9th Circuit Declares Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Pray, tell us what you really think.

That people that want to deny rights to others are idiots.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If there's any time-travelers out there reading this - can you please abduct me and take me to the future where humanity has gotten over this kind of petty shit and learned to focus on the real issues and is actually striving to reach it's potential?

Please...I beg you.

Honestly, there's a reason we all came back in time to hang out now. The future isn't all its cracked up to be. Once the Catholic Church reforms the Trinity in 2115 by replacing the Holy Spirit with Tim Tebow, things get pretty weird. Especially b/c Tebow is actually still alive at that point. (In 2025, as part of his misguided attempts to cure gayness, Marcus Bachmann inadvertently discovers a cure for all other diseases, pretty much eliminating death).

So, yeah, we have gay marriage. But Tim Tebow is God and it's really crowded. Pick your poison,* I guess.















*Metaphorically, I mean. Poison does not really work in the future anymore because of the whole Marcus Bachmann thing. See above.

[Easy Mac]

How about we legalize gay marriage but ban gay divorces. I mean, if they're a few millennia behind on their rights now, we might as well keep it consistent with the rest of history. We can allow divorces around 3500 AD or so.

[JediKooter]

So Tim Tebow is John Titor?

[sterlingice]

No, silly, albionmoonlight is John Titor.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Honestly, there's a reason we all came back in time to hang out now. The future isn't all its cracked up to be. Once the Catholic Church reforms the Trinity in 2115 by replacing the Holy Spirit with Tim Tebow, things get pretty weird. Especially b/c Tebow is actually still alive at that point. (In 2025, as part of his misguided attempts to cure gayness, Marcus Bachmann inadvertently discovers a cure for all other diseases, pretty much eliminating death).

So, yeah, we have gay marriage. But Tim Tebow is God and it's really crowded. Pick your poison,* I guess.

I want to see this movie.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No, silly, albionmoonlight is John Titor.

SI

Whoa. Did not see that coming. It's all starting to make sense now.

[DaddyTorgo]

LOL

[larrymcg421]

Also, if that scenario plays out, then we need to give more credence to Newt's moon colony idea.

[sterlingice]

"That's not an astronaut, it's a TV comedian! And he was just using space travel as a metaphor for beating his wife."

SI

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by JAG

I told you NOT to pass me that.

Awesome!

[Caine]

I personally don't care what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom, or whom that person chooses to marry. If a man loves another man, and wishes to marry that person, that action doesn't affect me or my children. I think the argument that some levied that the foundation of marriage is between and man and a woman is really a smokescreen, a code that says "I don't like homosexuals", and those people lack the courage to outright say it. That way, they can justify bigotry while trying to maintain the "high ground".

Having said that, there is ZERO fundamental right to marriage, for either straight or gays. The 14th Amendment should not apply because marriage isn't a right. If the majority of people in CA, as bigoted as they may be, chooses to officially define a term, they should have the ability to do that without federal interference. If someone can have a "civil union", and that gives them the same privileges (with insurance, wills, ect) that a marriage does a heterosexual couple ... well, that should be the end of it. How a TERM is defined should be up the states, and right or wrong, the people of California passed a law defining the term. No rights are being infringed.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Caine

I personally don't care what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom, or whom that person chooses to marry. If a man loves another man, and wishes to marry that person, that action doesn't affect me or my children. I think the argument that some levied that the foundation of marriage is between and man and a woman is really a smokescreen, a code that says "I don't like homosexuals", and those people lack the courage to outright say it. That way, they can justify bigotry while trying to maintain the "high ground".

Having said that, there is ZERO fundamental right to marriage, for either straight or gays. The 14th Amendment should not apply because marriage isn't a right. If the majority of people in CA, as bigoted as they may be, chooses to officially define a term, they should have the ability to do that without federal interference. If someone can have a "civil union", and that gives them the same privileges (with insurance, wills, ect) that a marriage does a heterosexual couple ... well, that should be the end of it. How a TERM is defined should be up the states, and right or wrong, the people of California passed a law defining the term. No rights are being infringed.

Great that means civil unions for all blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and multi-race couples! WTF.

Proposition 8 wasn't about defining a term, it was about taking a right away that the state had already given, just as the previous proposition 22.

Maybe some states can start defining terms such as work so the cloud the lines of it being slavery or work, that would be progress.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Caine

I personally don't care what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom, or whom that person chooses to marry. If a man loves another man, and wishes to marry that person, that action doesn't affect me or my children. I think the argument that some levied that the foundation of marriage is between and man and a woman is really a smokescreen, a code that says "I don't like homosexuals", and those people lack the courage to outright say it. That way, they can justify bigotry while trying to maintain the "high ground".

