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

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good_News said:
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.
Click to expand...
If a marriage is unconsummated, can’t it still be legally invalid?
 
bosonhiggs said:
The 14th amendment and due process.
Click to expand...
But that is just the point. The 14th amendment, in an strict constructionist viewpoint, applies to federal law only. It took Marshall’s judicial review doctrine to make it apply to state law as well.

And I don’t get the argument about due process. How is due process violated by Prop 8? I can maybe see the argument for equal protection. But due process?
 
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...
Can you show me in the Constitution where sexual preference is a protected class? Racial restrictions on marriage were rightly struck down, because there is no difference between men of different races. However, there is a difference between genders (regardless of what this judge thinks) and common sense (used to be common anyway) is that the two complentary genders are what make up a marriage.
40.png
Brooklyn:
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?
Click to expand...
Yep…we got “smarter” and now realize that there is no difference between genders. :rolleyes:
 
😃
Flavius_Aetius said:
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…
Click to expand...
are you the sarcastic humor police?

last time i check, bad jokes are still within my constitutional right

😃
 
Well, when all else fails, Texas can still secede from the Union! I guess I will just move back to my home state and wait for the inevitable, lol! But, seriously, we shouldn’t be surprised. What did you expect the END TIMES to look like? Moral and full of devout Catholics? The worse it gets, the sooner Jesus comes back to save us!👍
 
UponTheAltar said:
Well, when all else fails, Texas can still secede from the Union! I guess I will just move back to my home state and wait for the inevitable, lol! But, seriously, we shouldn’t be surprised. What did you expect the END TIMES to look like? Moral and full of devout Catholics? The worse it gets, the sooner Jesus comes back to save us!👍
Click to expand...
Nice:thumbsup:
 
bosonhiggs said:
Specifically the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process
Click to expand...
Interesting.

So if marriage is defined to be “A union that may be formed by any two willing human beings who are above the age of consent, not already married, not within a certain ‘genetic distance’ from one another, and of the opposite gender” I am denying equal protection to same sex individuals- but am I not denying that same protection to those who wish to marry those who are unwilling, below the age of consent, close relatives, or already married?

I am not making a slippery slope argument here- simply pointing out that if refusing to recognize a relationship as marriage is denying equal protection, then many other criteria are also discriminatory- in fact, ALL other criteria are also discriminatory.
 
Flavius_Aetius said:
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. .
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I encourage them to please keep saying such things. It just goes to point out how hysterical, unfounded and baseless their objections are. More ridiculous and offensive comparisons not less.
 
Flavius_Aetius said:
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…
Click to expand...
Who are YOU to tell those who wish to those hard working Americans who just want to have their loving relationship with their dog or neighbor’s child recognized by the State that their love isn’t good enough?
You bigots make me sick.
 
Suudy said:
But that is just the point. The 14th amendment, in an strict constructionist viewpoint, applies to federal law only. It took Marshall’s judicial review doctrine to make it apply to state law as well.

And I don’t get the argument about due process. How is due process violated by Prop 8? I can maybe see the argument for equal protection. But due process?
Click to expand...
It definitely violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Who cares if Marshall’s judicial review doctrine is what it took to apply it to state law as well? It is used now, so you kinda have to accept that, unless you wish for them to ignore it.

the entire ruling is here, by the way:
msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/Life/gaymarriage.pdf

According to due process
“[N]o Person ought to be taken imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, or be exiled or deprived of his Privileges, Franchises, Life, Liberty or Property but by due process of Law.”
the LGBT community is being deprived of their privilege to Marry.
 
It is somewhat of a shame that something like is to happen. A majority of voters that voted for Proposition 8 are upset about this and I don’t blame them. THen on the other hand a lot of gays and lesbians are overjoyed about this. One out of two Traditional marriages (meaniong marriage between a man and woman) ends up in divorce and Gay marriages are not that way. I don’t know why about this but gay and lesbian marriages last better than the traditional marriage. This is shocking isn’t it? What can be done now?🤷
 
ConcernedApathy said:
On the contrary, I encourage them to please keep saying such things. It just goes to point out how hysterical, unfounded and baseless their objections are. More ridiculous and offensive comparisons not less.
Click to expand...
Actually, the hysteria is on the liberal side. I challenged posters in another thread on the logical reasons for denying someone the right to marry an inanimate object, and all I got was emotion.

