• 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!

Gay marriage case will go to Supreme Court: attorney

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Looks like the SCOTUS is going to weigh in on the issue of gay marriage. If they truly believe in the Constitution, they will let the state of California decide this issue on its own, instead of making a decision that will force all states one way or the other on the issue. IMHO, a proper decision by the Supremes would be "It's none of our business, so handle it".

Article is here.
 
I understand why they are doing this, but I tend to prefer that this is handled on a legislative level. Make/change what laws are needed to make it legal, don't depend on the judiciary to take care of it.
 
I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
The LGBT movement is going in the wrong direction. After the gay marriage issue is over, what next?:confused:
 
I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
The LGBT movement is going in the wrong direction. After the gay marriage issue is over, what next?:confused:

That and the military are the last two issues I see for gays, except complete social acceptance, which is probably a pipe dream. From a legislative point of view, those are the end game.
 
Although I don't support discriminating against Gay Marriage, I don't think the federal courts are the appropriate place to deal with the issue. Marriage is a state institution, and other than making sure marriages are accepted across state lines, the feds shouldn't be involved.

What really needs to happen is that the morons in the CA supreme courts need to reverse their absurdly stupid ruling that created this whole issue in the first place.
 
Looks like the SCOTUS is going to weigh in on the issue of gay marriage. If they truly believe in the Constitution, they will let the state of California decide this issue on its own, instead of making a decision that will force all states one way or the other on the issue. IMHO, a proper decision by the Supremes would be "It's none of our business, so handle it".

Article is here.

Ted Olsen is a great advocate and all, but he has absolutely no control whatsoever over whether the court decides to hear the case. The odds that they will take the case are very slim.
 
Ted Olsen is a great advocate and all, but he has absolutely no control whatsoever over whether the court decides to hear the case. The odds that they will take the case are very slim.

That, and even if they do hear the case, there is no guarantee they will decide the case based on the Constitution.

If there is any way they can resolve the case without ruling on Constitutional law, they will.
 
Ted Olsen is a great advocate and all, but he has absolutely no control whatsoever over whether the court decides to hear the case. The odds that they will take the case are very slim.
I, for one, will be intrigued to find out how Ted Olsen intends to navigate around this bit from Loving v Virginia:

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power....
 
That, and even if they do hear the case, there is no guarantee they will decide the case based on the Constitution.

If there is any way they can resolve the case without ruling on Constitutional law, they will.
I hope they have learned the lesson of Roe v Wade and not stitch together new rights not previously found within the Constitution.
 
What really needs to happen is that the morons in the CA supreme courts need to reverse their absurdly stupid ruling that created this whole issue in the first place.
The California Supreme Court upheld the right of Californians to amend their constitution.
 
I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
The LGBT movement is going in the wrong direction. After the gay marriage issue is over, what next?:confused:
There are 3 other types of marriages that are considered unacceptable. Marriage to animals, marriage to young children (from under 18 years old to 1 year old...or even younger.), and marriage to objects. That's what they will pursue. Either all at once, or one at a time.

Does that answer your question?
 
I always viewed marriage as a social construct outside the realm of government insofar as society informed the government what exactly it was - not exactly a evolving document, mind you, just a lateral change in definition.

Of course, it seems that such a view is antiquated at best these days.
 
There are 3 other types of marriages that are considered unacceptable. Marriage to animals, marriage to young children (from under 18 years old to 1 year old...or even younger.), and marriage to objects. That's what they will pursue. Either all at once, or one at a time.

Does that answer your question?

Because the gay commuinity is definately going to pursue those things. They are SO important to the gay movement :doh
 
I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
I don't see any great backlash against homosexuals as a result of the gay marriage debate.

I do think California's Proposition 8 was a reaction to using the judiciary to short-circuit what is and should remain a political and legislative debate. Nothing is quite so antithetical to democratic process as the arrogation of legislative prerogative to the judiciary.

