The Supreme Court has the opportunity to issue a landmark ruling this year as it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage.
It could define same-sex marriage as a constitutionally-protected right, or it could uphold the ban, setting back the gay rights movement for years. The case, however, isn't as simple as deciding whether or not same-sex couples have a right to get married.
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
Hopefully we see the them overturn Prop 8. It's time for the United States to live up to its own democratic expectations. SSM should have been legal years ago.
That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
Add to that Prop 8 was a successful state constitution amendment. The state had a duty to defend the will of the people, and it did not. The appeal should have never been successful. But now it's in the hands of SCOTUS they should issue a clear decision either way.
That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.
It's gay week at SCOTUS!
5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case - CBS News
Today they are hearing arguments on Prop 8 in CA, which would ban SSM. Prop 8 was overturned but the appeal is waiting for a decision by SCOTUS. There's quite a bit of speculation that SCOTUS will wuss out on this one, ruling that prop 8 supporters have no legal standing to bring this case before SCOTUS. (The state of California refused to defend the amendment in court, so anti-SSM folks took up its defense) The effect of this would be the previous ruling stands, prop 8 is overturned and SSM is legal in CA. While disappointing for pro-SSM folks, it's not all bad, CA moves back to freedom on a permanent basis and an interesting precedent regarding standing of straight people in SSM cases is set.
Virtually nobody hearing the court discussion thinks prop 8 will be upheld. Tweeters indicate that SCOTUS seems much more wary of setting a broad precedent on the subject. P
Cowards. This isn't going away!
Tomorrow they take arguments on a constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. I think SCOTUS has fewer punt options there, as it's a federal law with challenges in multiple districts.
By no stretch of imagination is 52% "overwhelming" and since when is it ok for us to vote to take away rights?
The state has no duty to defend something they perceive as unconstitutional. Or do you think it's the duty of every state to defend every gun control law, health care reform, etc?
First, not a right and nothing was "taken" away. Second, for California, a state famous for it's "blueness" and home to traditionally the most vocal gay community, 52% voting to ban gay marriage at the constitutional level is indeed overwhelming.
That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.
The SCOTUS shouldn't even be hearing this case.. This was a direct democratically passed state piece of law...
Does the Tenth Amendment mean nothing these days?
If the damn thing was illegal in the first place then how the hell did it make it onto the ballot?
That's a good question isn't it?
Oh yeah, progressives didn't like the outcome so all of a sudden the laws and policies of this nation don't count - the same laws they love when it comes to regulation or taxation - that **** is the law of the land then.
52.24% voted in favour of Prop 8, hardly overwhelming. Factoring in the 79.42% turnout of the 17,304,428 person electorate, which itself is 46.55% of the population that was 37,172,015 two year before; 19.31% of California's population voted in favour of Prop 8. Not at all overwhelming, and not the will of the majority.
52.24% voted in favour of Prop 8, hardly overwhelming. Factoring in the 79.42% turnout of the 17,304,428 person electorate, which itself is 46.55% of the population that was 37,172,015 two year before; 19.31% of California's population voted in favour of Prop 8. Not at all overwhelming, and not the will of the majority.
Wrong on all counts. The state has a duty to protect the STATE constitution. Prop 8 was enacted by the people as part of, IS a part of, the state constitution.
SSM was legal in CA. Prop 8 would take away the right to marry for same-sex couples. You can claim it's not a right, but in CA it was before prop 8s passing.
If you think Obamacare is unconstitutional, how did it pass in the first place?
The SCOTUS shouldn't even be hearing this case.. This was a direct democratically passed state piece of law...
Does the Tenth Amendment mean nothing these days?
If the damn thing was illegal in the first place then how the hell did it make it onto the ballot?
That's a good question isn't it?
Oh yeah, progressives didn't like the outcome so all of a sudden the laws and policies of this nation don't count - the same laws they love when it comes to regulation or taxation - that **** is the law of the land then.
A 79% of the voting population turnout is pretty darn high for California. Sorry to burst your bubble, but when we talk about majority support in politics we're talking about the majority of VOTERS. Anything else and you're just padding the stats to make your side of the issue look better.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?