- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
It should go to state court first to let the state address it and explain it
It did go to a state court first.
It should go to state court first to let the state address it and explain it
We do choose things every day on what MIGHT happen in the future. However we do not base immediete actions on SOLELY what may happen in the future without any thought about the present.
I know I need to eat food. Now, there's a possability that when I go and make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich that the nuts MIGHT be affected by some kind of bacterial infrection that could cause me severe illness, or the shrimp I have in the fridge may've been in there too long and spoiled and MIGHT also cause me harm. However, that does not necessarily mean I simply should not eat because these are possabilities that MIGHT happen.
Let us take something from recent times, the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act provided a much needed upgrade to our intelligence laws, but it also expanded the power of the government. Lets assume however that you felt such a thing was "needed" and "correct".
Lets say however you also agreed with the notion others had that by giving the government more power than inevitably that could be used to give them more power and after that inevitably for a President to declare a state of emergency and become essentially a king.
Does that mean you should not support the Patriot Act, which you strongly and principely felt was a needed and good measure, simply because of something that MIGHT happen in the future if people acted wrongly and twisted it to proportions that it doesn't actually allow?
Not in the least.
That is similar to here.
Many of us feel that marriage between two individuals regardless of sex is correct, right, and constitutional. As such, we support that.
However, the fact that the standard for Equal Protection could maybe somehow possibly be manipulated and wrongly used for abortion doesn't mean I should not support it. It means that if someone tries that I should fight against it.
You should not NOT do something that you firmly believing is right simply because there's some kind of change that someone at some point will try to do something that is not right by manipulating that which you agreed with.
If that is the case, we should never do anything, at any time, because there is ALWAYS a way to create a doomsday scenario where taking any action could cause a bad reaction.
Bull it is the feds not letting the state govern its people
It did the first time. You should follow an issue closely if you want to debate it.
You're not kidding. Its actually why this entire thing disappoints me that its even at the court level.
I personally wish both sides would back down and attempt to have some reasonable, honest, discussion.
I maintain that by far, the best way to address the majority of concerns of both sides is to eliminate the word "marriage" from law and the government entirely, completely striking it from the strange duality it serves now as existing in two different spheres both religious and governmental.
This would retain the "sanctity" or "marriage" as at that point only individual churches could actually "marry" someone under the auspices of their church and no one could claim that the government is somehow demeaning their "marriage" by allowing people they don't think should enter into it to be technically "married" because the term would be out of the governments hands entirely.
Meanwhile pro-gay marriage advocates should be happy because the government now has only one term, civil union, that applies to any two legal aged individuals that wish to enter into said contract. There is no "seperate but equal" status, there is but one.
This retains the "sanctity" of marriage while maintaining the "equality" of government.
Then why was prop 8 allowed on the ballot?
It did go to a state court first.
Exactly. States should issue civil unions and churches should be free to marry whomever their religion dictates. I have a feeling that the anti-gay marriage crowd would not be comfortable with this though because some churches would allow gays to marry.
plaintiffs case was not regarding any conflicts with state law or the state constitution, it was charging conflict with the US constitution. State courts do not have jurisdiction with the complaint.
When? since the vote passed?
Isn't the DOMA a federal issue?
It is a state law they most certanly do have the right to see if it is legal
Actually, incorrect.
This is a contested issue under the 14th amendment that claims equal protection under the law.
The constitution has something known as the Surpemacy Clause that states that the constitutional protections also apply to the states.
Therefore it is not constitutional for states to use laws to discriminate against people, which was being argued here. Because its a FEDERAL constitutional matter its a federal matter.
If we are to go by the rationale you're suggesting, which essentially throws out the supremacy clause, then the recent advancements for the strength of the 2nd amendment could've never happened. In both cases the laws being challenged were local laws, not federal laws, but due to the supremacy clauses they still fell into the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL court system.
It already did. The California Supreme Court said that since prop 8 amended the California Constitution there was nothing for them to rule on.
No, the whole of our system from State to Federal level has been filled with checks and balances. You don't like it because in this case the checks caught something you supported. But the checks and balances are necessary. Not even State government can be left to do as it likes. All government is restricted.
My legal argument could indeed be extended to polygamy, so long as the polygamy is enacted along the rights and liberties of the individual. In almost all cases of socialized polygamy, however, that has not been the case. I would also doubt that chaos would result. But as for the polygamy route, you could cite precedent in that Utah was not admitted to the Union until it made polygamy illegal.
This is not about DOMA it is about a state constitutional amendment
Please know the issues if you are going to debate them. The challenge obviously came after the election.
When? since the vote passed?
Show a link
Then why was prop 8 allowed on the ballot?
No they do not. Which is precisely why they handed it up to the federal courts.
The state has an obligation to meet federal law. The state should have done this not the feds
Please know the issues if you are going to debate them. The challenge obviously came after the election.
So the state is not responsible to make sure their laws meet federal standards?