The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Redfish believes that democracy, not the constitution of a republic, should rule.

Wanna bet that if the people of CA voted, by initiative, to ban guns or Christians from legal marriage, Fishy would be singing a different tune.

not at all, if the idiots in the land of fruits and nuts voted for those things----so be it. people deserve what they vote for.

my issue is not with gay marriage or not gay marriage. my issue is the ignoring of the will of the people, the overturning of the will of the people by ONE judge.

Do you fools want to live in a dictatorship?

Incorrect.

The fundamental doctrines of due process and equal protection of the law have been subject to centuries of judicial review and the scrutiny of hundreds of judges over those centuries. Proposition 8 was struck down in accordance with that jurisprudence, where the judges obeyed the Constitution and followed its case law.

‘But only one judge decided’ is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are a representative republic, Redfish: a majority cannot overrule the 14th Amendment, ever.

You can amend the Constitution if you wish to get rid of it.

oh but it could, 38 states can amend the constitution.

we elect our representatives by majority vote, our legislature passes bills by majority vote. a majority vote adopted the constitution. We do live by majority vote.

true, we do not have a true democracy, we have a representative republic that operates on majority votes.

No, we have a Constitutional Republic, where representative democracy is a component of government. The will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives and the laws they enact, are subject to the rule of law, and when those laws are repugnant to the Constitution, they are invalidated by the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

. . . . Biology, history, religiion, and common sense support that belief. Your belief is based on an emotional belief that a human aberation is normal--------but its not and never will be.

But----if a majority of the citizens of any society want to condone gay marriage by voting to make it legal--then so be it. Same applies if a majority vote to not allow it----so be it.

why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Biology and history support polygamy as the norm: only since Christianity has the norm for part of the human race to practice one man and one woman marriage. A good portion of the world still recognizes one man and more than one wife as normal.

Redfish, you are emotional on this issue, and your common sense has failed you.

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Majority rule cannot eviscerates constitutional protection of minorities that you have happen to dislike.

Only the Constitution will protect the evangelical and fundamental minorities in the future, not the American majority.

if the voters of a state want to sanction polygamy or bigamy, they should have that right.

I believe in states rights and individual freedom. I believe that the ethics and morals of a society should be set by the members of the society by majority vote.

I favor freedom, you favor governmental tyranny. you favor a system where the government dictates what we are allowed to believe and forces us to comply with ideas that we believe to be wrong.

What you advocate is the tyranny of the majority, where citizens might have their civil liberties denied by the majority regardless how cruel and capricious the motive, and where citizens whose civil liberties have been violated lack the means to seek relief.

What you advocate is anathema to the original intent of the Framers, to the Constitution, the rule of law, and to our fundamental principle of individual liberty, free from interference by the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

if the voters of a state want to sanction polygamy or bigamy, they should have that right.

I believe in states rights and individual freedom. I believe that the ethics and morals of a society should be set by the members of the society by majority vote.

I favor freedom, you favor governmental tyranny. you favor a system where the government dictates what we are allowed to believe and forces us to comply with ideas that we believe to be wrong.

You favor tyranny of the majority, bub.

You could institute polygamy or slavery, you could take away women's rights, you could establish a state religion.

That heavens your can't.

why do you assume that a majority is inherently tyranical? were the founders tyranical? is the constitution a tyranical document?

minority rights were established by majority vote.

you seem to want a system where the minority dictates to the majority. do you want a US monarchy with obama as king?

There’s no need to assume.

History is replete with evidence of the tyranny of the majority, DOMA and Proposition 8 being the most recent examples.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

Do you think that different race unions should have been a state issue also. That each state which specifically didn't allow for interracial marriage should not have been forced to recognize documents from a state which did allow for interracial marriages.

Are you consistent with that view or is it only because this is about homosexuals that special exemptions should be made?


>>>>

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it. As far as there being any form of "consistency" in the matter, the equality of blacks was fought Legislatively even though it was declared that all men are created equal under the Declaration. Blacks were considered inferior due to our nation having been built upon slavery. A series of "civil war amendments" would be established to declare by law equality among people of race. Women's rights in voting had to also be established legislatively, as the 14th Amendment rejected them that right, according to the United States Supreme Court. The suffrage movement led to the Legislative establishment of the 19th Amendment for women. In both cases the respect for the Constitution through the voice of the people in achieving a majority vote was heard. The voice of the people in the ratification process was never treated as insignificant or irrelevant, there was still a struggle to find the votes necessary for passage. As difficult as it was, for both movements, the methods and procedures under the Constitution in attaining the proper vote for passage, was always met with the highest respect towards its established foundational process. Under our nation's history, the need to establish equality towards a minority group still recognized the "process" in fighting for that majority vote to order to attain it. Each movement had the highest respect for that Constitutional process, despite the many setbacks they faced.

