Proposition 8 vote upheld. A great victory for democracy. page 2

Because that isn’t the definition – we think. I agree it would be a better definition, but the courts must work with what they have. If we’re right, and the definition of marriage in the USA is considered to specify opposing genders, then there is zero legal discrimination going on.

By the by, does anybody know if there are guidelines on if the Supreme Court is supposed to rule at a moral level as well as a legal?

Here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html

Yes, that was the result of a popular vote which took away the rights of a group, which is and (and should be) completely illegal.

Thanks for posting the text to Prop 8. Got any more circular logic?

The supreme court is supposed to rule on constitutionality but many judges are activists in a robe.

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

By the by, does anybody know if there are guidelines on if the Supreme Court is supposed to rule at a moral level as well as a legal?

Legal. That is why the Supreme Court is set up so that they can’t play politics. They are appointed for life, the voters don’t vote them in, and they don’t really depend on the people at all, because they are the check and the balance to the people.

This does not set precedent for what you said.

Why not? It sets the precedent for the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to be over turned by popular vote. Or how does it?

Unless you are claiming RACE is the ONLY protected group in California.

So what are you saying gays should be protected from? They aren’t being discriminated against. They can still get married just like any straight person.

So what are you saying gays should be protected from? They aren’t being discriminated against. They can still get married just like any straight person.

Hey guys look at me I’m dodging by ignoring the point and asking the same question over and over again! In most forums this is considered trolling and I’d be banned!

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

A definition isn’t law though so how do you propose to rule on the constitutionality of it?

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

A definition isn’t law though so how do you propose to rule on the constitutionality of it?

What?

Hmm that’s interesting actually. Are federal marriage licenses issued? If not, why is marriage defined in the US Code?

also Carados:

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

If not, why is marriage defined in the US Code?

It isn’t. It’s California code.

It wasn’t until Prop 22. Which was struck down as unconstitutional.

so this isn’t the federal code?

If gay marriage is allowed, then I should be able to marry multiple people at one time

Considering the ruling was a STATE proposition which was passed in a single STATE which was the STATE constitution you linked to early and the ruling involved a clause in said STATE constitution, I don’t see how that is relevant.

If gay marriage is allowed, then I should be able to marry multiple people at one time

Okay, what is the problem with that?

Can I marry a dog? I mean, it’s my orientation. (for arguments sake)

Can I marry I dog?

Dog can’t consent.

Since when does marriage require consent? Heck can I marry myself?

Since when does marriage require consent?

Since when does sex require consent?

Can I marry a 12 yr old (for arguments sake)

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

Can I marry a 12 yr old (for arguments sake)

12 year old can’t legally consent, under plenty of laws.

You’d have to ask the parents.

Isn’t that discrimination?

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

Isn’t that discrimination?

It would be ageist discrimination, if you want to look at it this way.

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

Since when does marriage require consent? Heck can I marry myself?

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

the international declaration of human rights dictates all people have the right to marry, but it does not exclude homosexual marriage, therefor it should be illegal according to human rights to stop homosexuals from getting married.

the international declaration of human rights

It would be great if we actually followed this thing. You know, considering we helped write it and “officially” adopted it.

We should write our own laws before following the laws of someone else.

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

We should write our own laws before following the laws of someone else.

and if our laws violate the rights of their citizens and the citizens of other nations?

That shouldn’t happen because they either aren’t in our country or are subject to our laws (due to being in our country) and should be afforded similar rights and protections. We should strive to make our own laws as consistent as possible but using someone elses rulebook as rationale is not good reasoning. That’s like saying well Hitler didn’t like Jews so I won’t either.