- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
The LGBT movement is going in the wrong direction. After the gay marriage issue is over, what next?
Looks like the SCOTUS is going to weigh in on the issue of gay marriage. If they truly believe in the Constitution, they will let the state of California decide this issue on its own, instead of making a decision that will force all states one way or the other on the issue. IMHO, a proper decision by the Supremes would be "It's none of our business, so handle it".
Article is here.
Ted Olsen is a great advocate and all, but he has absolutely no control whatsoever over whether the court decides to hear the case. The odds that they will take the case are very slim.
I, for one, will be intrigued to find out how Ted Olsen intends to navigate around this bit from Loving v Virginia:Ted Olsen is a great advocate and all, but he has absolutely no control whatsoever over whether the court decides to hear the case. The odds that they will take the case are very slim.
While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power....
I hope they have learned the lesson of Roe v Wade and not stitch together new rights not previously found within the Constitution.That, and even if they do hear the case, there is no guarantee they will decide the case based on the Constitution.
If there is any way they can resolve the case without ruling on Constitutional law, they will.
The California Supreme Court upheld the right of Californians to amend their constitution.What really needs to happen is that the morons in the CA supreme courts need to reverse their absurdly stupid ruling that created this whole issue in the first place.
There are 3 other types of marriages that are considered unacceptable. Marriage to animals, marriage to young children (from under 18 years old to 1 year old...or even younger.), and marriage to objects. That's what they will pursue. Either all at once, or one at a time.I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
The LGBT movement is going in the wrong direction. After the gay marriage issue is over, what next?
There are 3 other types of marriages that are considered unacceptable. Marriage to animals, marriage to young children (from under 18 years old to 1 year old...or even younger.), and marriage to objects. That's what they will pursue. Either all at once, or one at a time.
Does that answer your question?
I don't see any great backlash against homosexuals as a result of the gay marriage debate.I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
Not only is that not an answer, it is not even accurate.There are 3 other types of marriages that are considered unacceptable. Marriage to animals, marriage to young children (from under 18 years old to 1 year old...or even younger.), and marriage to objects. That's what they will pursue. Either all at once, or one at a time.
Does that answer your question?
The California Supreme Court upheld the right of Californians to amend their constitution.
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.
There are 3 other types of marriages that are considered unacceptable. Marriage to animals, marriage to young children (from under 18 years old to 1 year old...or even younger.), and marriage to objects. That's what they will pursue. Either all at once, or one at a time.
Does that answer your question?
Snippet
From the California Supreme Court ruling:No they didn't. They decided that the bill wasn't actually an amendment.
California's constitutional mechanisms are unusual in that they differentiate between "revisions" and "amendments."we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision
While I agree that the California system of amendment by ballot initiative is unwise, your summation of the ruling is off:California has a brain-dead system where any proposition is automatically added to the constitution, even with only a simple majority. However, if a proposition "fundamentally revises" already existing parts of the constitution it requires a 2/3 majority of the state legislature. The court decided that prop 8 didn't conflict with current constitution, despite the fact that passages like this are a part of it.
Whether Proposition 8 was wise or prudent legislation is irrelevant. What matters is that the language was in conformance to the requirements of the California Constitution and to its established amendment processes.In analyzing the constitutional challenges presently before us, we first explain that the provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, when considered in light of the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 (which preceded the adoption of Proposition 8), properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitioners in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
I am curious: what legal argument would you make against same sex marriage?I am against same sex marriage and I think this issue is making society go against the gay community.
I don't believe that Prop 8 gave any additional benefits, it seemed to spread them evenly across the population.
Prop 8 took away benefits from gays, thereby making it a privilege given only to a certain group of people and triggering the clause.
Even if your interpretation of Proposition 8 is correct (I believe your interpretation is incorrect), it is within the state's prerogative to modify the marital right in this fashion.While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power....
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?