 

[Seawytch]

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

Do you think that different race unions should have been a state issue also. That each state which specifically didn't allow for interracial marriage should not have been forced to recognize documents from a state which did allow for interracial marriages.

Are you consistent with that view or is it only because this is about homosexuals that special exemptions should be made?


>>>>

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it.

OMG, seriously? It was called Loving v Virginia and it wasn't just any old "court", it was the Supreme Court that had to "force" people.

They forced 70% of the country that was against interracial marriage into "accepting" it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That being said, the decision to recognize same sex unions should be a state issue, however I also believe that a state which specifically doesn't allow for same sex marriage should not be forced to recognize documents from a state which does.

Do you think that different race unions should have been a state issue also. That each state which specifically didn't allow for interracial marriage should not have been forced to recognize documents from a state which did allow for interracial marriages.

Are you consistent with that view or is it only because this is about homosexuals that special exemptions should be made?


>>>>

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it. As far as there being any form of "consistency" in the matter, the equality of blacks was fought Legislatively even though it was declared that all men are created equal under the Declaration. Blacks were considered inferior due to our nation having been built upon slavery. A series of "civil war amendments" would be established to declare by law equality among people of race. Women's rights in voting had to also be established legislatively, as the 14th Amendment rejected them that right, according to the United States Supreme Court. The suffrage movement led to the Legislative establishment of the 19th Amendment for women. In both cases the respect for the Constitution through the voice of the people in achieving a majority vote was heard. The voice of the people in the ratification process was never treated as insignificant or irrelevant, there was still a struggle to find the votes necessary for passage. As difficult as it was, for both movements, the methods and procedures under the Constitution in attaining the proper vote for passage, was always met with the highest respect towards its established foundational process. Under our nation's history, the need to establish equality towards a minority group still recognized the "process" in fighting for that majority vote to order to attain it. Each movement had the highest respect for that Constitutional process, despite the many setbacks they faced.

All that typing and yet you failed to answer the question.

Regardless, the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which is why states may not deny same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Do you think that different race unions should have been a state issue also. That each state which specifically didn't allow for interracial marriage should not have been forced to recognize documents from a state which did allow for interracial marriages.

Are you consistent with that view or is it only because this is about homosexuals that special exemptions should be made?


>>>>

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it.

OMG, seriously? It was called Loving v Virginia and it wasn't just any old "court", it was the Supreme Court that had to "force" people.

They forced 70% of the country that was against interracial marriage into "accepting" it.

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

With regard to same sex marriages, by the. United States Supreme Court kicking it back to the individual states, it becomes an individual state issue. That being said if a state doesn't recognize same sex marriage, you still can't force the to accept documents from a state which does. You have to accept the process and the will of the people. As difficult as it is, that is the way in which our nation was established.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Do you think that different race unions should have been a state issue also. That each state which specifically didn't allow for interracial marriage should not have been forced to recognize documents from a state which did allow for interracial marriages.

Are you consistent with that view or is it only because this is about homosexuals that special exemptions should be made?


>>>>

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it. As far as there being any form of "consistency" in the matter, the equality of blacks was fought Legislatively even though it was declared that all men are created equal under the Declaration. Blacks were considered inferior due to our nation having been built upon slavery. A series of "civil war amendments" would be established to declare by law equality among people of race. Women's rights in voting had to also be established legislatively, as the 14th Amendment rejected them that right, according to the United States Supreme Court. The suffrage movement led to the Legislative establishment of the 19th Amendment for women. In both cases the respect for the Constitution through the voice of the people in achieving a majority vote was heard. The voice of the people in the ratification process was never treated as insignificant or irrelevant, there was still a struggle to find the votes necessary for passage. As difficult as it was, for both movements, the methods and procedures under the Constitution in attaining the proper vote for passage, was always met with the highest respect towards its established foundational process. Under our nation's history, the need to establish equality towards a minority group still recognized the "process" in fighting for that majority vote to order to attain it. Each movement had the highest respect for that Constitutional process, despite the many setbacks they faced.

All that typing and yet you failed to answer the question.

Regardless, the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which is why states may not deny same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

ONLY if the United States Supreme Court rules that way, otherwise it defaults to a state issue no matter what difference of opinions may be. The whole point is that our Constitutional process must be respected, even if it doesn't appear as being fair.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it.

OMG, seriously? It was called Loving v Virginia and it wasn't just any old "court", it was the Supreme Court that had to "force" people.

They forced 70% of the country that was against interracial marriage into "accepting" it.

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

With regard to same sex marriages, by the. United States Supreme Court kicking it back to the individual states, it becomes an individual state issue. That being said if a state doesn't recognize same sex marriage, you still can't force the to accept documents from a state which does. You have to accept the process and the will of the people. As difficult as it is, that is the way in which our nation was established.