Besides, liberals have no problem comparing a homosexual relationship to a heterosexual relationship. I’ve never seen a liberal care about offending anyone with that ridiculous comparison. 🤷
 
Flavius_Aetius said:
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…
Click to expand...
I’m sure there were also a lot of people in the past who were sure that an absurd contradiction in terms like “gay marriage” could never catch on either, and they probably would have been just as embarrased to hear anyone speak out about the writing on the wall during that time as well.

The thing is, you’re thinking in terms of the progress pop culture indoctrination has made TODAY but what reason do you have to think it won’t go any further than it already has?

As far as paedophilia is concerned, it’s easy enough to see at least one potential route they have for accomplishing this… just slowly begin putting the spotlight more and more on so-called “children’s rights” issues (first the easier ones, like the “right” to not be told what to do by their parents, etc) and when the general public has been adequately conditioned and desensitized to that, start hashing out propaganda something like “children are people too, aren’t they? why are they denied the RIGHT to legal consent that everyone else has? they’ve just been oppressed by backward thinking closed-minded society all this time but we’re finally going to liberate them!” From there you don’t have to use your imagination…
 
FreeAmerican said:
It is somewhat of a shame that something like is to happen. A majority of voters that voted for Proposition 8 are upset about this and I don’t blame them. THen on the other hand a lot of gays and lesbians are overjoyed about this. One out of two Traditional marriages (meaniong marriage between a man and woman) ends up in divorce and ** Gay marriages are not that way**. I don’t know why about this but gay and lesbian marriages last better than the traditional marriage. This is shocking isn’t it? What can be done now?🤷
Click to expand...
How can you know? They’ve only been legal in a few states for a few years.

Give it time;)
 
rlg94086 said:
Can you show me in the Constitution where sexual preference is a protected class? Racial restrictions on marriage were rightly struck down, because there is no difference between men of different races. However, there is a difference between genders (regardless of what this judge thinks) and common sense (used to be common anyway) is that the two complentary genders are what make up a marriage.

Yep…we got “smarter” and now realize that there is no difference between genders. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Right here: 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.

in the 14th amendment.

There are not differences between genders. Are you suggesting that I, a woman, am not equal to a man? Should I not be allowed to vote or own land, as well?
 
Kuan_Yin said:
What is interesting about this ruling is the judge stated that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution. In the past the favorable same sex marriage rulings were always regarding a state constitution…so this will be interesting to see where this leads and how it will affect Federal policies regarding LGBT rights. At the moment there is the Massachusetts ruling that strikes down DOMA that is heading towards the US Supreme Court
Click to expand...
Yes, the federal DOMA could be struck down by the Massachusetts ruling if the US Supreme Court agrees to hear it. The same is true of the Prop 8 ruling if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

If so, and marriage is considered a right (which another CAF member was affirmed by the Loving v Virginia case) then I think the federal DOMA will fall. DOMA would fail equal protection under the law.
 
ConcernedApathy said:
On the contrary, I encourage them to please keep saying such things. It just goes to point out how hysterical, unfounded and baseless their objections are. More ridiculous and offensive comparisons not less.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if I phrase it simply you won’t categorically reject-

My perception of your objection-

The specific exclusion of those who wish to marry members of the same gender in marriage laws constitutes discrimination.

My objection to your objection (as I perceive it)

Many, many other classes of people are also specifically excluded by marriage laws.

For example, those who wish to marry a cat, a rock, a married person, two people at once (note this is not the same thing as marrying a married person- one would allow for multiple marriages the other would allow for marriages consisting of more than two people), a child, or a close relative are all unable to have their ‘loving and committed relationships’ recognized by the state.

You do not call this discrimination- so there must be something that makes the desire for marriage to a member of the same gender more compelling to you (aside from your personal morality, cause that’s not allowed)- I’d like to know what that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top