• 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

Mr.Nick said:
Are you familiar with the Tenth Amendment, Prop 8, propositions in general and direct democracy?

The Supreme Court even hearing this case is unconstitutional in the first place because it violates the Tenth Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage or even marriage, however the Tenth Amendment is quite clear.
Click to expand...

Well then you go right ahead and tell the SCOTUS that, I'm sure they will take your rant into consideration :lamo
 
Deuce said:
Yes it can if the provisions conflict with each other. Also, state constitutions cannot conflict with the US Constituton.
Click to expand...

And there is NOTHING in the Constitution that defines marriage...

The best the gay rights activists can come up with is the Equal Protection Clause - and that clause is extremely vague - that clause could be used to justify just about anything.
 
Deuce said:
Still a violation of the us constitution.
Click to expand...

Only if the court rules your way. Though I suppose they could duck the issue and kick the can down the road a piece, a lot of watchers think it's going that way.
 
Following oral arguments the SCOTUS Blog's comment was that they didn't have 5 votes on the court that wanted to uphold SSM, and Kennedy wanted to dismiss the case by ruling that SSM supporters didn't have standing to file the case. If the court went that way then Prop 8 would stand, and they felt that was a likely outcome. But YMMV.

What will the Court do with Proposition 8? Today’s oral argument in Plain English : SCOTUSblog

Having said that, people have forgotten how silly the whole idea of SSM is.

The idea that SSM is somehow a civil rights issue is a distortion of the concept of civil rights. And silly. What's next? Are they going to claim a civil right to have sex with dogs? What is there to keep them from doing that in today's America?

The idea that SSM is about freedom is a corruption of the concept of freedom. And silly. What's next? The "freedom" to marry prepubescent children? The "freedom" to be married to 9 wives at the same time? What is there to keep them from doing those things in today's America?

The United States is becoming increasingly degenerate. People confuse freedom with libertinism and confuse civil rights with a right to fulfill all perverted and twisted desires. Increasingly people have criticized and undermined all the worthy traditions and values that were formerly celebrated and upheld. People should read the Marquis de Sade to see where that's likely to go.
 
clownboy said:
Those conflicts are determined to exist or not exist by the SCOTUS. The state's highest court had already decided the amendment was a legitimate part of the state's constitution. From that point forward the state has a duty to defend their constitution against any court challenge.
Click to expand...

They think otherwise, and no court has ruled they must do so. Which is all irrelevant at this point.
 
Deuce said:
Which does not invalidate my point that prior to prop 8, same sex couples could legally marry in CA and were in fact doing so.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does.

Prior to prop 8 same sex couples were allowed to marry in California for a period of about 2 years. Prop 22 was the law of the California starting in 2000 until the California State Supreme Court overturned it in 2008. This ruling declared that same sex couples had the right to marry and thus nullified prop 22. The right for same sex couples in California existed for a period of about two years and was essentially based on a technicality.
 
TheNextEra said:
Well then you go right ahead and tell the SCOTUS that, I'm sure they will take your rant into consideration :lamo
Click to expand...

I'm not ranting....

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Show me where marriage is in the Constitution....

I'll be back in 20 minutes to hear *crickets*
 
I don't see how equal protection can be argued. If its used, then all rules/regulations around marriage must be dissolved as well.
 
LowDown said:
Following oral arguments the SCOTUS Blog's comment was that they didn't have 5 votes on the court that wanted to uphold SSM, and Kennedy wanted to dismiss the case by ruling that SSM supporters didn't have standing to file the case. If the court went that way then Prop 8 would stand, and they felt that was a likely outcome. But YMMV.

What will the Court do with Proposition 8? Today’s oral argument in Plain English : SCOTUSblog

Having said that, people have forgotten how silly the whole idea of SSM is.

The idea that SSM is somehow a civil rights issue is a distortion of the concept of civil rights. And silly. What's next? Are they going to claim a civil right to have sex with dogs? What is there to keep them from doing that in today's America?

The idea that SSM is about freedom is a corruption of the concept of freedom. And silly. What's next? The "freedom" to marry prepubescent children? The "freedom" to be married to 9 wives at the same time? What is there to keep them from doing those things in today's America?

The United States is becoming increasingly degenerate. People confuse freedom with libertinism and confuse civil rights with a right to fulfill all perverted and twisted desires. Increasingly people have criticized and undermined all the worthy traditions and values that were formerly celebrated and upheld. People should read the Marquis de Sade to see where that's likely to go.
Click to expand...

Other way around actually. They might rule that SSM opponents had no standing to file the SCOTUS case. This would leave the existing ruling in place - overturn of prop 8.

And yes. They seem reluctant to set a nationwide precedent either way.

And that's not even bothering with your slippery slope bestiality bull****. Animals can't sign legal contracts.
 
Deuce said:
Other way around actually. They might rule that SSM opponents had no standing to file the SCOTUS case. This would leave the existing ruling in place - overturn of prop 8.

And yes. They seem reluctant to set a nationwide precedent either way.
Click to expand...

You are correct. That course of action by SCOTUS would not set a binding precedent, and would allow states to continue to write their own rules.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Yes, it does.