You stand corrected again.

The Supreme Court did not ‘kick back’ Perry for the states to decide the issue, the High Court ruled that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing and the Court couldn’t rule on the merits of the case accordingly, letting stand the Ninth’s decision invalidating Proposition 8.

A similar case, with officers of a given state defending a measure prohibiting same-sex couples’ right to access to marriage law, could come to the Supreme Court for review.

 

[dcraelin]

it is unfair to those going to court to not know they dont have standing except after 3 layers of court.
IF those defending prop8 had known they would be denied standing they would not have defended the law in the fist place. That is another part of the joke that is the federal court system along with gimmicky rules on standing that say a case already won, in DOMA, could continue on to Supreme court, and yet a whole states voters could be essentially denied standing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it. As far as there being any form of "consistency" in the matter, the equality of blacks was fought Legislatively even though it was declared that all men are created equal under the Declaration. Blacks were considered inferior due to our nation having been built upon slavery. A series of "civil war amendments" would be established to declare by law equality among people of race. Women's rights in voting had to also be established legislatively, as the 14th Amendment rejected them that right, according to the United States Supreme Court. The suffrage movement led to the Legislative establishment of the 19th Amendment for women. In both cases the respect for the Constitution through the voice of the people in achieving a majority vote was heard. The voice of the people in the ratification process was never treated as insignificant or irrelevant, there was still a struggle to find the votes necessary for passage. As difficult as it was, for both movements, the methods and procedures under the Constitution in attaining the proper vote for passage, was always met with the highest respect towards its established foundational process. Under our nation's history, the need to establish equality towards a minority group still recognized the "process" in fighting for that majority vote to order to attain it. Each movement had the highest respect for that Constitutional process, despite the many setbacks they faced.

All that typing and yet you failed to answer the question.

Regardless, the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which is why states may not deny same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

ONLY if the United States Supreme Court rules that way, otherwise it defaults to a state issue no matter what difference of opinions may be. The whole point is that our Constitutional process must be respected, even if it doesn't appear as being fair.

Provided the states govern in accordance with the Federal Constitution and its case law.

When they enact measures offensive to the Constitution, such as Proposition 8, they become subject to Federal lawsuits.

It’s completely up to the states whether that happens or not.

 

[Redfish]

All that typing and yet you failed to answer the question.

Regardless, the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which is why states may not deny same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

ONLY if the United States Supreme Court rules that way, otherwise it defaults to a state issue no matter what difference of opinions may be. The whole point is that our Constitutional process must be respected, even if it doesn't appear as being fair.

Provided the states govern in accordance with the Federal Constitution and its case law.

When they enact measures offensive to the Constitution, such as Proposition 8, they become subject to Federal lawsuits.

It’s completely up to the states whether that happens or not.

please cite the language in the constitution that specifically addresses gay marriage. you claim that prop 8 violated the constitution, what specific language in the constitution makes gay marriage a constitutional right? generalities don't count. assumptions don't count, only precise words count. lets see them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it.

OMG, seriously? It was called Loving v Virginia and it wasn't just any old "court", it was the Supreme Court that had to "force" people.

They forced 70% of the country that was against interracial marriage into "accepting" it.

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

With regard to same sex marriages, by the. United States Supreme Court kicking it back to the individual states, it becomes an individual state issue. That being said if a state doesn't recognize same sex marriage, you still can't force the to accept documents from a state which does. You have to accept the process and the will of the people. As difficult as it is, that is the way in which our nation was established.

#1 - The SCOTUS didn't "kick it back to the individual states", they did not address that core issue in either the DOMA or Prop 8 ruling.

#2 - The found DOMA (Section 3) to be discriminatory at the Federal level and overturned the law. The DOMA case was about recognition of legal Civil Marriages that were passed under State law and had nothing to do with States that have rejected SSCM.

#3 - In the Prop 8 case they crafted a ruling that avoided that core issue, instead vacating the Appeals Court ruling on standing and avoiding the issue. What they choose not to do was also vacate the District Court Judges ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, thereby leaving Prop 8 overturned and SSCM legal in California.

#4 - If you logic were correct, they would have vacated the District Court Judges ruling and allowed Prop 8 to remain in place. They didn't.

#5 - The courts actually did force the acceptance of Civil Marriage documents by the States when that State didn't want to accept out of State civil marriage documents in the Loving case.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

ONLY if the United States Supreme Court rules that way, otherwise it defaults to a state issue no matter what difference of opinions may be. The whole point is that our Constitutional process must be respected, even if it doesn't appear as being fair.

Provided the states govern in accordance with the Federal Constitution and its case law.

When they enact measures offensive to the Constitution, such as Proposition 8, they become subject to Federal lawsuits.