Having said that, there is ZERO fundamental right to marriage, for either straight or gays. The 14th Amendment should not apply because marriage isn't a right. If the majority of people in CA, as bigoted as they may be, chooses to officially define a term, they should have the ability to do that without federal interference. If someone can have a "civil union", and that gives them the same privileges (with insurance, wills, ect) that a marriage does a heterosexual couple ... well, that should be the end of it. How a TERM is defined should be up the states, and right or wrong, the people of California passed a law defining the term. No rights are being infringed.

Why call a marriage a civil union because it's two homosexual people? Why not call it a marriage regardless of who it is? Where you chose to get married is up to the people getting married. Marriage has been around long before christianity (lets be honest, it was the mormons that poured a bunch of money into prop 8) has been around and last I checked, no religion has a trademark or owns the word marriage.

But again, the term 'marriage' wasn't what prop 8 was about. Prop 8 was about denying two people of the same sex from legally getting married. You deny a group of people the right to do something that others can do, you've violated the 14th amendment of the constitution.

I tell you what, since it's a small group of bigoted people that think gay people should not be allowed to marry, let's get rid of the word marriage all together and call every single 'marriage' a civil union, regardless if it's straight or gay people. After all, the term means the same thing, right?

[Caine]

Why call a marriage a civil union because it's two homosexual people? Why not call it a marriage regardless of who it is? Where you chose to get married is up to the people getting married. Marriage has been around long before christianity (lets be honest, it was the mormons that poured a bunch of money into prop 8) has been around and last I checked, no religion has a trademark or owns the word marriage.

Because the majority (actually the GREAT majority, over 70%) of people in California wants to define that term in that way.

It's really no different than the Federal term for marriage as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.

But again, the term 'marriage' wasn't what prop 8 was about. Prop 8 was about denying two people of the same sex from legally getting married. You deny a group of people the right to do something that others can do, you've violated the 14th amendment of the constitution.

There's that pesky word again: right. There is no defined right of marriage in any state, anywhere in the United States.

I'll give you a different term, then. There is no difference legally between a civil union and a marriage. Both have the same privileges for living wills, insurance beneficiaries, ect. The only caveat is the NAME. Prop 8 isn't saying homosexuals cannot benefit, by civil unions, everything that heterosexuals can by marriage. They are simply defining the term, just as Clinton did in 1996.

I'm not saying I even agree with it. I think, honestly, that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want (within reason). I'm also a fan of the democratic process, and that was carried out in California. Since marriage is not a right, it's not applicable under the 14th Amendment.

I tell you what, since it's a small group of bigoted people that think gay people should not be allowed to marry, let's get rid of the word marriage all together and call every single 'marriage' a civil union, regardless if it's straight or gay people. After all, the term means the same thing, right?

Actually, I would be ok with that. Leave the term "marriage" for religious connotations, and "civil unions" for all others. Or make everything civil unions. That's fine with me.

Side note: not a small group of bigots. The last poll I saw says a great majority of people in the US are against gay marriages. So, there's a BUNCH of bigots out there.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Caine

Side note: not a small group of bigots. The last poll I saw says a great majority of people in the US are against gay marriages. So, there's a BUNCH of bigots out there.

Don't know what poll you saw.

November '11 Pew 46/44 favoring gay marriage

July '11 WaPo 51/45 favoring legal gay marriage

July '11 Quinnipiac 46/48 favor gay marriage in your state

May '11 Gallup 53/45 favoring legal gay marriage

[Caine]

Fox News Poll: 65/43 against gay marriage June 2011
Democray Corps Poll: 42/35 against gay marriage March 2011.

And before you start maligning the poll makers, consider this: only 7 states recognize gay marriage. It's been defeated in multiple states. If the polls you states were correct, the number of gay marriage stats would be much, much higher.

[DaddyTorgo]

If you're getting your news from Fox then really there's no sense in trying to have a conversation based on facts with you.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Caine

Because the majority (actually the GREAT majority, over 70%) of people in California wants to define that term in that way.

Where on earth do you get this number from? If Prop 8 was on the ballot this year in 2012, it would lose. As it is, it barely won in 2008 (52-48).

[Caine]

I could say the same if you get your facts from CNN, or Gallup. Any poll is politically motivated either right or left.

And here's really the fact that matters, at least to me: the majority of voters in California voted FOR Prop 8. That should be it. The 14th Amendment does not apply since marriage isn't a right.

I may not like it, but there's a bunch of laws I don't agree with.

