• 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.
What "equal protection"? What due process? Should we as a society protect everything?

The rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution are what need to be protected. Those include equal protection under the law and due process.

Look, Constitution or not.. When the clear will of the people is so blatantly disregarded, you have trouble on your hands. Like it or not, the vote is important! When a single person so willfully denies the vote, without a compelling enough argument, as to why, you have the potential for trouble.

Like it or not, the US Constitution is the will of the people. The people can vote to amend it. If the people vote for a federal amendment to the US constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman, then you can argue that the will of the people is traditional marriage. Amendments to state constitutions are not the will of the people, they are the will of majorities in those respective states. The will of the people is the US constitution, which via the courts can overturn any state amendment if it is in violation of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Most people don't understand the law, but there was nothing, inandofitself that this law nullified. I think it not hard to present an argument against the idea that homosexuality is immutable, and or innate. One of the two qualifiers previous, is required to prove a class of people.

I too am interested in whether gays and lesbians will constitute a class of people under the federal law. It is clear from a scientific standpoint that homosexuality is not something that is chosen, nor something that is entirely learned. There are biological components to it that are outside an individual's control, but not so much that a person's sexuality isn't influenced by other factors like environment. And of course choice is a major factor in dictating sexual behavior, if not sexual attractions and feelings. Whatever the case may be, the complexity of sexual orientation will provide a great deal of difficulty for both sides if they are compelled to argue whether or not gays and lesbians are entitled to be classified as a class of people.

However, the arguments I am looking forward to are why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry. I have yet to hear a rational one.
 
Wine is much better with cheese.
 
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court sees this case. Will it be based on equal protection? Will it be based on nullification of voters? I can see strengths and weaknesses of both sides of this argument. Ultimately, the Supreme Court should be looking at this case from two points: 1) Does the Constitution allow the majority to suppress the minority, and 2) Do the benefits of gay marriage overrule the negatives. As to the first point, it is irrelevant as to whether or not homosexuality is biological or environmental. The question is, a minority group, wants benefits that are offered to a majority group. Can that majority group prevent that? Now, when discussing this question, there are a few points that are irrelevant:

1) Homosexuals marrying those of the opposite sex is an irrelevant point. One must ask why heteros marry. Compatibility, love, raising children. These would be the points to examine. Gays do NOT want to marry someone of the opposite sex for these reasons, therefore presenting this as an issue does not apply.
2) Procreation. Gays can procreate, as long as the "parts" work... same as straights. Since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, this point, too, does not apply.
3) The rights of the minority. The Constitution does give rights to everyone... not just those in the majority. I do not adhere to the "discrimination" argument, but I could see it being used in this case. Truthfully, I see it as less as there is a strong argument FOR it, and more that there is NOT a strong argument AGAINST it. This is why, based on discrimination alone, the GM debate is a stalemate. Which leads us to the 2nd part.

Do the benefits of GM overrule the negatives:
1) Does it affect the state of straight marriages? Not at all... or at least on in how certain people may feel offended by GM. No one has the right to not be offended, so those feelings are irrelevant.
2) How does marriage benefit society/the government, and does GM yield those same benefits? This is where the strength of the GM arguments lays. Government has a vested interest in supporting marriage because of it's positive affect on the health of the individual, the health of communities, society, and the positive rearing of children. Studies indicate that GM yields the exact same results as straight marriage in all of these areas.
3) Will GM lead to other "alternative" marriages, such as polygamy? No, simply because these types of unions do not reap the same benefits to society.

In order for SCOTUS to properly attend to this issue, both Constitutional and societal issues must be looked at and addressed. If so, with the points above, I believe that SCOTUS will rule in favor of GM. However, if SCOTUS looks solely at whether or not a voter referendum can be overturned, and does not consider the above points, I would imagine that SCOTUS will rule against GM. IMO, this was not the correct way to go in presenting GM to SCOTUS. Nullifying a vote by the people is reasonable if the referendum violated the Constitution, however, in this case, interpretation of the Constitution can be a bit murky. That's why I never argue the discrimination position. I think it is too early to tell whether or not this will be a winner or not.
 
Ok smart guy, how many other "groups" can fit this bill? Society, whether guided by laws or not, ultimately tolerate, or they do not. Notwithstanding this gay mariage issue, how does it look when a single judge overrules 7 million California votes?

Sheesh..


Tim-

Tim:

7 million voters are not capable of reviewing the amendment to CA constitution and its potential violation of the U.S. constitution. That's all the judge did. HIS JOB.

The Judge did not overturn their votes. The CA supreme court upheld their votes. Their votes were legal and the CA constitution was amended accordingly. But at the first test of the amended CA constitution, it was found to be in violation 14th Amendment.