It’s completely up to the states whether that happens or not.

please cite the language in the constitution that specifically addresses gay marriage. you claim that prop 8 violated the constitution, what specific language in the constitution makes gay marriage a constitutional right? generalities don't count. assumptions don't count, only precise words count. lets see them.

Are you saying that rights must be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it. As far as there being any form of "consistency" in the matter, the equality of blacks was fought Legislatively even though it was declared that all men are created equal under the Declaration. Blacks were considered inferior due to our nation having been built upon slavery. A series of "civil war amendments" would be established to declare by law equality among people of race. Women's rights in voting had to also be established legislatively, as the 14th Amendment rejected them that right, according to the United States Supreme Court. The suffrage movement led to the Legislative establishment of the 19th Amendment for women. In both cases the respect for the Constitution through the voice of the people in achieving a majority vote was heard. The voice of the people in the ratification process was never treated as insignificant or irrelevant, there was still a struggle to find the votes necessary for passage. As difficult as it was, for both movements, the methods and procedures under the Constitution in attaining the proper vote for passage, was always met with the highest respect towards its established foundational process. Under our nation's history, the need to establish equality towards a minority group still recognized the "process" in fighting for that majority vote to order to attain it. Each movement had the highest respect for that Constitutional process, despite the many setbacks they faced.

All that typing and yet you failed to answer the question.

Regardless, the states are subject to the Federal Constitution, including the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, which is why states may not deny same-sex couples access to their marriage laws.

ONLY if the United States Supreme Court rules that way, otherwise it defaults to a state issue no matter what difference of opinions may be. The whole point is that our Constitutional process must be respected, even if it doesn't appear as being fair.

This is correct. Currently it falls to the States, because the SCOTUS hasn't made a decision on the matter. Personally I think the SCOTUS is going to "punt" without setting a national precedent for a few more years to allow more States to allow SSCM on their own.

Remember it took about 20 years from the first court repeal of anti-interracial marriage laws (CSC, 1948) until the Loving case in 1968. Massachuesetts didn't allow it (EDIT: SSCM) until 2004 - so on that time line we have a few years left to go.

>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interracial relationships was about "social acceptance" there was never a court order to force people to recognize it.

OMG, seriously? It was called Loving v Virginia and it wasn't just any old "court", it was the Supreme Court that had to "force" people.

They forced 70% of the country that was against interracial marriage into "accepting" it.

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

With regard to same sex marriages, by the. United States Supreme Court kicking it back to the individual states, it becomes an individual state issue. That being said if a state doesn't recognize same sex marriage, you still can't force the to accept documents from a state which does. You have to accept the process and the will of the people. As difficult as it is, that is the way in which our nation was established.

The IRS does not agree with you, and it's decisions will be upheld against state challenges.

Anybody couple who fills out the federal income tax form in Utah, holding themselves out as married, with a marriage licenses from any state that recognizes a form of marriage, will be accepted by the IRS. Utah platforms its income tax on the IRS form. Guess what? Heterosexual marriage Utah is going to have to recognize all marriages for the state's income purposes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you don't get to "please cite the language in the constitution that specifically addresses gay marriage". That is not your purview at all. The courts and the legislatures decide that, not you. You don't get "just once more".

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

OMG, seriously? It was called Loving v Virginia and it wasn't just any old "court", it was the Supreme Court that had to "force" people.

They forced 70% of the country that was against interracial marriage into "accepting" it.

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

With regard to same sex marriages, by the. United States Supreme Court kicking it back to the individual states, it becomes an individual state issue. That being said if a state doesn't recognize same sex marriage, you still can't force the to accept documents from a state which does. You have to accept the process and the will of the people. As difficult as it is, that is the way in which our nation was established.

You stand corrected again.

The Supreme Court did not ‘kick back’ Perry for the states to decide the issue, the High Court ruled that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing and the Court couldn’t rule on the merits of the case accordingly, letting stand the Ninth’s decision invalidating Proposition 8.

A similar case, with officers of a given state defending a measure prohibiting same-sex couples’ right to access to marriage law, could come to the Supreme Court for review.

Unless the United States Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is legal and to be recognized on a NATIONAL level that ALL states must accept..... I do not stand corrected.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

it is unfair to those going to court to not know they dont have standing except after 3 layers of court.
IF those defending prop8 had known they would be denied standing they would not have defended the law in the fist place. That is another part of the joke that is the federal court system along with gimmicky rules on standing that say a case already won, in DOMA, could continue on to Supreme court, and yet a whole states voters could be essentially denied standing.

Well in a sense what the court is indirectly demonstrating, is that the right of the people to petition their government and allow their voice to be heard is both insignificant and irrelevant. A woman's right to vote wasn't simply accomplished in that fashion, there were Constitutional procedures to securing that right.... otherwise history would show the 14th Amendment would be enough to stand on its own merits.