Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cyberwolf001 said:
So this is why you think your faith can dictate what mine can and cannot do?
Click to expand...
In the entire history of mankind, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Sometimes it included more than one woman, but it has never, never, never been same sex. Why do those of you who want to change it think you are so much wiser than all the generations before you? Marriage between a man and a woman, despite all the problems inherent in it, has always worked, and everytime marriage has broken down, the society has collapsed.

Why do you think it is so wise to disregard the entire history of mankind? Do you not feel there is anything to learn from history?
 
I fear this is a lost battle.

At one time, and for most of the civilization, marriage meant something socially and legally, other than a way to receive government benefits. A woman needed to be married to be honorable. A bastard child couldn’t inherit, and was of lesser social standing. A marriage that was not consumated was invalid. A husband could sue for alienation of affections. The institution was focused on an ordered view of family, procreation, and sex.

It is certainly true that the loosening of these social structures had great benefits. But it has left no argument FOR civil marriage, because civil marriage just doesn’t really have a function anymore. Unwed mothers are no big deal. There is little social consequence to not being married. Property is divided in common law relationships just as in marriages.

When the proponents of traditional marriage are challenged to come up with a defining characteristic of marriage that excludes gay couples, it has become an impossible task, because there are no defining characteristics of marriage anymore. It is just a choice of no consequence, other than to the couple involved.

Perhaps the right strategy is to start to oppose the concept of civil marriage. Make marriage exclusively a religious institution, and give government and healthcare benefits to anyone who live under one roof.
 
also don’t forget bestiality

since animals have feelings like people, and they have rights like people, then they have rights like people. and people should be able to marry animals because they’re like people anyway with feelings and rights, right?

and those who leave, please don’t look back lest you turn to salt
 
choy said:
yes! awesome victory for gay rights! everyone has a right to marriage!

next up, pedophiles! yes, why should we hate them? they are born that way that they “love” children. they are people too, they have rights too, we should fight for their rights. vote for their right to marry 9-year olds!

sic
Click to expand...
Seems like that’s the next logical step.
 
curlycool89 said:
Maybe I’m just not getting this whole American legal thing, but what is the precedent for using the US Federal Constitution to overrule a State Constitution, and is that constitutional at all in the first place?

Man, this is infuriating. :mad:
Click to expand...
the Supremacy Clause was written into Article IV of the Constitution providing the primary basis for the federal government’s power over states. The article states the “acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. Thestates have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of” federal law."

Basically, the constitution > everything else
 
bosonhiggs said:
the Supremacy Clause was written into Article IV of the Constitution providing the primary basis for the federal government’s power over states. The article states the “acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. Thestates have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of” federal law."

Basically, the constitution > everything else
Click to expand...
secesstion! California must break away from the Union to preserve the will of their people! they must join Canada where gay marriage is…

oh, right :doh2::doh2:
 
bosonhiggs said:
Basically, the constitution > everything else
Click to expand...
Only after Marshall got his mind wrapped around it and made it the USSC modus operandi.

One would think that the 10th Amendment would be enough to make it clear that as long as state law doesn’t contradict, subvert, or nullify federal laws related to the delegated powers to the federal government. But combine Marshall’s doctrine with the 14th Amendment, and we have “constitution > everything else”.

Perhaps if the states were to exercise their rights under the 14th amendment more often, we wouldn’t have this kind of situation.
 
bosonhiggs said:
Basically, the constitution > everything else
Click to expand...
That’s just priceless coming from a leftist. Also, notice the convenient overlooking of the Tenth Amendment.

edit: okay someone beat me to the punch on the Tenth Amendment :o but that’s just how obvious it is. If that other poster hadn’t asked that question in the first place I wouldn’t have even bothered trying to clear up such a bold-faced error.
 
Suudy said:
Only after Marshall got his mind wrapped around it and made it the USSC modus operandi.

One would think that the 10th Amendment would be enough to make it clear that as long as state law doesn’t contradict, subvert, or nullify federal laws related to the delegated powers to the federal government. But combine Marshall’s doctrine with the 14th Amendment, and we have “constitution > everything else”.

Perhaps if the states were to exercise their rights under the 14th amendment more often, we wouldn’t have this kind of situation.
Click to expand...
The thing is, Prop 8 is unconstitutional, so I really don’t know where you are going with this. If its unconstitutional, it shouldn’t be in place. Simple.
 
bosonhiggs said:
The thing is, Prop 8 is unconstitutional, so I really don’t know where you are going with this. If its unconstitutional, it shouldn’t be in place. Simple.
Click to expand...
Unconstitutional how? What specific part of the constitution does it violate?
 
bosonhiggs said:
The thing is, Prop 8 is unconstitutional, so I really don’t know where you are going with this. If its unconstitutional, it shouldn’t be in place. Simple.
Click to expand...
My point is that it is a state issue, and since Prop 8 doesn’t contradict, subvert, or nullify any federally delegated powers, it shouldn’t even be subject to review by the USSC.

It is constitutional according to the California constitution. And it isn’t a power delegated to the federal government, and is thus reserved to the states. So the US Constitution should have no bearing on Prop 8.
 
Hey! I’m back from a one-week vacation…what did I miss?

…oh…bummer… 😦

Well, hopefully, our Supreme Court will not make the same mistake it did with Roe v Wade and find a constitutional protection that doesn’t exist.
 
estesbob said:
This court has ruled you can not discriminate against people based on their sexual behavior. Can you give me any justification this judge gave for approving of homosexual marriage that is not equally valid for an an incestuous marriage, say between a father and a son, or polygamous marriage? Once we have determined that sexual behavior constitutes a protected group we cannot limit that right to only those who engage in homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And why is incestuous marriage currently outlawed? Because marrying “too close” can cause birth defects, right? But marriage between two persons of the same sex cannot produce children, therefore the “birth defects” reason is invalid in that case. Therefore, under “amended” marriage laws, there will be no reason that a father and son cannot marry or two brothers cannot marry. And then, of course, someone will turn the tables: if two homosexual brothers can marry…well, it’s unfair to limit that to homosexuals so why shouldn’t a brother and sister be able to get married? Equality for all, right?

Oh dear…come soon, Lord Jesus.
 
People saying Pedophilia is the next step after gay marriage please hush up-you make people with morals seem more idiotic and ignorant than we already are. The difference being is the consent of both people in the relationship.

That means no Beastiality

and no Pedophilia…

That being said I hate it but the fact is Marriage has been a government word ever since the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution. Now every modern government seems to have control of the word and thus it is a secular issue. A government such as the United State’s has no right to deny a specfic group because of sexuality, and they are only stepping out of line if they would demand religious groups to provide marriages-which they never will.
 
You know, it just struck me that this may be a good thing (I am presuming that Prop 8 will eventually be held constitutional).

Imagine being a liberal Democrat running for election in November. You know that Dems will be asked and re-asked to comment on this.

If they say they are pro Prop 8, they anger their base.

If they say they are anti Prop 8, they anger everybody else.

Either way, not a good thing for their political chances.

Awesome 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top