Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter FromTheAshes777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mlund said:
Actually, that’s exactly how a Democracy works.

As a U.S. citizen I happen to live in a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

Through Democratic elections we establish Representation which then creates and ratifies Laws - of which the Constitution is the highest.

The Constitution is subject to repeal and amendment by the same Representative Democratic process.

So indeed, a sufficient majority DOES define what constitutes “Civil Rights” (note the word “civil” there) and therefor where, when, why, and to whom they apply.

Um, actually a few crazy yahoos think so, not “the courts” as a body. Prior to a grotesque violation of jurisprudence in a split decision in Massachusetts there was no “civil rights issue” of same-sex “marriage” in the courts. There was no such legal right and there is not now and nor will there ever be any Moral or Natural Right to such.

To the contrary - under the 14th Amendment we can not create or modify laws to create privileges (marriage is a license in civil law and a privilege) for groups that do not meet the criteria of Public Interest in their conduct.

It is a violate of Equal Protection to give everyone named “Ralph” $1,000,000 because being named “Ralph” does not meet any Public Interest.

The Public Interest met in civil marriage is procreation and generational succession in a particular environment (mother and father) that best contributes on an institutional level to the upbringing of subsequent generations of civil society.

Same-sex couples do not meet this Public Interest in any way that distinguishes them from siblings or business partners or any other class of partnership that is already excluded from the privileges of Civil Marriage.

So same-sex “marriage” judicial mandates and laws actually violate the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights of all U.S. Citizens - Q.E.D.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
Good thing in the '60’s, the “vote of the majority” wasn’t allowed to determine the rights of African Americans.
 
Publisher said:
Good thing in the '60’s, the “vote of the majority” wasn’t allowed to determine the rights of African Americans.
Click to expand...
O.o

Where do you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from, exactly?

You know, I can see why African Americans get offended by the militant gay lobby constantly hijacking the history of the civil rights movement.
  • Marty Lund
 
mlund said:
O.o

Where do you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from, exactly?
You know, I can see why African Americans get offended by the militant gay lobby constantly hijacking the history of the civil rights movement.
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
I don’t believe it was by “popular vote”…especially not in the South.
 
Publisher said:
Good thing in the '60’s, the “vote of the majority” wasn’t allowed to determine the rights of African Americans.
Click to expand...
Actually the Civil Rights Act was the voted for by the majority that was very nearly prevented by a small minority of democrats that tried to block it.

But don’t let something like the facts get in your way.
 
SamH said:
Actually the Civil Rights Act was the voted for by the majority that was very nearly prevented by a small minority of democrats that tried to block it.

But don’t let something like the facts get in your way.
Click to expand...
You are asserting that the Civil Rights Act was the product of popular vote?

It was my understanding it was an act of Congress and enforced through the means necessary.
 
Publisher said:
Good thing in the '60’s, the “vote of the majority” wasn’t allowed to determine the rights of African Americans.
Click to expand...
False analogy of the highest order.

You do know that CA has had same sex domestic partnerships since 1999? This isn’t about “equal protection”.
 
scipio337 said:
False analogy of the highest order.

You do know that CA has had same sex domestic partnerships since 1999? This isn’t about “equal protection”.
Click to expand...
Which at least one of the justices pointed out in the decision: see page 39 of Reinhardt’s opinion and runs through page 40. He notes that Prop 8 did nothing to deny gays the rights traditionally associated with marriage, which are granted under California’s domestic partnership law, but merely the designation of “marriage” itself. That’s key to the ultimate ruling that Prop 8 served no rational purpose in advancing a legitimate state interest. If all you’re doing is denying gays the label and not the attendant benefits of marriage, then what is there to the law except pure stigma?

hat tip
 
scipio337 said:
False analogy of the highest order.

You do know that CA has had same sex domestic partnerships since 1999? This isn’t about “equal protection”.
Click to expand...
Exactly so. This has nothing, at all, to do with ‘equal rights’…most Catholics could care less about the tiny minority of practicing homosexuals who wish to have a civil partnership. This all has to do with an assault against what’s left of the West’s Judeo-Christian value system. The next step, mark my words, will be for the “egaliatarians” to enforce same-sex marriage in churches: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, LDS, et al. It is no coincidence that this appeal’s ruling came hot on the heels of the administrations decision to enfore abortive/contraceptive health care (what a diabolical irony) on Christian institutions.

