Marriage in California

[Stereodude]

You should research the supremacy clause of the US constitution. The only way to enact a law which modifies it is a 2/3rds majority of the national legislature, followed by a majority vote in the legislature of 2/3rds of the states.

You can argue whether prop 8 does indeed violate due process or equality under the law: but if we assume it does (that was the conclusion of the judiciary), then it's unconstitutional.

No. The problem here is not a "will of the people" issue. The only arguable point is the interpretation of the constitution of the US.

You should go back and familiarize yourself with the concept of Federalism. The feds don't have any power explicitly granted them by the constitution (that darn 10th Amendment and the whole concept of Federalism that the country was founded under). Since the Constitution or it's Amendments doesn't address marriage the supremacy of the Constitution is irrelevant. The states have the sole ability to regulate marriage.

 

[jinjuku]

You should go back and familiarize yourself with the concept of Federalism. The feds don't have any power explicitly granted them by the constitution (that darn 10th Amendment and the whole concept of Federalism that the country was founded under). Since the Constitution or it's Amendments doesn't address marriage the supremacy of the Constitution is irrelevant. The states have the sole ability to regulate marriage.

Then why is this going to SCOTUS if it is a strictly California Constitutional issue?

 

[Stereodude]

Then why is this going to SCOTUS if it is a strictly California Constitutional issue?

Because an activist in a robe decided the feds had some say. Hopefully they the SCOTUS will uphold the Constitution and let the states exercise their rights.

 

[jinjuku]

Because an activist in a robe decided the feds had some say. Hopefully they the SCOTUS will uphold the Constitution and let the states exercise their rights.

It isn't going from Judge Walker to SCOTUS. It is going up to an Appellate court. From there it would go to SCOTUS.

The prevailing wind is that even the Appellate court will uphold Judge Walkers decision. From there the last appeal is SCOTUS.

I'm not sure what dog the conservative christian right has in this particular match. I just concerns me seeing men of the cloth at the political lectern.

This is a Civil Rights issue. I am not sure how this could be construed any other way.

 

[Jed M]

The libertarian in me agrees that this is a civil rights issue. This really has nothing to do with marriage. To me (as a straight man), this is no different than the state of Kansas voting to deny me the right to marry. I don't care what majority rules, I would hope that the judge did his job and told all the haters where to stick it. The whole reason we have judges is to correct injustices based on our rights afforded to us in the Constitution. My personal opinion is the less government, religious fundies, socialist lefties, etc interference in our lives, especially our personal lives, the better. Quite frankly I think its a crime that the government rewards people for getting married. It just isn't any of their business.

In reality, its election season and the politicians are just using this and other wedge issues like immigration to fire up the bases. Happens every two years and nothing ever changes does it? Its because they get us to fight over stupid wedge issues that in the grand scheme of things don't really mean much to our daily lives, but they cut to the core of our beliefs. So instead of us focusing on how bad the corporations and special interests are ruining our country and how broken our SYSTEM is and not just the politicians, we are fighting over how to interpret a book that was written 2000 years ago based on stories that were passed down for 2 centuries before that instead of just using what we know now and applying logic to it. Common sense in this country took the first train out about 50 years ago.

 

[highfigh]

Then why is this going to SCOTUS if it is a strictly California Constitutional issue?

Because people in power want the federal government to have control over EVERYTHING in our lives. The Constitution specifically limits the powers of the central government and IMO, Obama, having supposedly taught Constitutional Law (or researched it) for about 10 years, has no doubt thought of every way to skirt every Article and Amendment. This is one of the main reasons I didn't want, and don't like him, as President. We don't need Washington telling us what to do in every aspect of our lives. They don't agree. Look at what the Health Care Bill and Porkulus encompass- 2700 pages to tell us that they will determine our health care options with a shyteload of additional provisions that have nothing to do with health care and then, they include wording that says it can't be considered to be a tax for any reason, present or future. Then, they want to tax us on health care premiums paid by our employers and penalize those who decide that they'd rather take their chances by not being insured? WTF? They cover illegals but don't want to cover US citizens? WTF? They want to push back the start of receiving SS benefits to age 70 but give benefits to illegals? WTF? They want to continue to allow illegals free entry just so they can get more voters? WTF? Pelosi said that we have to pass the Health Care Bill so we can see what it includes, away from the fog of controversy?WTF?

 

[jinjuku]

We don't need Washington telling us what to do in every aspect of our lives.

So sticking to the issue that we are discussing

Gays and Lesbians don't need the religious right telling them what to do either. This is a real issue, as all civil rights issues are. This is far from a 'wedge' issue.

 

[gmichael]

So, my sheep can not marry my HT system? Bummer.

 

[Pyrrho]

Well, we're going to have agree to disagree on this one. The 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone's right to marry. You must have missed the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Since marriage isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution or any amendments the states have the exclusive rights to regulate marriage.

Maybe you should brush up on your Federalism.

There is a serious problem with your argument. More recent amendments alter what is in force. Thus, if there is a conflict between the 10th and 14th amendments, the 14th is the one that is binding. This is the meaning of an "amendment"; it is a change to what was. And as for whether or not the 14th amendment gives the right to marriage or not, it 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." If straight people have a right to marriage, then it is arguable that denying this right to gay people is a violation of "equal protection." But I will leave it to the lawyers to argue whether or not that is a correct interpretation. My point is simply this: Any amendment after the 10th, if it conflicts with the 10th in any way, then the later amendment is the one that has legal force. Earlier amendments can be reduced to nothing in such a manner (as, for example, the 18th amendment, which is now totally irrelevant to the law), or they can be only partly curtailed, depending upon whatever is stated in a newer amendment.

 

[Nemo128]

So sticking to the issue that we are discussing

Gays and Lesbians don't need the religious right telling them what to do either. This is a real issue, as all civil rights issues are. This is far from a 'wedge' issue.

Unfortunately in this country, the church and the state are about as seperated as stupidity and the cast of Jersey Shore.

 

[Jed M]

Sorry, it is a wedge issue. It might be a real issue, but that doesn't change the fact that the stuff we fight over is not the main problem, or even relatively close to the main problems facing this country. If we would take care of the main problems, ie rampant corruption in our political system or the horrible free fall our education system is in then most of these highly charged "wedge" issues will take care of themselves. The problem is the powers that be never want to fix these wedge problems because once we get by those then we might focus on the real problem. That is precisely why its a 'wedge' issue and will always be used as a way to hide the real problems. I am not saying this or illegal immigration or abortion aren't very real issues for a lot of people, but it doesn't change the fact they are put out there every two years so they can drive a wedge through the populace who knows they are getting screwed, divide us, get us fighting and then we lose focus on the real problems.

 

[Rickster71]

Sorry, it is a wedge issue. It might be a real issue, but that doesn't change the fact that the stuff we fight over is not the main problem, or even relatively close to the main problems facing this country. If we would take care of the main problems, ie rampant corruption in our political system or the horrible free fall our education system is in then most of these highly charged "wedge" issues will take care of themselves. The problem is the powers that be never want to fix these wedge problems because once we get by those then we might focus on the real problem. That is precisely why its a 'wedge' issue and will always be used as a way to hide the real problems. I am not saying this or illegal immigration or abortion aren't very real issues for a lot of people, but it doesn't change the fact they are put out there every two years so they can drive a wedge through the populace who knows they are getting screwed, divide us, get us fighting and then we lose focus on the real problems.

That's it!
Divide and Conquer, politics 101.
Well done sir.

 

[highfigh]

So sticking to the issue that we are discussing

Gays and Lesbians don't need the religious right telling them what to do either. This is a real issue, as all civil rights issues are. This is far from a 'wedge' issue.

Since it will probably go to the US Supreme Court, which is in Washington DC BTW, how does that deviate from the issue, especially when the justices are nominated by people in DC?

Religion and politics are too similar to never become intermingled. People who head both are interested in controlling people.

AFAIK, even Obama isn't in favor of gays marrying. He's OK with civil unions, though.

 

[highfigh]

Sorry, it is a wedge issue. It might be a real issue, but that doesn't change the fact that the stuff we fight over is not the main problem, or even relatively close to the main problems facing this country. If we would take care of the main problems, ie rampant corruption in our political system or the horrible free fall our education system is in then most of these highly charged "wedge" issues will take care of themselves. The problem is the powers that be never want to fix these wedge problems because once we get by those then we might focus on the real problem. That is precisely why its a 'wedge' issue and will always be used as a way to hide the real problems. I am not saying this or illegal immigration or abortion aren't very real issues for a lot of people, but it doesn't change the fact they are put out there every two years so they can drive a wedge through the populace who knows they are getting screwed, divide us, get us fighting and then we lose focus on the real problems.

IMO, our government is elbows deep in the idea that "an uneducated populace is a controllable populace". They talk about how we have a "brain drain" and all that we're lagging behind the rest of the world but when politicians decide what will be taught and to whom, we're all screwed. The last Presidential election was a very emotional and, according to the media/wags, an historical one. Since when is a President supposed to be elected, based on emotions and being called 'an historical election'?

They tell us what they'll do for the Country and then, they go off and do what they want. What they say they'll do causes people to react on a very primal level and it's wrong for them to do this. We need to select our leaders, based on critical thinking, not spinning around in circles.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"- The Wizard of Oz came out in 1939, based on a book from 1900. Amazing how things don't change much.

 

[Nemo128]

The last Presidential election was a very emotional and, according to the media/wags, an historical one. Since when is a President supposed to be elected, based on emotions and being called 'an historical election'?

The election of any major political position around the world is historic. They go down in the history books as significant events.

Rest assured, the smelly meat fart I just unleashed on my poor chair was not a historic event... unless one of you is responsible for the creation of history books and will use this in an upcoming publication.

 

[JerryLove]

You should go back and familiarize yourself with the concept of Federalism. The feds don't have any power explicitly granted them by the constitution (that darn 10th Amendment and the whole concept of Federalism that the country was founded under). Since the Constitution or it's Amendments doesn't address marriage the supremacy of the Constitution is irrelevant. The states have the sole ability to regulate marriage.

"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." - US Constitution.

This would be the "equality under the law" portion of the 14th amendment that the judge in this case ruled was violated. This is also the amendment which prohibits the states from violating via state law anything protected in the constitution: in this case

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - US constitution.

You are welcome to disagree with the judicial ruling that equal protection and due process are violated by a ban on homosexual marriage: but there can be no sane argument that the federal government lacks jurisdiction to enforce the constitution.

 

[JerryLove]

We need to select our leaders, based on critical thinking, not spinning around in circles.

Like communism or anarchy: this is a Utopian ideal which fails to account for the real motivations of real people and so can never work.

Several presidents were excellent critical thinkers, and very successful as a result. They became president of the US, and became very wealthy. That doesn't help you or I; but it doesn't make them uncritical either. They just didn't care about what you or I care about.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think that was Jesus.

Is it recorded and authenticated? After all, 2k years is a long time. Words do get confused by repetition.

 

[Tomorrow]

Unfortunately in this country, the church and the state are about as seperated as stupidity and the cast of Jersey Shore.

Unfortunately for you this country was founded by such. From the Declaration of Independence...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

 

[Stereodude]

"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." - US Constitution.

This would be the "equality under the law" portion of the 14th amendment that the judge in this case ruled was violated. This is also the amendment which prohibits the states from violating via state law anything protected in the constitution: in this case

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - US constitution.

You are welcome to disagree with the judicial ruling that equal protection and due process are violated by a ban on homosexual marriage: but there can be no sane argument that the federal government lacks jurisdiction to enforce the constitution.

Sorry, but in order to take the position the judge did you must assume that marriage by it's traditional definition deprives a select group of people equality under the law. Further, if you follow that logic you must also conclude that marriage is also discriminatory to anyone who wants to marry regardless of who, what or how many someone of it they want to marry. They're not getting equal protection under the law.