Proposition 8 vote upheld. A great victory for democracy.

Today as many of you know, Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban in California, was upheld in the supreme court.

This is a tremendous victory for democracy, and more importantly for voters. The supreme court realized that throwing out the honest VOTES of the people would lead us down a dangerous road.

Once people start to truly feel their vote is worthless we will have lost everything.

I feel badly for the gays, but it is a generational thing. In 20 years I am confident that they will be allowed to marry.

Let me use an analogy.

It is much easier to shape teeth in children with braces because their gums are easier to manipulate. It takes years longer in adult gums already set in their ways.

I suggest the gays focus on education about their position to children instead of trying to undermine the legitimate vote of the people of the State of California.

The legitimate votes in a state where 3 days before election day, Mormons played fake ads on the radio and TV that claimed Prop 8 would allow things that it didn’t even mention, much less allow.

It isn’t a victory for democracy, its a failure.

Maybe you should go learn the purpose of the Judaical branch.

Also, this ruling makes it legal for California to pass laws such as “Black people aren’t allowed in California.” and it would be perfectly legal.

Originally posted by Carados:

It isn’t a victory for democracy, its a failure.

Maybe you should go learn the purpose of the Judaical branch.

Also, this ruling makes it legal for California to pass laws such as “Black people aren’t allowed in California.” and it would be perfectly legal.

they should pass gangs are not longer legal that would put a stop to the gang violence.

Originally posted by Carados:

It isn’t a victory for democracy, its a failure.

Maybe you should go learn the purpose of the Judaical branch.

Also, this ruling makes it legal for California to pass laws such as “Black people aren’t allowed in California.” and it would be perfectly legal.

They won’t do that, it’s too obvious. Too much support for black people thanks to Dr. King and the movement.

The gays will enjoy such protection 20 to 30 years from now.

Just… not yet.

Just… not yet.

Why?

Because you feel they haven’t had as much of a struggle?

Originally posted by Carados:

Just… not yet.

Why?

Because you feel they haven’t had as much of a struggle?

Go search Wikipedia for the answer. Your fond of it. I am tired of directly replying to someone with such bias and hate in their bones.

Go search Wikipedia for the answer. Your fond of it. I am tired of directly replying to someone with such bias and hate in their bones.

I’m sure I will find it on the “List of bad arguments against gay marriage” article.

IDK whats worse, people voting against gay marriage of those (specifically most of you) who blame religion for it

Originally posted by Carados:

It isn’t a victory for democracy, its a failure.

Maybe you should go learn the purpose of the Judaical branch.

Also, this ruling makes it legal for California to pass laws such as “Black people aren’t allowed in California.” and it would be perfectly legal.

It is the purpose of the judicial branch, among other things, to determine the constitutionality of laws and amendments. Gay marriage bans come from two things, religion, specifically Christianity, and discrimination. Unfortunately, no article or amendment of the constitution explicitly define separation of church and state, it is actually barely even hinted at. Furthermore, while the constitution has several amendments guaranteeing certain equal rights for ethnic groups and women, especially those related to voting, it does not offer any rights remotely related to marraige or that could be in any way stretched to include gays.

The closest amendment for an unconstitutional ruling on the gay marriage ban is the first, establishing freedom of religion. It could be viewed that forcing a certain definition of marriage, which could be traced to the christian bible, would be tantamount to forcing a piece of Christianity on people. This relation is tenuous at best, so it is understandable why prop 8 was upheld. I would bet that the justices of the supreme court desperately wanted to repeal it, but simply couldn’t give such an action enough backing to go through with it. All we need is an amendment establishing equality in all people of the country beyond voting rights.

especially those related to voting, it does not offer any rights remotely related to marraige or that could be in any way stretched to include gays.

The closest amendment for an unconstitutional ruling on the gay marriage ban is the first, establishing freedom of religion.

Uhh, actually, you need to learn what you are talking about.

14th. US constitution.

“no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

California state constitution.

Article 1, Section 7.

“A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;”

This in addition with a previous court ruling makes the entire thing pretty clear-cut.

Religion had nothing to do with the rulings, like you claimed.

And gays have the right to marry… just man to woman. The constitution does not say that traditions and idealogical institutions have equal protection of the law but people do. Gays can marry just like anyone else, just not to each other.