Prior to prop 8 same sex couples were allowed to marry in California for a period of about 2 years. Prop 22 was the law of the California starting in 2000 until the California State Supreme Court overturned it in 2008. This ruling declared that same sex couples had the right to marry and thus nullified prop 22. The right for same sex couples in California existed for a period of about two years and was essentially based on a technicality.
Click to expand...

My point was that the right existed and you just agreed that it did.
 
LowDown said:
Following oral arguments the SCOTUS Blog's comment was that they didn't have 5 votes on the court that wanted to uphold SSM, and Kennedy wanted to dismiss the case by ruling that SSM supporters didn't have standing to file the case. If the court went that way then Prop 8 would stand, and they felt that was a likely outcome. But YMMV.

What will the Court do with Proposition 8? Today’s oral argument in Plain English : SCOTUSblog
Click to expand...

Dammit, some one beat me to it with the link. SCOTUSBlog, always excellent reading.
Having said that, people have forgotten how silly the whole idea of SSM is.

The idea that SSM is somehow a civil rights issue is a distortion of the concept of civil rights. And silly. What's next? Are they going to claim a civil right to have sex with dogs? What is there to keep them from doing that in today's America?
Click to expand...

Slippery slope arguments are inherently weak.
The idea that SSM is about freedom is a corruption of the concept of freedom. And silly. What's next? The "freedom" to marry prepubescent children? The "freedom" to be married to 9 wives at the same time? What is there to keep them from doing those things in today's America?
Click to expand...

Do you have any clue what a victim is? It's something that SSM does not have. False comparisons are false.

The United States is becoming increasingly degenerate. People confuse freedom with libertinism and confuse civil rights with a right to fulfill all perverted and twisted desires. Increasingly people have criticized and undermined all the worthy traditions and values that were formerly celebrated and upheld. People should read the Marquis de Sade to see where that's likely to go.
Click to expand...

Your opinions on gays is irrelevant.
 
Deuce said:
Other way around actually. They might rule that SSM opponents had no standing to file the SCOTUS case. This would leave the existing ruling in place - overturn of prop 8.

And yes. They seem reluctant to set a nationwide precedent either way.

And that's not even bothering with your slippery slope bestiality bull****. Animals can't sign legal contracts.
Click to expand...

And yet folks still leave millions to their pets every year.

I agree, from the talk floating around it looks like the court will do it's best to NOT decide the issue definitively. However, just a procedural note: I don't believe federal courts other than the SCOTUS itself should be able to decide upon the constitutionality of STATE constitutions. Once the state's highest courts have verified on state constitutions the only court available for appeal on federal constitutionality should be the SCOTUS.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Are you familiar with the Tenth Amendment, Prop 8, propositions in general and direct democracy?

The Supreme Court even hearing this case is unconstitutional in the first place because it violates the Tenth Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage or even marriage, however the Tenth Amendment is quite clear.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the court system or the Constitution if you think its unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to hear a case on constitutional grounds, that's its very purpose. Then again you don't understand how time zones work either so I guess law is way beyond your reach.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suspect your speculation is correct.
 
Deuce said:
My point was that the right existed and you just agreed that it did.
Click to expand...
I guess it's all in the packaging.

You want to present this as gays being stripped of the right to marry. I'm just pointing out that their right to marry only existed for a brief time because of a highly contested and controversial court decision. None of it really matters, though. Gay marriage will be the law of the land in less than 10 years. Not real difficult to gauge which way the wind is blowing on this one...
 
It seems rather straight forward to me. The state issues the marriage license, so they get to set the rules on what it takes to get one issued.
 
Would anyone want to allow a girl scout troop out into the woods with a male
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I guess it's all in the packaging.

You want to present this as gays being stripped of the right to marry. I'm just pointing out that their right to marry only existed for a brief time because of a highly contested and controversial court decision. None of it really matters, though. Gay marriage will be the law of the land in less than 10 years. Not real difficult to gauge which way the wind is blowing on this one...
Click to expand...

Looks can be deceiving. I heard the same thing in the 70s, 80s and 90s ("Gay marriage will be the law of the land in less than 10 years").
 
Samhain said:
It seems rather straight forward to me. The state issues the marriage license, so they get to set the rules on what it takes to get one issued.
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that. States can't arbitrarily make discriminations on the basis of gender, they need to show a reason.
 
Deuce said:
It's more complicated than that. States can't arbitrarily make discriminations on the basis of gender, they need to show a reason.
Click to expand...

Where is the gender discrimination?
 
longknife said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's always been that way So, nothing new here and not really anything wrong with it, since it's still anyone's ballgame.

While I'm pro-gay marriage, I find it hillarious how Libbos are always screaming about how majority rules, until things don't go their way.
 
Samhain said:
Where is the gender discrimination?
Click to expand...

I cannot enter a particular legal contract with a male because I am a male. Sexuality is mentioned nowhere in prop 8, probably because marriage isn't sex. (Ask any married man)
 
Besides using Religion is there another reason why gays cant marry ( divorce rate is high you may be actually breaking them up anyway )
 
Deuce said:
It's more complicated than that. States can't arbitrarily make discriminations on the basis of gender, they need to show a reason.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, if that were the issue here. As long as men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women the court's gender protection rules don't come into play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom