the Civics teacher immediately.

    Thank you.

    Also--just so you know--One Judge did his job. It's a process, an important one to make sure state laws and state constitutions don't violate the U.S. constitution. The amended CA constitution is currently in violation of the 14th Amendment. That's all.
    It could also be argued that prop 8 is in conflict with in CAs very own Constitution:

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


    SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
    property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
    laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this
    Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public
    entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which
    exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
    Amendment

  4. #564
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    The very same that says you can't smoke dope.. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    Those that equate homosexuality with that of gender, and slavery are so off base, it make my stomach boil. There is no evidence of that at all.

    The deviants have won this battle from a queer judge... Go figure?

    The fact is that the ballot initiative was approved as "CONSTITUTIONALY" valid. Hence the constitution was made crystal clear. It is not unconstitutional to define marriage between one man, ,and one woman. This judge is a queer fella that voted what one would expect a queer fellla to vote.


    It ain't over!

    By the way, those claiming that bigots lost, are themselves bigots. Or, they clearly do not know what a bigot, is!


    Tim-
    Tim,

    Become an adult.

    You just called an entire class of people "deviants" and then claim not to be a bigot?

    If the Founding Fathers were so worried about gays getting married, you know what they would have done? They would've written it into the Constitution. They didn't address marriage at all. That's how important they thought marriage was. They left it alone (mostly because they also didn't think much of women's rights, so...)

    And there is also nothing in the Constitution that says you can't smoke dope.

    Clearly, someone needs to sit down and read our foundational documents again because someone has no idea what they say.

  5. #565
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post

    For the liberals ---> Why have some of you, or in general many liberals, decried the rulings of judges in other states as wrong, unconstitutional, and erronious when they've ruled that such things ARE constitutional. Why did liberals by and large degrade such rulings, while simultaneously continually pointing to this going "See, see, a judge said so!" as some kind of proof that it is constitutional and that people should automatically accept it. More precisely, why do you think people should be held to a standard that liberals have not been holding to time, and time, and time again?
    As a Liberal...I am going to throw my hat into your question. I am not familiar with any court that has ruled that such bans ARE Constitutional. There may be some out there, but I am not aware of them, so I personally haven't commented on them.

    The California Supreme Court was asked to address prop 8 right after the election and held that since it was a Constitutional Amendment they declined to overturn the law. While I disagree personally with Prop 8, I think the California State Court made the right decision in that case because there really wasn't anything that they could do.

    The only Court decision that I can remember taking issue with was the fairly recent USSC decision declaring Corporations as "persons", which in my opinion was a highly flawed stretch by the Roberts court to grant Corporations additional powers not given to them under the Constitution. But for the most part, I respect the vast majority of the Court decisions.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #566
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    A popular line of argument already being made against the ruling is that the legal outcome is “temporary.” Mention has been made about the outcomes of numerous referenda on the subject and that additional referenda are likely. In other words, the “will of the voters” will ultimately prevail. Not mentioned, of course, is the steady trend in public sentiment in which opposition to same-sex marriage has been steadily declining. In fact, a recent poll in California showed that 51% of those surveyed now favor same-sex marriage. Moreover, multiple polls show that younger persons have been persistently more favorably disposed toward same-sex marriage than older respondents and that disparity in opinion has not materially eroded as cohorts have aged. The persistently stronger support among younger persons suggests that the ongoing trend is not a temporary phenomenon.

    But in the context of law, the U.S. Constitution, not public sentiment, which can fluctuate, is the supreme law of the land. The 14th Amendment states, in part, “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 that amendment was adopted with the purpose of bringing equality under the law to the freed slaves, the Supreme Court has applied the principle inherent in that amendment to a larger number of cases, particularly as they relate to rights under the law.

    For example, characterizing the customary interpretation of the “equal protection” clause, Justice William Brennan wrote:

    Under “traditional” equal protection analysis, a legislative classification must be sustained unless it is “patently arbitrary” and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy explained:

    One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” …Unheeded then, those words now are understood to state a commitment to the law's neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake. The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle…

    The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons…

    We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.


    In yesterday’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Judge Vaughn Walker concluded that the proponents of Proposition 8 failed to meet the standards of demonstrating a “rational basis” for their position and that their position served a “legitimate state interest.” Arguments concerning tradition, caution in implementing social change, promoting opposite-sex parenting, protecting the freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage, treating same-sex couples differently, and a blanket claim of “any other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the parties…” fell short of serving a legitimate state interest.

    Barring the discovery of credible evidence illustrates a legitimate state or public interest related to a restrictive marriage law that was overlooked by Judge Walker (and one would have to deal strictly with the arguments made in the case, which were weak e.g., adoption laws that have been upheld negate the parenting line of argument) or significant legal error by Judge Walker (which seems unlikely given customary interpretations of the 14th Amendment), my guess is that subsequent court decisions will uphold Judge Walker’s ruling.

    Ultimately, California and all other states will be required to afford same-sex couples the same opportunity they afford heterosexual couples and on identical terms. Hence, the “domestic partnership” option won’t be a viable legal alternative.

    Of course, states could simply exit the “marriage” business, but that outcome is remote given their long-established role in that area. On a separate matter, religious institutions will retain their First Amendment protection, hence they will not be impacted by the outcome.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 08-05-10 at 11:54 AM.

  7. #567
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

  8. #568
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,647

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    So? Be in the majority all you want. The majority cannot vote away equal protection of minority groups.
    GREAT to see you standing on the correct side of a topic.

    Just curious as to why you are breaking ranks with the wingnuts though?

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  9. #569
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Not really. Obama's personal view is that he does not believe that gay marriage should be allowed. However, he has made clear that this is his own personal view. He opposed Prop 8 and understands that he should not have the right to impose his beliefs on others.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #570
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    GREAT to see you standing on the correct side of a topic.

    Just curious as to why you are breaking ranks with the wingnuts though?
    As far as I've seen, jallman has pretty much always been on the side of gay marriage.

Posting Permissions

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