The judiciary gets to say what the law is. It is for the legislatures to say what the law should be.
 
There are 3 other types of marriages that are considered unacceptable. Marriage to animals, marriage to young children (from under 18 years old to 1 year old...or even younger.), and marriage to objects. That's what they will pursue. Either all at once, or one at a time.

Does that answer your question?
Not only is that not an answer, it is not even accurate.

Where have you seen members of the LGBT community agitating for a lowering of the age of consent?

Where have you seen members of the LGBT community supporting bestiality?

As for marriage to objects....that is just absurd.
 
The California Supreme Court upheld the right of Californians to amend their constitution.

No they didn't. They decided that the bill wasn't actually an amendment.

California has a brain-dead system where any proposition is automatically added to the constitution, even with only a simple majority. However, if a proposition "fundamentally revises" already existing parts of the constitution it requires a 2/3 majority of the state legislature. The court decided that prop 8 didn't conflict with current constitution, despite the fact that passages like this are a part of it.

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.
 
There are 3 other types of marriages that are considered unacceptable. Marriage to animals, marriage to young children (from under 18 years old to 1 year old...or even younger.), and marriage to objects. That's what they will pursue. Either all at once, or one at a time.

Does that answer your question?

Say what? Why would the GLBT activists support or push any of those issues?
 
No they didn't. They decided that the bill wasn't actually an amendment.
From the California Supreme Court ruling:
we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision
California's constitutional mechanisms are unusual in that they differentiate between "revisions" and "amendments."

California has a brain-dead system where any proposition is automatically added to the constitution, even with only a simple majority. However, if a proposition "fundamentally revises" already existing parts of the constitution it requires a 2/3 majority of the state legislature. The court decided that prop 8 didn't conflict with current constitution, despite the fact that passages like this are a part of it.
While I agree that the California system of amendment by ballot initiative is unwise, your summation of the ruling is off:
In analyzing the constitutional challenges presently before us, we first explain that the provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, when considered in light of the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 (which preceded the adoption of Proposition 8), properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitioners in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
Whether Proposition 8 was wise or prudent legislation is irrelevant. What matters is that the language was in conformance to the requirements of the California Constitution and to its established amendment processes.

The language of the California Supreme Court ruling raises the bar even higher for Olsen to win certiorari for the case. In order for the case to be justiciable before the US Supreme Court, the Court must not only interpret the text of Proposition 8, but also the constitutional language pertaining to revisions and amendments. The US Supreme Court cannot overturn Proposition 8 without overruling the California Supreme Court on a matter pertaining to the California Constitution.

Frankly, I suspect the court will opt not to grant certiorari on this case. The constitutional questions pertaining to the US Constitution just aren't there with sufficient clarity to warrant Supreme Court review.
 
I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
I am curious: what legal argument would you make against same sex marriage?
 
I don't believe that Prop 8 gave any additional benefits, it seemed to spread them evenly across the population.

Prop 8 took away benefits from gays, thereby making it a privilege given only to a certain group of people and triggering the clause.
 
Prop 8 took away benefits from gays, thereby making it a privilege given only to a certain group of people and triggering the clause.

Loving v Virginia:
While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power....
Even if your interpretation of Proposition 8 is correct (I believe your interpretation is incorrect), it is within the state's prerogative to modify the marital right in this fashion.

Precedent is not on the side of the gay marriage advocates in this.
 
A ruling from the Supreme Court on this issue will probably have one of 3 effects...

1. Giving gays the right to marriage, which will be challenged in the next few years by a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
2. Be completely dismissed. (Which may be the best option.)
3. Will deny gays the right to marriage by defining marriage as between a man and woman, thus setting the gay movement back 10-20 years.
 
My personal belief is that marriage should be a religious ceremony. And the government would give out civil unions only to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Then the government is giving equal opportunity to both. Current civil unions do not do enough and so they would be updated to be what a civil/ legal marriage currently is.
 
Back
Top Bottom