jfuh
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 16,631
- Reaction score
- 1,227
- Location
- Pacific Rim
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
There is nothing to barr the majority from instigating such legislation.But that argument is nothing more than circular reasoning.
If the people of the State of California amended the Constitution to say that "marriage is only between heterosexual or homosexual latinos" that would change the IF in your equation.
It will all be moot anyway, because two years from now or 4 years from now the issue will be on the ballot again andI suspect with the movement from the 2000 referendum, it will most likely pass and gay marriage will once again be legal in California. Its only a matter of time.
The same majority believed that farm animals ought to have rights more so than they believed that people should have equal rights.Unfortunately, a simple majority of people in California believed that discrimination should be written into our state Constitution. Sad. I am ashamed of my state today.
Well, I guess it would've been asking for too much, we've finally broken through the confines of racial prejudice, but still some ways away from the bigotry that stems from homophobia."Yes" on prop 8 won?
Gay.
Next Year I call for proposition 8A - a ban on hetero sexual marriages.
The state of California shall no longer recognize the marriage of heterosexual marriages regardless of state.
People need to recognize that the United States constitution supersedes any and all State constitutions. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Once the Supreme Court recognizes that, this Prop 8 will be irrelevant.
On what grounds does the SC have to supercede a state constitutional amendment?People need to recognize that the United States constitution supersedes any and all State constitutions. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Once the Supreme Court recognizes that, this Prop 8 will be irrelevant.
Don't bet your house on it my left wing friend..........
Don't take it to heart, NP calls everyone that disagrees with him such. Being on the extreeme fringe right validates that position - literally. he's only saying so to troll.First of all, I'm not "left wing" - in fact, I'm center-right. I'm actually a member of a few organizations on either side. I'm a member of the National Right to Life organization; the RainbowPUSH Coalition; and the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). I lean right on taxes, defense and some social issues; I just happen to believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
On what grounds does the SC have to supercede a state constitutional amendment?
This is a marriage which is a state issue, not federal, so I don't know A) on what grounds the USC has to intervene; B) What bearing the constitution has on marriage.
That's all fine, and given that the US constitution says nothing nor mentions anything of marriage, I still don't see how the USSC has grounds to intervene on the matter.Because the Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the Alpha and Omega. A State cannot amend their Constitution to ban black people from voting - that would be against the United States Constitution. With the issue of same-sex marriage, banning it is clearly against the Equal Protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment (regardless of what the "legal scholars" on this forum believe). If you ban same-sex marriage, you must ban all marriage.
State governments are not subunits of the federal government; each state is sovereign and does not report in any constitutional way to the federal government. The U.S. Constitution and federal law, however, supersede state constitutions and state laws in areas where they are in disagreementState Governments in About America: How the United States is Governed
That's all fine, and given that the US constitution says nothing nor mentions anything of marriage, I still don't see how the USSC has grounds to intervene on the matter.
Marriage liscence are issued by the state, not by the federal government - as are drivers liscence - I still don't understand how the 14th would make any difference to that matter whatsoever.
How does the 14th provide that authority then?It's not about marriage - it's about laws and Equal Protection. Allowing one group of similarly situated people to do a thing, but not allowing another group of similarly situated people to do a thing is not Equal Protection, and is therefore unconstitutional.
How does the 14th provide that authority then?
I'm not sure I understand your question. But here is the text of Section 1 of said amendment. The most important part will be in red.
Section. 1. 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.
How does "protection of the laws" factor? To the point, which "laws" are being violated?
I don't know if I understand your question, but I think your question is asked with the assumption that laws are simply rules. Not so. Laws can be rules, principles, procedures, or any type of legislation, such as the right to marry. It's about entitlement. Opposite-sex couples who are married are entitled to certain rights that same-sex couples are not, because they cannot be married.
You lost, get use to it....All you lefties can do is bitch and call names when you lose..........
The law is applied equally. They state that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex. Since this law applies to EVERYONE it is applied EQUALLY.
Please note I said "similarly situated" people, like two consenting adults. So, no, the law is not applied EQUALLY.
If gays get the government to recognize their marriage (not likely), Polygamists will be next in line and if they get the recognition then people will ask the government to recognize marriages to family members. Then the totally absurd like marriage to animals or furniture.
On this issue, for once, I would like to see freedom and liberty prevail over convenience and government handouts.
"Similarly Situated" means nothing basically.
umm.....okay let me try this.
If smoking is legal in a state one person likes to smoke cigarettes and another likes to smoke pot. Is the person who likes to smoke pot's rights being violated?
No. These two people are "Similarly Situated" they are both smoking, one just prefers a different substance. The law is applied equally. All may smoke tobacco, None may smoke pot.
To apply this to marriage all persons may marry anyone of the opposite sex, No one may marry someone of the same sex.
The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.
My theory is for the government to get out of marriage altogether. The purest way for government to be equal is to do nothing. An empty scale is always balanced.
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?