• 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!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
100,419
Reaction score
53,127
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's gay week at SCOTUS!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case - CBS News

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to issue a landmark ruling this year as it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage.

It could define same-sex marriage as a constitutionally-protected right, or it could uphold the ban, setting back the gay rights movement for years. The case, however, isn't as simple as deciding whether or not same-sex couples have a right to get married.

Today they are hearing arguments on Prop 8 in CA, which would ban SSM. Prop 8 was overturned but the appeal is waiting for a decision by SCOTUS. There's quite a bit of speculation that SCOTUS will wuss out on this one, ruling that prop 8 supporters have no legal standing to bring this case before SCOTUS. (The state of California refused to defend the amendment in court, so anti-SSM folks took up its defense) The effect of this would be the previous ruling stands, prop 8 is overturned and SSM is legal in CA. While disappointing for pro-SSM folks, it's not all bad, CA moves back to freedom on a permanent basis and an interesting precedent regarding standing of straight people in SSM cases is set.

Virtually nobody hearing the court discussion thinks prop 8 will be upheld. Tweeters indicate that SCOTUS seems much more wary of setting a broad precedent on the subject. P
Cowards. This isn't going away!

Tomorrow they take arguments on a constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. I think SCOTUS has fewer punt options there, as it's a federal law with challenges in multiple districts.
 
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
 
Hopefully we see the them overturn Prop 8. It's time for the United States to live up to its own democratic expectations. SSM should have been legal years ago.
 
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?

Prop 8 passed with barely over 50% of the vote, which is not uncommon, but it is not 70% of the vote. That's just a simple fact. Now onto my opinion, the courts should overturn prop 8 as the majority has no right to take away rights from the minority. Do you think when the SCOTUS declared segregation unconstitutional that they cared about what the majority of people wanted in the segregated South? Hell no, and good thing they didn't either. Rights are not something you should be able to take away with a simple majority.
 
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?

Are you seriously counting every non-voter in CA as supporting prop 8? :lamo (actually even then your number is way off)

Lets turn that around. Only 7 million out of the state's 38 voted to ban SSM. less than 20% of the states population voted to take away rights from people and you think that's sufficient grounds!?

Your opinion is even more humble than you thought, because your numbers are complete horse****.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully we see the them overturn Prop 8. It's time for the United States to live up to its own democratic expectations. SSM should have been legal years ago.

That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.
 
That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.

By no stretch of imagination is 52% "overwhelming" and since when is it ok for us to vote to take away rights?
 
Add to that Prop 8 was a successful state constitution amendment. The state had a duty to defend the will of the people, and it did not. The appeal should have never been successful. But now it's in the hands of SCOTUS they should issue a clear decision either way.
 
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?

Yeah so if the majority in the state want slavery, we should allow that too because we don't want to overturn the will of the majority right?
 
Add to that Prop 8 was a successful state constitution amendment. The state had a duty to defend the will of the people, and it did not. The appeal should have never been successful. But now it's in the hands of SCOTUS they should issue a clear decision either way.

The state has no duty to defend something they perceive as unconstitutional. Or do you think it's the duty of every state to defend every gun control law, health care reform, etc?
 
That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.

52.24% voted in favour of Prop 8, hardly overwhelming. Factoring in the 79.42% turnout of the 17,304,428 person electorate, which itself is 46.55% of the population that was 37,172,015 two year before; 19.31% of California's population voted in favour of Prop 8. Not at all overwhelming, and not the will of the majority.
 
It's gay week at SCOTUS!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case - CBS News



Today they are hearing arguments on Prop 8 in CA, which would ban SSM. Prop 8 was overturned but the appeal is waiting for a decision by SCOTUS. There's quite a bit of speculation that SCOTUS will wuss out on this one, ruling that prop 8 supporters have no legal standing to bring this case before SCOTUS. (The state of California refused to defend the amendment in court, so anti-SSM folks took up its defense) The effect of this would be the previous ruling stands, prop 8 is overturned and SSM is legal in CA. While disappointing for pro-SSM folks, it's not all bad, CA moves back to freedom on a permanent basis and an interesting precedent regarding standing of straight people in SSM cases is set.

Virtually nobody hearing the court discussion thinks prop 8 will be upheld. Tweeters indicate that SCOTUS seems much more wary of setting a broad precedent on the subject. P
Cowards. This isn't going away!

Tomorrow they take arguments on a constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. I think SCOTUS has fewer punt options there, as it's a federal law with challenges in multiple districts.

The SCOTUS shouldn't even be hearing this case.. This was a direct democratically passed state piece of law...

Does the Tenth Amendment mean nothing these days?

If the damn thing was illegal in the first place then how the hell did it make it onto the ballot?

That's a good question isn't it?

Oh yeah, progressives didn't like the outcome so all of a sudden the laws and policies of this nation don't count - the same laws they love when it comes to regulation or taxation - that **** is the law of the land then.
 
By no stretch of imagination is 52% "overwhelming" and since when is it ok for us to vote to take away rights?