We live in a republic not a direct democracy -- that's one problem with CA's very broad ballot initiative system -- it gives the people the impression they can decide anything... They can't. The majority of the people lack the legal background or understanding of the complexities of economics and public policy to make the big decisions; that's why we elect representatives to do that for us who are (hopefully) capable of making decisions that represent our best interests.
 
One unelected judge can overturn the will of the people. A flaw in our system? I think so.

Here is the way I look at it. The will of the people was essential in creating the US Constitution, the california constitution, and other such documents. However, laws also have to be internally consistent (to a degree) with one another and in respect to their heirarchy (constitution trumps other laws for example). But given that it is in conflict with other laws that were created by the will of the people, whether through election or other means of expressions of that will, than either the will of the people was preserved or not preserved, depending on how you look at it.

However, if you go with the idea of it not being preserved, than there are cases all over the place where the will of the people are not preserved whenever any law is struck down.

So I guess you can argue either way and still be correct.
 
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-

A "bigot" is someone who believes that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privileges while believing tha others are not entitled to those same rights and privileges.

I think its pretty clear who the Bigots are in this battle.
 
A "bigot" is someone who believes that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privileges while believing tha others are not entitled to those same rights and privileges.

I think its pretty clear who the Bigots are in this battle.

Sorry I wasn't going to go through 50 pages of arguing ridiculous points, flaming, mod warnings etc. before posting. So while, this may or may not have been said already. Why should the government have ANYTHING to do with marriage gay or straight?

I personally don't want the government to have anything to do with my marriage in a few years. The government does nothing but screw everything up.

That said, if straight are able to marry, then gays should be to.
 
A question for everyone in here....

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?

For the conservatives ---> Conservatives generally pointed towards judges in the past making a ruling on the constitutionality of this as being "proof" that their position is right constitutionally. However, if you're basing the argument off a judges decision then how is this one different in its legitimacy. The statement "he's gay, he's biased" is no more reasonable than "the other judges were straight, and biased". Indeed, on what ground or basis do conservatives by and large deny their hypocrisy of going "see, see, a judge said it was constitutional so it is" to turn around and say "It doesn't matter what a judge says".

Would it not be more appropriate, more apt, and less hypocritical on both sides to simply state that this result simply means its a step closer to the Surpreme Court and actually being decided rather than attempting every time one of these come out to say "SEE! This proves it! MY side is RIGHT because a JUDGE said so."?

This judges ruling is no more important nationally or constitutionally than any of the judges before him, and theirs no more important than his. This proves nothing other than that THIS particular judge feels its unconstitutional. All this does, along with the others, is provide the possability of this making it to the Surpeme Court.

As to the ruling, I'm unsure of my feelings in regards to due process though agree with it under equal protection but for reasons outside of what the gay movement pushes.

With that said, I don't think this will help anyone and I think it getting pushed to the Supreme Court is going to continue this schism in the country and cause the isue to not die down anytime in the near future. I think this is the shoe horned approach, primarily because both sides have reached a point where they've entrenched themself so much that reasonable, rational, discussion and attempts at compromise in an intelligent way is almost beyond possible.
 
A "bigot" is someone who believes that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privileges while believing tha others are not entitled to those same rights and privileges.

I think its pretty clear who the Bigots are in this battle.

Yep.

Those that think married people deserve those rights and privileges not available to single individuals.
 
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.

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.

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)
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
So? Be in the majority all you want. The majority cannot vote away equal protection of minority groups. :shrug:

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?
 
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.
 
Scarecrow -
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Due process was served, first when the ballot measure was approved, and secondly when the SCOCA held the vote constitutional. Next argument please?

Tim-
 
I would never put Jall in with the right-wingnuts.

I dunno. He has his moments. Gotta love Jallman though. He is one of my favorites here (even if we do get sideways from time to time.)

Anyways, glad to see him on the right side of the fence just the same.
 
Scarecrow -

Due process was served, first when the ballot measure was approved, and secondly when the SCOCA held the vote constitutional. Next argument please?

Tim-

Due process was served yesterday when Prop 8 was overturned by a federal judge. Now it will be in the hands of the SCOTUS where same sex marriage will be made legal across the US. The marriage bigot pinheads that thought they were winning when they voted on Prop 8 will be the ones that created the case to make same sex marriage legal in every state. I love this.
 
Scarecrow -

Due process was served, first when the ballot measure was approved, and secondly when the SCOCA held the vote constitutional. Next argument please?

Tim-

The California Supreme Court held the vote "Constitutional" on state Constitutional grounds because prop 8 itself amended the California Constitution.
The issue is whether the law violates that United States Constitution, which it clearly does. All you have to do is look at the incredibly weak case that the proponents of the law put up to understand that they really don't have much of an argument. Even very conservative legal scholars have said that it will be very difficult to make a case for the restriction.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom