Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
and those judges were liberal democrats
Yes, damn activist judges, who gave them the right to take away our right to all white schools!!!
For those who oppose this, may I ask why? How does it effect you? Why do you care what two people do?
When was the last one to do it NP? How many last year? The year before?
And when are you going to show the legal flaws with this ruling, or will you retract your activist judge comment?
and those judges were liberal democrats
We shall see what happens in November... Hopefully the SCOTUS has ruled on this issue by then
SCOTUS will decide the case. However, 3 judges have rules that prop 8 is illegal, plus rulings that DOMA is illegal. SSM bans are not fairing well in the courts. Now, can you show what part of the ruling you think is flawed that you can accuse those ruling to overturn the law are activist, or will you withdraw the claim?
For those who oppose this, may I ask why? How does it effect you? Why do you care what two people do?
Very unlikely that it will have rules by then I think, unless they refuse to hear it.
Are you saying they were activist judges?
I believe that is your sides only hope and I don't see that happening. There is to much involved on this issue........It needs to be resolved...........
I expect the SCOTUS to do the right thing and that is to affirm the people of California's vote.
No, not at all as I have stated earlier when you brought it up. race, gender are immutable characteristics, sexual orientation is most definitely not immutable. It's all in the brief there CT.
Tim-
It is pretty clear what I said
Specifically, what is it, constitutionally, that makes Prop 8 unconstitutional? I'm not saying that it isn't unconstitutional, I just want to know what the specific part of the Constitution is that makes it unconstitutional.
I would think that those who brought Prop 8 to the voters would have to have their heads examined for bringing an obviously unconstitutional initiative before the people.
So I'm wondering if it ain't so obvious.
Once some one has a right, it becomes harder to take it away. Whether those without that right have to be given it is a separate issue.
The California SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional under the California Constitution, hence amending the constitution.
If the US SCOTUS rules that all such bans on SSM where illegal, then no state could have such a ban. However, that is not the only way they could rule while overturning Prop 8 and finding with the lower courts.
It is pretty clear what I said
and those judges were liberal democrats
Okay, I've done some more reading on this and it makes more sense. Essentially, Prop 8 didn't remove any state benefits for same-sex unions, it banned the state from recognizing those unions as marriage. This is what the court deemed unconstitutional as the ban had no 'rational basis'. If SCOTUS upheld the ruling it would make further bans on the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage but would not overturn states who did not recognize same-sex unions to begin with. Does that sound about right?
If that's the case, I can't see how this would help same-sex couples purely on the basis of equal benefits under the state. It would increase resistance to same-sex benefits legislation in state's that do not grant them as it would legally require the state's to recognize the unions as marriage.
Oh good lord, do you only come to this forum to rag on gays every time we have a victory?
Yes, it seems that CA Prop 8 supporters were trying to correct what they deemed to be the wrong approach to granting gays equal protection.The constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. When one group of people are denied their rights on the basis of sexual preference, that's unconstitutional. Heterosexual people are allowed both the benefits and responsibilities of being legally married. Homosexuals should have the same opportunities.
What Prop 8 did, IIRC (and there have been so many SSM bills in this state), was to amend the state's constitution so that sexual preference was removed from constitutional protection, and make SSM marriage (which was then legal in California, passed by the voters earler) illegal. Now it's being challenged on a federal level, on the basis that states cannot remove a right that is protected by the federal constitution.
Yes, it seems that CA Prop 8 supporters were trying to correct what they deemed to be the wrong approach to granting gays equal protection.
Prop 8 supporters wanted to retain the long-held traditional definition of marriage.
Once successful, they were amendable to modifications in civil union law to expand protections for gay couples equal to married straight couples.
The constitution is thereby respected with regard to commited couples.
Well more states are opting for and amendment defining gay marraige as a union between a man and a woman. Nope as a practicing Catholic I will never be ready to say that the blessed sacrament of marraige should include 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 2 women, a brother and sister in a non sexual union for the benefits, same for a father and daughter or a mother and son al in non sexual relationships..........That is just me though Redress and don't come back and tell me that can't happen because it can.
No, I am not saying that, and in fact this is not the case. The backers of Prop 8 (the state in theory, but not actuality in this case as the state declined to support prop 8 in court) have the burden of showing that there is at least some evidence that there would be a negative impact from SSM. Simply believing it would is not enough, you have to have a rational reason to believe it.
ln equal protection analysis, rational basis review "is not a license for courts to judge the Wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices." Heller, 509 U.S. at 319 (internal quotation marks omitted). A classification "neither involving
fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong presumption of validity." Id.
"Such a classification cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose." Id. at 320.
The government is not required to "actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification"; rather, a classification "must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Additionally, the government "has no obligation to provide evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification." Id. The measure at issue "is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
"[T]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis Which might support it Id.
Correct, and his arguments regarding whether Romer is applicable are fine, and beyond my level of knowledge of the law to comment on. The word rational is used strictly in reference to the level of scrutiny. I am not saying his arguments are irrational.
I find it unlikely that SCOTUS will be swayed by this argument.
The parties argue about whether this analysis subjects Proposition 8 to heightened scrutiny rather than rational basis review. ln my view, while Plaintiffs may give a correct accounting of California law, it does not necessarily follow that the optimal parenting rationale is an illegitimate governmental interest, because it contradicts existing laws on parenting and the family.
Rational review is the lowest possible level of scrutiny that would apply, and it is quite likely that a higher level of scrutiny would in fact apply.
I do not know enough on the case referenced to comment.
lndeed, in Baker v. Nelson when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint
The constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. When one group of people are denied their rights on the basis of sexual preference, that's unconstitutional.
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?