What we are seeing is, in fact, an all out assault of the Christian faith in the United States, specifically the Catholic faith. At the rate this administration is moving, I do not think it is melodrama or hyperbole to suggest that within a generation Catholics, and Christians at large, will be forced to conduct their services in secret as during the persecutions of the Caesars.

The one bright side, as others have pointed out, is that these radicals are doing more to foster Ecumenism than any specific ecclesial community’s efforts heretofore.
 
gilliam said:
Which at least one of the justices pointed out in the decision: see page 39 of Reinhardt’s opinion and runs through page 40. He notes that Prop 8 did nothing to deny gays the rights traditionally associated with marriage, which are granted under California’s domestic partnership law, but merely the designation of “marriage” itself. That’s key to the ultimate ruling that Prop 8 served no rational purpose in advancing a legitimate state interest. If all you’re doing is denying gays the label and not the attendant benefits of marriage, then what is there to the law except pure stigma?

hat tip
Click to expand...
From the ruling:
All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships.
Click to expand...
kansascity.com/2012/02/07/3415106/excerpts-from-ruling-on-califs.html

In other words, social acceptance by judicial fiat.
 
How many times has this gone to a vote in California, now?

It’s the usual 9th Circuit Court that has a long record of anti-Christian and anti-religious activism.
 
TevereNauta said:
Exactly so. This has nothing, at all, to do with ‘equal rights’…most Catholics could care less about the tiny minority of practicing homosexuals who wish to have a civil partnership. This all has to do with an assault against what’s left of the West’s Judeo-Christian value system. The next step, mark my words, will be for the “egaliatarians” to enforce same-sex marriage in churches: Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, LDS, et al. It is no coincidence that this appeal’s ruling came hot on the heels of the administrations decision to enfore abortive/contraceptive health care (what a diabolical irony) on Christian institutions.

What we are seeing is, in fact, an all out assault of the Christian faith in the United States, specifically the Catholic faith. At the rate this administration is moving, I do not think it is melodrama or hyperbole to suggest that within a generation Catholics, and Christians at large, will be forced to conduct their services in secret as during the persecutions of the Caesars.

The one bright side, as others have pointed out, is that these radicals are doing more to foster Ecumenism than any specific ecclesial community’s efforts heretofore.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

If this is indeed a “civil rights” concern, what’s to keep the courts from stripping Catholic instutions, or even Catholic churches from at least 503c status?
 
This is why “civil unions” will ultimately lead to “gay marriage” because it is a distinction without a difference. To make a difference in terminology is to “discriminate” on the basis of sexual preference which in most states is now illegal.
 
Give them time, Scipio, give them time. The devil hasn’t been as busy as this for years. Rest assured, this is coming down the pike, along with various hate-crime legislation.
 
There is a solution of course, and that is a constitutional ammendment defining marriage.
 
It’s sad but unsurprising. People are drip fed by the Media/schools. If you support Prop 8 you are a bigot according to the denizens of newspeak. People like to be liked and hate being branded a bigot. What will happen to a land that deserts Truth and God? Now there’s a scary thought
 
maplebug55 said:
I am in support of Prop 8, I feel that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
What will happen to our country?
Click to expand...
Well, now that the california judges have the power to rule not only what laws are unconstitutional, but what CONSTITUTIONAL amendments are unconstitutional, they have supreme authority to legislate moralityl… great… just great. VERY glad I don’t live in California anymore… I cannot imagine living in a state where there is no check to balance against the judicial authority.
 
The majority’s opinion is very poorly written and does not adhere to a rigorous constitutional analysis. In contrast the dissenting opinion is very thorough and utilizies a very detailed review of U.S. Supreme Court decisions to support the conclusion that Prop 8 does not violate the 14th Amendment. I believe that the Supreme Court will uphold Prop 8.

As an aside it really doesn’t matter too much for the citizens in California as the reason for the ruling is due to the fact that it was possible for homosexuals to marry, and claim to be married, prior to the encatment of Prop 8. All that Prop 8 does is limit a homosexual coulple’s use of the word, “married”. Therefore if gay marriage isn’t legal in another state, then the issue raise by this ruling in other states is severally limited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top