The law is marriage is between a man and a woman so it is constitutional to prohibit gay marriage as long as you enforce the law.

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

And gays have the right to marry… just man to woman. The constitution does not say that traditions and idealogical institutions have equal protection of the law but people do. Gays can marry just like anyone else, just not to each other.

The law is marriage is between a man and a woman so it is constitutional to prohibit gay marriage as long as you enforce the law.

My head hurts trying to figure out what your actual point is.

Originally posted by Carados:

especially those related to voting, it does not offer any rights remotely related to marraige or that could be in any way stretched to include gays.

The closest amendment for an unconstitutional ruling on the gay marriage ban is the first, establishing freedom of religion.

Uhh, actually, you need to learn what you are talking about.

14th. US constitution.

“no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

California state constitution.

Article 1, Section 7.

“A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;”

This in addition with a previous court ruling makes the entire thing pretty clear-cut.

Religion had nothing to do with the rulings, like you claimed.

You would have to stretch the definition of “protection of the laws” pretty far to include the rights and privileges related to marriage, or more common forms of discrimination. The constitution doesn’t really protect anyone from discrimination unless it is in regards to voting or a fair trial. As far as Californias article (something I had not bothered to check into). I believe that denying gay marriage is a breech of a gay persons civil liberties, this is not a stretch. However, “without due process of law”, which in this case, can refer to the vote.

Once again, there are two ways to deal with this, the religion argument, or the discrimination one. Despite both being undeniably true, there simply isn’t enough grounding in constitution to use either of the.

My point is that amendment 14 doesnt apply.
Prosecuting black people and not white people for the same crime is when amendment 14 applies. Searching and seizing a gay person’s house because they are gay is when amendment 14 applies.
Gays can still get married, just not to each other.

You would have to stretch the definition of “protection of the laws” pretty far to include the rights and privileges related to marriage, or more common forms of discrimination.

Minus the fact it already was stretched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp

The Precedent exists.

Gays can still get married, just not to each other.

And this doesn’t strike you as discrimination?

Originally posted by pacaholic:

IDK whats worse, people voting against gay marriage of those (specifically most of you) who blame religion for it

Care to tell us who should be blamed for it, then?

Because frankly, the only ones who care about the “sanctity” of marriage is those who have deep faith in a religion.

Originally posted by wolfinthesheep:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

IDK whats worse, people voting against gay marriage of those (specifically most of you) who blame religion for it

Care to tell us who should be blamed for it, then?

Because frankly, the only ones who care about the “sanctity” of marriage is those who have deep faith in a religion.

Try differentiating between religion of followers of religion.

A religion is its followers.

I do agree that the court did the right thing – which was go with the votes. I don’t agree that the votes were cast the right way, but who am I to insist my morals are better than others’? SaintAjora pointed out in another thread that the way the court ruled left the possibility for a future lift of the ban to take place – when the views of populace change. I look forward to that day.

I do agree that the court did the right thing – which was go with the votes.

Why? The purpose of the Judical System is to overturn things that have the most votes that happen to be illegal. Why is this any different?

I don’t think it is illegal, for the reasons LatexDucky pointed out. I don’t like it either.

I don’t think it is illegal, for the reasons LatexDucky pointed out.

LatexDucky didn’t have a reason, as far as I could tell.

He said that the legal definition of marriage is considered to be “the union of man with woman”; which homosexuals can still have and are thus not discriminated against. I don’t know if there’s a source that says it or otherwise explicitly – please provide if there is.

I would prefer the definition of marriage to be “the union of one with another”, which would allow one homosexual to marry another, but it doesn’t seem to be that way.

He said that the legal definition of marriage is considered to be “the union of man with woman”; which homosexuals can still have and are thus not discriminated against.

How is not being able to marry the person you love by virtue of sexual orientation NOT discrimination based on sexual orientation?

And lets not ignore that this ruling set the precedent that ANY right can be taken from ANY group by popular vote and still be okay by the same logic?

BECAUSE marriage is between a man and a woman.
Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
The law does not contradict the constitution.
They need to get the definition changed by a vote of the people. That is all.


This does not set precedent for what you said. You still can’t put a black guy in jail and not a white guy when they both robbed the same corner store together. That is what amendment 14 is for


My personal opinion is that the government should not issue marriage licenses at all.