First, not a right and nothing was "taken" away. Second, for California, a state famous for it's "blueness" and home to traditionally the most vocal gay community, 52% voting to ban gay marriage at the constitutional level is indeed overwhelming.
 
The state has no duty to defend something they perceive as unconstitutional. Or do you think it's the duty of every state to defend every gun control law, health care reform, etc?

Wrong on all counts. The state has a duty to protect the STATE constitution. Prop 8 was enacted by the people as part of, IS a part of, the state constitution.
 
First, not a right and nothing was "taken" away. Second, for California, a state famous for it's "blueness" and home to traditionally the most vocal gay community, 52% voting to ban gay marriage at the constitutional level is indeed overwhelming.

SSM was legal in CA. Prop 8 would take away the right to marry for same-sex couples. You can claim it's not a right, but in CA it was before prop 8s passing.
 
That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.

I wouldn't say overwhelmingly, but it was a sizable victory.

Though the might I add in a quote that one of our founding fathers made

“That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world” - John Adams 2nd President of the United States of America.
 
The SCOTUS shouldn't even be hearing this case.. This was a direct democratically passed state piece of law...

Does the Tenth Amendment mean nothing these days?

If the damn thing was illegal in the first place then how the hell did it make it onto the ballot?

That's a good question isn't it?

Oh yeah, progressives didn't like the outcome so all of a sudden the laws and policies of this nation don't count - the same laws they love when it comes to regulation or taxation - that **** is the law of the land then.

If you think Obamacare is unconstitutional, how did it pass in the first place?
 
52.24% voted in favour of Prop 8, hardly overwhelming. Factoring in the 79.42% turnout of the 17,304,428 person electorate, which itself is 46.55% of the population that was 37,172,015 two year before; 19.31% of California's population voted in favour of Prop 8. Not at all overwhelming, and not the will of the majority.

A 79% of the voting population turnout is pretty darn high for California. Sorry to burst your bubble, but when we talk about majority support in politics we're talking about the majority of VOTERS. Anything else and you're just padding the stats to make your side of the issue look better.
 
52.24% voted in favour of Prop 8, hardly overwhelming. Factoring in the 79.42% turnout of the 17,304,428 person electorate, which itself is 46.55% of the population that was 37,172,015 two year before; 19.31% of California's population voted in favour of Prop 8. Not at all overwhelming, and not the will of the majority.

Well then, because less than 50% of eligible voters participated in the 2012 General Election and Obama only won 51% of those, by your reasoning the election should be invalidated?
 
Wrong on all counts. The state has a duty to protect the STATE constitution. Prop 8 was enacted by the people as part of, IS a part of, the state constitution.

If the amendment conflicts with the existing constitution, that must be resolved.

It was challenged under the states due process clause and ruled unconstitutional because the state has no compelling interest to justify the ban. It was also determined that the proposition violated the equal protection clause.
 
If progressives are really this passionate about gay marriage than why don't they TRY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION instead of running to the Supreme Court?

Oh yeah they can't because defining marriage is impossible not to mention a slippery slope argument, or the so-called fallacies they refuse to recognize even exist. They can't do it because defining would be de facto discrimination.

Unbelievable...
 
SSM was legal in CA. Prop 8 would take away the right to marry for same-sex couples. You can claim it's not a right, but in CA it was before prop 8s passing.

Fair enough, but again, wasn't a right before either - it was a legislative act allowing the licensing of gay marriage. It had not reached the state constitution and right status just yet.
 
If you think Obamacare is unconstitutional, how did it pass in the first place?

Congress has passed many an unconstitutional law. It suppose3d to be why we have a SCOTUS, as referee when someone calls foul.
 
The SCOTUS shouldn't even be hearing this case.. This was a direct democratically passed state piece of law...

Does the Tenth Amendment mean nothing these days?

If the damn thing was illegal in the first place then how the hell did it make it onto the ballot?

That's a good question isn't it?

Oh yeah, progressives didn't like the outcome so all of a sudden the laws and policies of this nation don't count - the same laws they love when it comes to regulation or taxation - that **** is the law of the land then.

Excuse me Mr. "I can't believe you actually said whats in my signature,"

Democratically passed laws, whether done through the ballot box or in legislature, are not immune from the court's purview.

Laws are not "illegal" until a court declares it to be the case, which means that by default no illegal law ends up on the ballot, just as no Congress passes an unconstitutional law since its not until the SCOTUS overturns that law is it said to be unconstitutional.

Laws and policies are overturned all the time, sometimes for the better and sometimes not, you should read up on history if you think this is the first time a court may over turn a law, its not "all of a sudden" its been going on since the inception of the Constitution.
 
A 79% of the voting population turnout is pretty darn high for California. Sorry to burst your bubble, but when we talk about majority support in politics we're talking about the majority of VOTERS. Anything else and you're just padding the stats to make your side of the issue look better.

54% of the population wouldn't be eligiable for voting? The national average of people under 18 is 23.7%. That is large chunk of people who never bothered registering.
 
Back
Top Bottom