[Scoobz0202]

Gallup? Really? Has things changed over the years? I was under the impression that they were the "best."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Caine

I could say the same if you get your facts from CNN, or Gallup. Any poll is politically motivated either right or left.

And here's really the fact that matters, at least to me: the majority of voters in California voted FOR Prop 8. That should be it. The 14th Amendment does not apply since marriage isn't a right.

I may not like it, but there's a bunch of laws I don't agree with.

LMAO.

Some polls are better than others though - more accurate and less biased. Those two aren't.

You believe that marriage isn't a right - the courts obviosuly disagree with you.

You're trying to cloak this in some greater "democracy" or "constitutionality" argument, but the reality is that by defending the bigots you're lumping yourself in with them (either because you're a bigot and just don't want to admit it, or just because you're so dogmatic about the letter of the law that you refuse to see that it's inumane).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Caine

I could say the same if you get your facts from CNN, or Gallup. Any poll is politically motivated either right or left.

And here's really the fact that matters, at least to me: the majority of voters in California voted FOR Prop 8. That should be it. The 14th Amendment does not apply since marriage isn't a right.

I may not like it, but there's a bunch of laws I don't agree with.

No, that's not how it works. If a bunch of Confederate idiots want to bring back the Confederacy and slavery and have 70% of a state backing it, we don't say, "the people's will!". We recognize it as an idiotic infringement of the rights of the minority by the majority.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Caine

Fox News Poll: 65/43 against gay marriage June 2011
Democray Corps Poll: 42/35 against gay marriage March 2011.

And before you start maligning the poll makers, consider this: only 7 states recognize gay marriage. It's been defeated in multiple states. If the polls you states were correct, the number of gay marriage stats would be much, much higher.

The Democracy Corps poll was only taken in 50 battleground districts and isn't valid to use as a national poll. The Fox poll is so out of line with the other polls done in 2011 that it's at best an outlier and at worst propaganda.

[Caine]

You believe that marriage isn't a right - the courts obviosuly disagree with you.

That federal court does -- we'll see about SCOTUS.

You're trying to cloak this in some greater "democracy" or "constitutionality" argument, but the reality is that by defending the bigots you're lumping yourself in with them (either because you're a bigot and just don't want to admit it, or just because you're so dogmatic about the letter of the law that you refuse to see that it's inumane).

Oooh, I love this. So, because I'm defending the vote by the majority of people, I suddenly become one of the people. That's much the same as someone defending the right of free speech of KKK members a racist. There's a very, VERY distinct difference between defending someone's rights (the right of determination by vote) under the Constitution and the actions of that person. Very, very different.

I'm a Constitutionalist. Strictly speaking, I believe in the adherance in the foundation of this country. Which lead to ...

If a bunch of Confederate idiots want to bring back the Confederacy and slavery and have 70% of a state backing it, we don't say, "the people's will!". We recognize it as an idiotic infringement of the rights of the minority by the majority.

I can argue the HUGE difference between slavery and gay rights, but that's another topic. To take your ridiculous comparison a step forward -- if 70% of 3/4th of all states vote to change or eliminate the 14th Amendment, or amend the Constitution to allow slavery again, guess what? It's back.

That's the wonderment and the danger in the Constitution -- it's flexibility.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Caine

Because the majority (actually the GREAT majority, over 70%) of people in California wants to define that term in that way.

It's really no different than the Federal term for marriage as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.

Actually it barely won. 52 point something to 48 point something. Winning with over 600K votes and in california, that's a very narrow margin.

There's that pesky word again: right. There is no defined right of marriage in any state, anywhere in the United States.

By allowing marriage to continue for over 200 years, by default, it has become a right. However, and I'm probably being pedantic here, the lines of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the declaration of independence, also known as our "unalienable rights", covers marriage, in my opinion.

I'll give you a different term, then. There is no difference legally between a civil union and a marriage. Both have the same privileges for living wills, insurance beneficiaries, ect. The only caveat is the NAME. Prop 8 isn't saying homosexuals cannot benefit, by civil unions, everything that heterosexuals can by marriage. They are simply defining the term, just as Clinton did in 1996.

I'm not saying I even agree with it. I think, honestly, that people should be allowed to marry whomever they want (within reason). I'm also a fan of the democratic process, and that was carried out in California. Since marriage is not a right, it's not applicable under the 14th Amendment.

In all honesty, that argument falls into the "White's Only" and "Blacks Only" water fountains. Separate but equal. That didn't pass constitutional muster either.

Actually, I would be ok with that. Leave the term "marriage" for religious connotations, and "civil unions" for all others. Or make everything civil unions. That's fine with me.

I understand what you're saying, but, why is it if the marriage is between two men instead of between a man and a woman, it should not be called a marriage? What is the rational and logical basis for not calling it a marriage?

Side note: not a small group of bigots. The last poll I saw says a great majority of people in the US are against gay marriages. So, there's a BUNCH of bigots out there.

The small group I was referring to is the outspoken and vehement people opposed to anything gay. I apologize, I should have been more specific. I do believe that the tide is turning on those who are opposed to gay marriage to those who are in favor. It's getting to be almost neck and neck.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Caine

I'm a Constitutionalist. Strictly speaking, I believe in the adherance in the foundation of this country. Which lead to ...

Strict Constitutionalists are intellectually lazy IMO. There's nothing infallible about a document that was written by MEN...great men but flawed men, over 200 years ago.

[CrimsonFox]

The whole prohibition thing was just kinda lost on you, wasn't it.

Heck here they vote in light rail systems and unvote them the next year like clockwork.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Caine

And here's really the fact that matters, at least to me: the majority of voters in California voted FOR Prop 8. That should be it. The 14th Amendment does not apply since marriage isn't a right.

We do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic. Just because 51% of people vote to discriminate against 49% of the people does not make it law. Our country was setup for this exact reason. So that if a group had 51% of the population, they couldn't discriminate agains the other 49%.

You can claim marriage isn't a right, but the Supreme Court has viewed it as one for nearly half a century.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Caine

That federal court does -- we'll see about SCOTUS.

SCOTUS did, half a century ago. Read up on Loving vs Virginia. If they want to claim marriage is not a right, then they would overturn that ruling too. It would be legal to ban interracial marriages since marriage isn't a "right".

[fortheglory]

Originally Posted by miked

I'm not overly abreast of the situation, but I don't think the courts dismissed the vote because they didn't like it. I believe they are saying the vote was not constitutional. As has been said numerous times in many threads, the will of the people is not a blank check. There is a judiciary system to make sure the will of the people does not violate the constitution, or at least some interpretation thereof. I mean, Georgia and most southern states would probably vote for the right to ban minorities from schools and work, but it doesn't make it legal.

A very good point, but why hold the referendum in the first place then? I think Caine hit the nail on the head in post #112

[miked]

I think the referendum was stupid. It was bankrolled by church groups and bigots, that's why they held it. There are some people that feel the need to impose their social beliefs on everyone and it's gotten much louder and more organized (ie more money) over the past several years. So there you have it. The referendum was stupid, and most were complaining that it was unconstitutional before the vote came out. Maybe states need to see how things get on the ballot :shrug:

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Strict Constitutionalists are intellectually lazy IMO.

No doubt. Just look at this thread. It's fun to see how the "strict Constitutionalists" don't know a damn thing about the law or prior SCOTUS rulings...shows how little effort and research they put in before developing their opinions. Then to come on this board and try to argue about it...

[BrianD]

Fox News Poll: 65/43 against gay marriage June 2011

65+43=108

This is either a misprint, a fabrication, or the results of a poll with at least 8 options and each of the percentages rounded up. Source aside, this should raise some flags.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

A very good point, but why hold the referendum in the first place then? I think Caine hit the nail on the head in post #112

Anybody have any stats on how many laws/referendums have been struck down as unconstitutional? I'm guessing that number would be pretty large. In any event, constitutionality is not determined before a vote is taken. It is only determined before something actually goes into law.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Anybody have any stats on how many laws/referendums have been struck down as unconstitutional? I'm guessing that number would be pretty large. In any event, constitutionality is not determined before a vote is taken. It is only determined before something actually goes into law.

Yes I do,
According to the Constitutional Gallup Poll, 42% of people found that 63% of laws and referendums were struck down after a 75% majority vote and 87% found that 25% of them were struck down when it was 50/50.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Strict Constitutionalists are intellectually lazy IMO. There's nothing infallible about a document that was written by MEN...great men but flawed men, over 200 years ago.

This may lead to a tangent, but I think strict constitutionalists lead to a bigger problem than just being intellectually lazy. It seems to be an easy jump include what the founding fathers "meant" into the constitution. We can see this very strongly in the religious freedom debate in the country. The constitution says "freedom of religion". Some would argue that it was meant as "freedom to practice your version of Christianity". These two provide a dangerous combination. The constitution needs to be seen as a living document. Rather than discuss what was meant, go through the amendment process.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Yes I do,
According to the Constitutional Gallup Poll, 42% of people found that 63% of laws and referendums were struck down after a 75% majority vote and 87% found that 25% of them were struck down when it was 50/50.

