• 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!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
disneydude said:
I expect them to rule on the equal protection claim which is a much stronger argument in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It is a much stronger argument, but the SCOTUS will duck the issue, and they'll do it by only deciding on whether due process was met. Even in the US Constitution, due process is all that needs to be met. This really is the legal question. The equal protection matter, although surrounded in tests and measures, is ultimately a question left to the states. The SCOTUS must address whether CA met the burden of due process. It did, and it did it in the same way any federal court would.

Tim-
 
ptif219 said:
...it is about a state constitutional amendment
Click to expand...

A state's constitution could be amended under the process that is provided for such amendments, but the legal substance of the state's amendment cannot contradict the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Hence, a state could adopt an amendment that, let's say, reinstates a separate education system for African American students. Even if the amendment received overwhelming approval throughout the process that led to its adoption, commanded overwhelming public support among the state's residents, and the state's highest court could only uphold the discriminatory amendment (because it is bound to uphold the state's constitution), that amendment would not survive a federal legal challenge.

Such discrimination would run counter to the U.S. Constitution, e.g., as set forth in the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) precedent. Hence, even as such an amendment would have to survive all state challenges by virtue of its imposing a binding constitutional requirement on that state's courts, it would be struck down in the federal court system.

With respect to Proposition 8, which amended California's constitution, a similar dynamic is in play. The State's courts cannot overturn that law. However, same-sex couples are not without possible legal remedies. They have argued that the California law should be overturned, because it violates the U.S. Constitution. In yesterday's ruling, Judge Walker agreed. If, in fact, his opinion accurately reflects the requirements of the 14th Amendment, Proposition 8 and all similar efforts will also fail on grounds that they violate the U.S. Constitution.

In general, a state could adopt a greater range of "rights" than is called for in the U.S. Constitution without problem. However, if a state tries to impose greater restrictions than those permitted under the U.S. Constitution--even if allowable under its own constitution--the state would lose that legal challenge.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS:

State Constitutional Amendments MUST meet the test of the Federal Constitution. PERIOD.

Romer v. Evans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has been explained to you so many times that I begin to question your sincerity.

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

You can't amend your state's constitution in a way that is contradictory to the federal constitution.

It really isn't that hard. Dear God, almighty.
Click to expand...

Notice the state defended the amendment where is California doing that?
 
ptif219 said:
You need to back up what you claim
Click to expand...

We're not here to teach you basic civics.

Call your high school and ask the U.S. History teacher or Government teacher to bring you up to speed and the differences between state and federal courts.
 
disneydude said:
Seriously Dude....if you want to participate in the debate, please come prepared. It is not our duty to make sure you are educated so that you can play along. Spend 5 minutes and then come back.
Click to expand...

So you are to lazy to back up your claims with facts?
 
Hicup said:
It is a much stronger argument, but the SCOTUS will duck the issue, and they'll do it by only deciding on whether due process was met. Even in the US Constitution, due process is all that needs to be met. This really is the legal question. The equal protection matter, although surrounded in tests and measures, is ultimately a question left to the states. The SCOTUS must address whether CA met the burden of due process. It did, and it did it in the same way any federal court would.

Tim-
Click to expand...

That is completely wrong. It is not sufficient that a state comply with due process. They have to meet all of the Constitutional protections, including equal protection.
 
there's a pattern going on here, huge, unmistakable and sharply revealing of meaning

and it's in the gut of most, and everyday more, americans

we're watching, we perceive

and what we see, again and again, is the elites among us, whether in washington or wearing a robe in CA or AZ, asserting their convictions that they few know so much better than all the millions of us

this elitism, this smug sanctimony and self congratulating, is becoming insufferable

from the lawsuit against the people of arizona to that mad attempt to move the trial of ksm to manhattan

from health care (72% in missouri) to THIS

on topic, on topic, hopefully still free to SPEAK openly

another CA judge yet again overruling the express wish of the people expressed via the powerfully progressive proposition movement (championed by the likes of fighting bob lafollette and CA's own progressive hiram johnson)

washington knows best

way too many americans, for leadership's good, are about to puke

this smugly self righteous imposition of thought is grotesquely manifest thruout this entire very revealing thread

philosophically speaking, it's a pig of a gig

which, as always, means---go for it!

express yourselves!

party on!
 
Hicup said:
It is a much stronger argument, but the SCOTUS will duck the issue, and they'll do it by only deciding on whether due process was met. Even in the US Constitution, due process is all that needs to be met. This really is the legal question. The equal protection matter, although surrounded in tests and measures, is ultimately a question left to the states. The SCOTUS must address whether CA met the burden of due process. It did, and it did it in the same way any federal court would.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it's going to be a little different with the marriage cases because, historically, due process has been addressed in conjunction with personal choice as in Sharp v Perez and Loving.

In both of those cases, the offended parties were shown to have had due process met under the current laws. However, the offense of their right to marry who they chose was central to both rulings. The opinion in Sharp v Perez was actually beautifully written and borders on poetic, if you ever get the chance to take a look.
 
jallman said:
In other words, you are arguing a topic you know nothing about...leaning on your emotional response to the icky gays to carry you through, dropping buzzwords and soundbytes with no knowledge of why they are important, and refusing to educate yourself on the matter at all.

That's called attention whoring. It also means I am done with it and I suggest everyone else do the same.
Click to expand...

No I want proof of your claims
 
ptif219 said:
So you are to lazy to back up your claims with facts?
Click to expand...

Dude, you are seriously making yourself look silly by trying to debate something that you are not educated on. The way this works - if you want to participate you have to come prepared. You cannot come into a debate and then tell everyone "Hey....I don't know anything that you are talking about, someone please educate me."

Come PREPARED next time you want to participate, otherwise, please don't come at all because you are not able to intelligently participate.
 
The Prof said:
there's a pattern going on here, huge, unmistakable and sharply revealing of meaning

and it's in the gut of most, and everyday more, americans

we're watching, we perceive

and what we see, again and again, is the elites among us, whether in washington or wearing a robe in CA or AZ, asserting their convictions that they few know so much better than all the millions of us

this elitism, this smug sanctimony and self congratulating, is becoming insufferable

from the lawsuit against the people of arizona to that mad attempt to move the trial of ksm to manhattan

from health care (72% in missouri) to THIS

on topic, on topic, hopefully still free to SPEAK openly

another CA judge yet again overruling the express wish of the people expressed via the powerfully progressive proposition movement (championed by the likes of fighting bob lafollette and CA's own progressive hiram johnson)

washington knows best

way too many americans, for leadership's good, are about to puke

this smugly self righteous imposition of thought is grotesquely manifest thruout this entire very revealing thread

philosophically speaking, it's a pig of a gig

which, as always, means---go for it!

express yourselves!

party on!
Click to expand...

So start a thread on Liberal Elitism and try to stay on topic if you are going to continue the discussion on this thread.
 
The Prof said:
another CA judge yet again overruling the express wish of the people expressed via the powerfully progressive proposition movement (championed by the likes of fighting bob lafollette and CA's own progressive hiram johnson)
Click to expand...

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." Are gays and lesbians considered persons and citizens of the United States of America? Then by the Constitution, they are entitled to equal protection of the law. The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; he did not overturn it.

Furthermore, the lawyer leading the charge for gay marriage was the conservative attorney who represented George W. Bush and the federal judge who overturned Prop 8 was appointed by Ronald Reagan and later by George Bush Senior. So tell us a bit more about this "liberal" elitism.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
If the state wishes to inact the law, then they better make sure it does meet those standards. The law was challenged at the federal level, and the ruling is that law did not meet federal (constitutional) standards. Federal courts are the ones who rule on conflicts with federal law, or the US constitution, not state courts.

The challenge was against the US Constitution, therefore it is decided by federal courts.
Click to expand...

So the state had no responsibility to meet federal standards. If they did it would be a state issue
 
hazlnut said:
DOMA is circling the drain and will probably get flushed soon after Prop 8.

20 years from now, people who were strongly against gay marriage and adoption will be portrayed in movies similar to Mississippi Burning.

I don't think every person against gay marriage/rights is a bigot, some are just old fashion and don't really know any gay people. Its a generational thing. Today, even young evangelicals are ready to move forward on this and allow gay couples to go to the same window at city hall that straight people do. You can still define your marriage any way you want.
Click to expand...

Nice rant!!!
 
Dr_Patrick said:
So start a thread on Liberal Elitism and try to stay on topic if you are going to continue the discussion on this thread.
Click to expand...

there is an easily, readily demonstrated case (see above) for seeing this thread as entirely about liberal elitism

hello

but only if one is free to make it
 
The Prof said:
there is an easily, readily demonstrated case (see above) for seeing this thread as entirely about liberal elitism

hello
Click to expand...

This thread is about the California gay marriage ban being overturned. Just because you perceive liberal elitism from various posters doesn't mean it has anything to do with the topic. Like I said, start a thread on liberal elitism if you want to discuss it.
 
marduc said:
The state should have got it right before it was challenged then, but it was challenged.. at the FEDERAL level.
Click to expand...

Thats correct the states rights are being abused by the feds
 
ptif219 said:
Thats correct the states rights are being abused by the feds
Click to expand...

No, a minority groups' personal liberties are being protected by the feds. Learn the topic before you speak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom