Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Allowing certain people to marry each other is not an "endorsement" of their marriage or lifestyle. There is no implied value judgement in allowing people to get married. It is a specific type of contract. The government recognizing a contract is not an endorsement of that contract.
I know you self-deluded ignoramuses on the left love to rub one out to fantasies of jackbooted government thugs bursting into the houses of homosexuals and dragging them away in cuffs for DARING to indulge in "the love that dare not speak its name"
...
When you man up enough to address the truth instead of your wet dreams of the Sex Police, call me.
I'm hurt deeply inside. You have mortally wounded me with your words.
Insults work better if you touch upon the truth with them. I can't say I'm disappointed this dialogue is finished.
Prop 8 needs to be overturned for all our sakes. If you can take one persons rights you can take anyones. Who knows who will lose there rights next.
The question before the bench is whether it is an amendment or an altering of the constitution that requires a marjority vote in the CA congress.
Since I had not posted on this thread before it would be impossible to be wrong again. Are you one of the Christian American Taliban that would take away someones rights because you think you are doing the will of some fairy tale god? Those are the people that fear gays and lesbians most. Boo. Did you jump out of your seat?
The question before the bench is whether it is an amendment or an altering of the constitution that requires a marjority vote in the CA congress.
Since I had not posted on this thread before it would be impossible to be wrong again. Are you one of the Christian American Taliban that would take away someones rights because you think you are doing the will of some fairy tale god? Those are the people that fear gays and lesbians most. Boo. Did you jump out of your seat?
Its not altering anything its letting the courts understand what it originally meant since they don't seem to understand. Was gay marriage happening when they made the constitution? I don't think so. Then what was the definition of marriage then?
"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence" " since the 12th century Marriage or Holy Matrimony has been defined as a relationship between man and woman."
The question before the bench is whether it is an amendment or an altering of the constitution that requires a marjority vote in the CA congress.
Since I had not posted on this thread before it would be impossible to be wrong again. Are you one of the Christian American Taliban that would take away someones rights because you think you are doing the will of some fairy tale god? Those are the people that fear gays and lesbians most. Boo. Did you jump out of your seat?
Its not altering anything its letting the courts understand what it originally meant since they don't seem to understand. Was gay marriage happening when they made the constitution? I don't think so. Then what was the definition of marriage then?
"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence" " since the 12th century Marriage or Holy Matrimony has been defined as a relationship between man and woman."
Except that it ignored that the court made the ruling that gays can get married based upon California's version of the equal protection clause. Thus in order to avoid making a contradictory document in the view of the court, the equal protection clause would have needed to be struck and maybe rewritten. When you have to strike a previous clause or should have to avoid making a contradictory document, that seems like a revision instead of an amendment to some. Unfortunately, the precise difference between amendments and revisions is not defined explicitly in the California Constitution.
Its not altering anything its letting the courts understand what it originally meant since they don't seem to understand. Was gay marriage happening when they made the constitution? I don't think so. Then what was the definition of marriage then?
"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence" " since the 12th century Marriage or Holy Matrimony has been defined as a relationship between man and woman."
Except that it ignored that the court made the ruling that gays can get married based upon California's version of the equal protection clause. Thus in order to avoid making a contradictory document in the view of the court, the equal protection clause would have needed to be struck and maybe rewritten. When you have to strike a previous clause or should have to avoid making a contradictory document, that seems like a revision instead of an amendment to some. Unfortunately, the precise difference between amendments and revisions is not defined explicitly in the California Constitution.
The Courts were wrong. And they only created Gay marriage with a 4 to 3 vote. Notice I said CREATED. No such right existed prior to the Courts creating that supposed right. All the Amendment does is clarify what marriage is. It does not seek to change the meaning of domestic partnerships or civil unions in any way. It does not seek to create new laws. It does not seek to create contradiction IN the Constitution. It simply clarifies what marriage IS.
Again if the Court rules against this Amendment you will in effect have the Courts ruling the people have no right, as granted IN that Constitution , to create Amendments unless the Courts have a say. The Courts have NO SAY on the parts and pieces of the Constitution, except to rule what laws are within or outside said document.
Using your definition, ANY change could be twisted into an "alteration" simply by some court ruling it is. Courts do not have that power.
This Court’s recognition that choice in marriage is among the
fundamental rights of all people of California was not empty dicta. Almost 20
years before the United States Supreme Court recognized in Loving v. Virginia
(1967) 388 U.S. 1, that the right to marry includes interracial marriage, this Court
directed the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the Los Angeles
County Clerk to issue a marriage license to white woman and a black man, striking
a state statute that prohibited interracial marriage.
By definition, gay individuals are persons who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex and thus, if inclined to enter into a marriage relationship, would choose to marry a person of their own sex or gender. 59 A statute that limits marriage to a union of persons of opposite sexes, thereby placing marriage outside the reach of couples of the same sex, unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. In our view, it is sophistic to suggest that this conclusion is avoidable by reason of the circumstance that the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person's sexual orientation. Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation.
[…]
Having concluded that the California marriage statutes treat persons differently on the basis of sexual orientation, we must determine whether sexual orientation should be considered a “suspect classification” under the California equal protection clause, so that statutes drawing a distinction on this basis are subject to strict scrutiny.
In addressing this issue, the majority in the Court of Appeal stated: “For a statutory classification to be considered ‘suspect’ for equal protection purposes, generally three requirements must be met. The defining characteristic must (1) be based upon an ‘immutable trait’; (2) ‘bear[] no relation to [a person's] ability to perform or contribute to society’; and (3) be associated with a ‘stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship,’ manifested by the group's history of legal and social disabilities.
[…]
Past California cases fully support the Court of Appeal's conclusion that sexual orientation is a characteristic (1) that bears no relation to a person's ability to perform or contribute to society (see, e.g., Gay Law Students, supra, 24 Cal.3d 458, 488), and (2) that is associated with a stigma of inferiority and second-class citizenship, manifested by the group's history of legal and social disabilities.
[…]
We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal's conclusion that it is appropriate to reject sexual orientation as a suspect classification, in applying the California Constitution's equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not “immutable.” Although we noted in Sail'er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, that generally a person's gender is viewed as an immutable trait (id. at p. 18), immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. California cases establish that a person's religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 123, 128 [201 Cal. Rptr. 70]; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal. App. 3d 156, 161–162 [164 Cal. Rptr. 176]), and one's religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [101 Cal. Rptr. 896, 496 P.2d 1264] [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].) Because a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment. (Accord, Hernandez-Montiel v. I.N.S. (9th Cir. 2000) 225 F.3d 1084, 1093 [“exual orientation and sexual identity … are so fundamental to one's identity that a person should not be required to abandon them”]; Egan v. Canada, supra, 2 S.C.R. 513, 528 [“whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs …”].)
Consequently, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic that can be defined in isolation. Rather, one's sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of personal identity.
Except that it ignored that the court made the ruling that gays can get married based upon California's version of the equal protection clause. Thus in order to avoid making a contradictory document in the view of the court, the equal protection clause would have needed to be struck and maybe rewritten. When you have to strike a previous clause or should have to avoid making a contradictory document, that seems like a revision instead of an amendment to some. Unfortunately, the precise difference between amendments and revisions is not defined explicitly in the California Constitution.
The Courts were wrong. And they only created Gay marriage with a 4 to 3 vote. Notice I said CREATED. No such right existed prior to the Courts creating that supposed right. All the Amendment does is clarify what marriage is. It does not seek to change the meaning of domestic partnerships or civil unions in any way. It does not seek to create new laws. It does not seek to create contradiction IN the Constitution. It simply clarifies what marriage IS.
Again if the Court rules against this Amendment you will in effect have the Courts ruling the people have no right, as granted IN that Constitution , to create Amendments unless the Courts have a say. The Courts have NO SAY on the parts and pieces of the Constitution, except to rule what laws are within or outside said document.
Using your definition, ANY change could be twisted into an "alteration" simply by some court ruling it is. Courts do not have that power.
I see what you're saying, but in this case there's is a perceived precedent for their decision. Loving v. Virginia (SCOTUS) struck down anti-miscegenation laws based upon the federal equal protection clause. The California Supreme Court agreed with the following text from the amicus curiae of the Bar Association of San Francisco:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...uments/Bar_Assn_of_SF_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf (bottom of page 16 on pdf).
Basically these lawyers believe that in the same way the California Supreme Court pioneered the fight against anti-miscegenation laws by acting before Loving v. Virginia, they should do so in the case of gay marriage as well, as they see the issues as based upon similar principles.
After concluding that the discrimination is not gender discrimination, but rather sexual orientation discrimination, the court stated in its majority opinion:
By definition, gay individuals are persons who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex and thus, if inclined to enter into a marriage relationship, would choose to marry a person of their own sex or gender. 59 A statute that limits marriage to a union of persons of opposite sexes, thereby placing marriage outside the reach of couples of the same sex, unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. In our view, it is sophistic to suggest that this conclusion is avoidable by reason of the circumstance that the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person's sexual orientation. Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation.
[ ]
Having concluded that the California marriage statutes treat persons differently on the basis of sexual orientation, we must determine whether sexual orientation should be considered a suspect classification under the California equal protection clause, so that statutes drawing a distinction on this basis are subject to strict scrutiny.
In addressing this issue, the majority in the Court of Appeal stated: For a statutory classification to be considered suspect for equal protection purposes, generally three requirements must be met. The defining characteristic must (1) be based upon an immutable trait; (2) bear[] no relation to [a person's] ability to perform or contribute to society; and (3) be associated with a stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship, manifested by the group's history of legal and social disabilities.
[ ]
Past California cases fully support the Court of Appeal's conclusion that sexual orientation is a characteristic (1) that bears no relation to a person's ability to perform or contribute to society (see, e.g., Gay Law Students, supra, 24 Cal.3d 458, 488), and (2) that is associated with a stigma of inferiority and second-class citizenship, manifested by the group's history of legal and social disabilities.
[ ]
We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal's conclusion that it is appropriate to reject sexual orientation as a suspect classification, in applying the California Constitution's equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not immutable. Although we noted in Sail'er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, that generally a person's gender is viewed as an immutable trait (id. at p. 18), immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. California cases establish that a person's religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 123, 128 [201 Cal. Rptr. 70]; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal. App. 3d 156, 161162 [164 Cal. Rptr. 176]), and one's religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [101 Cal. Rptr. 896, 496 P.2d 1264] [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].) Because a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment. (Accord, Hernandez-Montiel v. I.N.S. (9th Cir. 2000) 225 F.3d 1084, 1093 [exual orientation and sexual identity are so fundamental to one's identity that a person should not be required to abandon them]; Egan v. Canada, supra, 2 S.C.R. 513, 528 [whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs ].)
LexisNexis(R) Customized Solution for California Courts (agree to terms and look up S147999)
This was in accord with the amicus curiae of the American Psychiatric Association (cited in footnote 59 of the opinion):Consequently, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic that can be defined in isolation. Rather, one's sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of personal identity.
In sum: Much like you cannot discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation, you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, immutable or not. Thus the equal protection clause is applicable to gay marriage.
The last paragraph is simply incorrect. Historically , no matter the claims made NOW, Marriage is understood to be between a single man and a single woman. That is the precedent. The State of California provides to non traditional households 2 separate means to gain all the LEGAL rights granted to a married couple. There is no discrimination at all.
Further by using this argument you encourage and strengthen the claims of other non traditional unions. Polygamy for one. Unions just for the purpose of tax credits and worker benefits as another.
IF as you claim two men or two women can MARRY and that denying them that institution is somehow discriminatory then the EXACT same argument can be used for Polygamy and Unions just to gain benefits from companies and the State.
Because if you are willing to throw out the part about " one man and one woman" then please show me where it is written in the marriage laws that 2 men and a woman or 2 women and a man can not be so wed? And once you do explain why THAT wording is more important then one man and one woman?
Most State jobs do not give benefits to people that just get hitched for the stated purpose of just collecting the benefits either. Nor do most Companies. In fact I can think of one specific case where it is CALLED fraud and you can go to jail for it.
The question before the bench is whether it is an amendment or an altering of the constitution that requires a marjority vote in the CA congress.
Since I had not posted on this thread before it would be impossible to be wrong again. Are you one of the Christian American Taliban that would take away someones rights because you think you are doing the will of some fairy tale god? Those are the people that fear gays and lesbians most. Boo. Did you jump out of your seat?
Its not altering anything its letting the courts understand what it originally meant since they don't seem to understand. Was gay marriage happening when they made the constitution? I don't think so. Then what was the definition of marriage then?
"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence" " since the 12th century Marriage or Holy Matrimony has been defined as a relationship between man and woman."
Try marrying a foreign national for the sole purpose of getting them into the country and getting them a permanent green card.
Most Companies do not investigate. Tell ya what.... Join the military and Marry a woman that you never live with, never visit and have no contact with except the sending of the extra cash you get for being married. Then brag about what you are doing to anyone that will listen.
Same used to be true for Firemen and Police as well as other State jobs that provided extra benefits for being married.
The contracts required an actual commitment on your part to the spouse to be valid.
The question before the bench is whether it is an amendment or an altering of the constitution that requires a marjority vote in the CA congress.
Since I had not posted on this thread before it would be impossible to be wrong again. Are you one of the Christian American Taliban that would take away someones rights because you think you are doing the will of some fairy tale god? Those are the people that fear gays and lesbians most. Boo. Did you jump out of your seat?
Its not altering anything its letting the courts understand what it originally meant since they don't seem to understand. Was gay marriage happening when they made the constitution? I don't think so. Then what was the definition of marriage then?
"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence" " since the 12th century Marriage or Holy Matrimony has been defined as a relationship between man and woman."
Except that it ignored that the court made the ruling that gays can get married based upon California's version of the equal protection clause. Thus in order to avoid making a contradictory document in the view of the court, the equal protection clause would have needed to be struck and maybe rewritten. When you have to strike a previous clause or should have to avoid making a contradictory document, that seems like a revision instead of an amendment to some. Unfortunately, the precise difference between amendments and revisions is not defined explicitly in the California Constitution.
Its not altering anything its letting the courts understand what it originally meant since they don't seem to understand. Was gay marriage happening when they made the constitution? I don't think so. Then what was the definition of marriage then?
"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence" " since the 12th century Marriage or Holy Matrimony has been defined as a relationship between man and woman."
Except that it ignored that the court made the ruling that gays can get married based upon California's version of the equal protection clause. Thus in order to avoid making a contradictory document in the view of the court, the equal protection clause would have needed to be struck and maybe rewritten. When you have to strike a previous clause or should have to avoid making a contradictory document, that seems like a revision instead of an amendment to some. Unfortunately, the precise difference between amendments and revisions is not defined explicitly in the California Constitution.
That is the question in fact. A revision in the CA Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in both houses. An amendment requires only a majority vote. This is why the case is in court. The Prop 8 ballet decision was drafted to quickly and the state may will be wrong. For a state that is broke they are sure going to be spending millions on these court cases. They have already spent a fortune. The people of Ca have no idea how much the legal team is costing them. That may be the most expensive vote in history before it is done. When the case goes to SCOTUS it will cost a fortune. I think there are better things to spend money on in that state.
Its not altering anything its letting the courts understand what it originally meant since they don't seem to understand. Was gay marriage happening when they made the constitution? I don't think so. Then what was the definition of marriage then?
"the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence" " since the 12th century Marriage or Holy Matrimony has been defined as a relationship between man and woman."
Except that it ignored that the court made the ruling that gays can get married based upon California's version of the equal protection clause. Thus in order to avoid making a contradictory document in the view of the court, the equal protection clause would have needed to be struck and maybe rewritten. When you have to strike a previous clause or should have to avoid making a contradictory document, that seems like a revision instead of an amendment to some. Unfortunately, the precise difference between amendments and revisions is not defined explicitly in the California Constitution.
The Courts were wrong. And they only created Gay marriage with a 4 to 3 vote. Notice I said CREATED. No such right existed prior to the Courts creating that supposed right. All the Amendment does is clarify what marriage is. It does not seek to change the meaning of domestic partnerships or civil unions in any way. It does not seek to create new laws. It does not seek to create contradiction IN the Constitution. It simply clarifies what marriage IS.
Again if the Court rules against this Amendment you will in effect have the Courts ruling the people have no right, as granted IN that Constitution , to create Amendments unless the Courts have a say. The Courts have NO SAY on the parts and pieces of the Constitution, except to rule what laws are within or outside said document.
Using your definition, ANY change could be twisted into an "alteration" simply by some court ruling it is. Courts do not have that power.
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Amendment Text | Annotations
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.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Except that it ignored that the court made the ruling that gays can get married based upon California's version of the equal protection clause. Thus in order to avoid making a contradictory document in the view of the court, the equal protection clause would have needed to be struck and maybe rewritten. When you have to strike a previous clause or should have to avoid making a contradictory document, that seems like a revision instead of an amendment to some. Unfortunately, the precise difference between amendments and revisions is not defined explicitly in the California Constitution.
The Courts were wrong. And they only created Gay marriage with a 4 to 3 vote. Notice I said CREATED. No such right existed prior to the Courts creating that supposed right. All the Amendment does is clarify what marriage is. It does not seek to change the meaning of domestic partnerships or civil unions in any way. It does not seek to create new laws. It does not seek to create contradiction IN the Constitution. It simply clarifies what marriage IS.
Again if the Court rules against this Amendment you will in effect have the Courts ruling the people have no right, as granted IN that Constitution , to create Amendments unless the Courts have a say. The Courts have NO SAY on the parts and pieces of the Constitution, except to rule what laws are within or outside said document.
Using your definition, ANY change could be twisted into an "alteration" simply by some court ruling it is. Courts do not have that power.
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Amendment Text | Annotations
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.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
The bolded statement in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution will be violated by prop 8 in CA. The CA constitution stands with the US constitution on this.
Gays and Lesbians have equal protections. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" You see the words liberty. Those are the words. Prop 8 denies me as a lesbian the liberty that you as a hetersexual are entitled to. Thats the law of the land.
No that part is NOT violated at all. You are so mistaken it is almost pointless to try and talk to you. Using your argument that somehow failure to be able to marry is a loss of Liberty is the same as claiming because one State allows 14 year olds to get a driver's License then the rest of the States have to also. Doesn't work that way.
In fact check out age of consent laws and get back to me on loss of "liberty".
The Courts were wrong. And they only created Gay marriage with a 4 to 3 vote. Notice I said CREATED. No such right existed prior to the Courts creating that supposed right. All the Amendment does is clarify what marriage is. It does not seek to change the meaning of domestic partnerships or civil unions in any way. It does not seek to create new laws. It does not seek to create contradiction IN the Constitution. It simply clarifies what marriage IS.
Again if the Court rules against this Amendment you will in effect have the Courts ruling the people have no right, as granted IN that Constitution , to create Amendments unless the Courts have a say. The Courts have NO SAY on the parts and pieces of the Constitution, except to rule what laws are within or outside said document.
Using your definition, ANY change could be twisted into an "alteration" simply by some court ruling it is. Courts do not have that power.
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Amendment Text | Annotations
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.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
The bolded statement in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution will be violated by prop 8 in CA. The CA constitution stands with the US constitution on this.
Gays and Lesbians have equal protections. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" You see the words liberty. Those are the words. Prop 8 denies me as a lesbian the liberty that you as a hetersexual are entitled to. Thats the law of the land.
No that part is NOT violated at all. You are so mistaken it is almost pointless to try and talk to you. Using your argument that somehow failure to be able to marry is a loss of Liberty is the same as claiming because one State allows 14 year olds to get a driver's License then the rest of the States have to also. Doesn't work that way.
In fact check out age of consent laws and get back to me on loss of "liberty".
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
The bolded statement in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution will be violated by prop 8 in CA. The CA constitution stands with the US constitution on this.
Gays and Lesbians have equal protections. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" You see the words liberty. Those are the words. Prop 8 denies me as a lesbian the liberty that you as a hetersexual are entitled to. Thats the law of the land.
No that part is NOT violated at all. You are so mistaken it is almost pointless to try and talk to you. Using your argument that somehow failure to be able to marry is a loss of Liberty is the same as claiming because one State allows 14 year olds to get a driver's License then the rest of the States have to also. Doesn't work that way.
In fact check out age of consent laws and get back to me on loss of "liberty".
Yes it is that is why the courts in CA passed the same sex marriage laws in the first place. The law stands against the 14th Amendment. Read the ruleing in that case and that was the decision. So guess what if the SCOCA decides to let this slide it will go directly to SCOTUS and be changed in every state. Then same sex marriage will be legal everywhere just the same as Texas did to get abortion legal in every state of the union California will do the same for same sex marriage.
You may think same sex marriage is immoral. Law does not consider moral teachings. It considers rights in accord with the US Constitution.