Nice.

Answering my own question - with more fact checking needed:
Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional......................................935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional....................................222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments..............................................1,539

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

SCOTUS did, half a century ago. Read up on Loving vs Virginia. If they want to claim marriage is not a right, then they would overturn that ruling too. It would be legal to ban interracial marriages since marriage isn't a "right".

I was going to make this point. Has our basic legal education been this degraded that people don't realize this?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The constitution needs to be seen as a living document. Rather than discuss what was meant, go through the amendment process.

Why does a living document need an amendment process?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I was going to make this point. Has our basic legal education been this degraded that people don't realize this?

Apparently so.

Or in the strict Constitutionalist view (which makes no sense), since it wasn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution (although it was later clarified as such by a branch to which the Constitution grants the power to make such decisions), it doesn't count.

Real head-scratcher.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

A very good point, but why hold the referendum in the first place then? I think Caine hit the nail on the head in post #112

It is much easier to get a referendum on a ballot in California than in other states. If it is a referendum you are trying to put on the ballot is a regular statute (as was originally tried in 2000, with the nearly identically worded Prop 22, which was later declared unconstitutional) you need to gather signatures supporting the inclusion of the proposition totaling at least 5% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election. For a constitutional amendment (which Prop 22 was repackaged as Prop 8), you need to gather signatures totaling at least 8% of the previous gubernatorial election.

Keep in mind that to sign the petition you didn't have to vote in the last election, just be a registered voter. In the 2006 election, there were approx. 8.9 million voters in the CA governor's race. That meant that approx. 700,000 signatures had to be gathered from registered voters out of a pool of 17.5 million registered voters.

So, if you take the population of California as a whole, around 2% of the population can join together to introduce amendments to the state constitution.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I was going to make this point. Has our basic legal education been this degraded that people don't realize this?

We've done a good job teaching people that the constitution means whatever they want it to.

[ISiddiqui]

That goes to the general question. Is the Constitution a tool for a happy society & government or an end in and of itself? Too many folks think the later, IMO.

[JPhillips]

Does the Constitution serve us or do we serve the Constitution?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That goes to the general question. Is the Constitution a tool for a happy society & government or an end in and of itself? Too many folks think the later, IMO.

Nothing exists in isolation. Even the Constitution.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

Why does a living document need an amendment process?

Because if you can't change it, it isn't a living document?

[bronconick]

I'm convinced that even the founding fathers expected us to get together every so often and craft a new constitution. The second way to introduce amendments is to have states call for a constitutional convention. If you raised one now, they'd probably be astonished that we're using the same one 230 years later.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The constitution needs to be seen as a living document. Rather than discuss what was meant, go through the amendment process.

The US Constitution is a few pages long. About 50 if you include all the amendments, if you make the pages small and sell it so that people can keep it on a breast pocket, next to their Bible or snifter of Scotch.

An average day in the life of one person in the modern world requires more than 50 pages to adequately explain and govern. From traffic laws (locally defined in the 10th Amendment but some things can be defined federally) to food inspection at the grocery store (interstate commerce) to what you do online at night (porn crosses even national boundaries!). And we're not even scratching the surface.

There are so many things that have to be decided at a national or international level which are not expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't think if Tom Jefferson were alive today, he'd be working towards: "You know, I need to build in an amendment for how to regulate sulfur emissions into the atmosphere because there's no wall that keeps out air between Tennessee and Kentucky".

Finally, while the "Founding Fathers" were, in a lot of ways, brilliant men. Putting them on some sort of odd pedestal as infallible is unhealthy hero worship at best to downright dangerously luddite.

SI

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The US Constitution is a few pages long. About 50 if you include all the amendments, if you make the pages small and sell it so that people can keep it on a breast pocket, next to their Bible or snifter of Scotch.

An average day in the life of one person in the modern world requires more than 50 pages to adequately explain and govern. From traffic laws (locally defined in the 10th Amendment but some things can be defined federally) to food inspection at the grocery store (interstate commerce) to what you do online at night (porn crosses even national boundaries!). And we're not even scratching the surface.

There are so many things that have to be decided at a national or international level which are not expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't think if Tom Jefferson were alive today, he'd be working towards: "You know, I need to build in an amendment for how to regulate sulfur emissions into the atmosphere because there's no wall that keeps out air between Tennessee and Kentucky".

Finally, while the "Founding Fathers" were, in a lot of ways, brilliant men. Putting them on some sort of odd pedestal as infallible is unhealthy hero worship at best to downright dangerously luddite.

SI

This...is a damn fine post.