Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Ifreann]

The law was created by the majority.

No it wasn't.

Plus there is no mention of gay marriage in the Constitution

Does not matter in the slightest.

so the law serves the people, not the other way around.

Which doesn't imply absolute rule by the majority.

[Rolling squid]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

That's not how it works. The courts exist to protect the rights of the minority, which are not subject to the whims of the majority. Otherwise, why have minority rights?

[Mortonus]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

Did you actually read the ruling?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/MSNBC%20TV/Maddow/Blog/2010/07/prop8ruling.pdf

I don't see how that goes into checks and balances.

[Mortonus]

The law was created by the majority.

No it wasn't.

Plus there is no mention of gay marriage in the Constitution

Does not matter in the slightest.

so the law serves the people, not the other way around.

Which doesn't imply absolute rule by the majority.

If there is no mention of it in the Constitution how is it unconstitutional?

[Mortonus]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

That's not how it works. The courts exist to protect the rights of the minority, which are not subject to the whims of the majority. Otherwise, why have minority rights?

Minorities do not take presidence over majorities. Because there are MORE people in majorities we need to work first to please them.

[Unhealthy2]

I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage. Don't make rash generalisations.

Oh, I'm also a law student, specialising in constitutional and criminal law, and I still would have found Prop 8 unconsitutional.

Why would some that's gay be against gay marriage?

[Ifreann]

The law was created by the majority.

No it wasn't.

Plus there is no mention of gay marriage in the Constitution

Does not matter in the slightest.

so the law serves the people, not the other way around.

Which doesn't imply absolute rule by the majority.

If there is no mention of it in the Constitution how is it unconstitutional?

Because there is mention in the constitution of things like equality. For fuck sake, it explicitly says in your beloved constitution that the rights enumerated therein are not the only rights. This is pathetic.

[Unhealthy2]

Minorities do not take presidence over majorities. Because there are MORE people in majorities we need to work first to please them.

Not if "pleasing" the majority involves restricting RIGHTS of minorities. For example, you can't reinstate slavery even if most people wanted it.

[Mortonus]

I must go but I will be back in about a half an hour.

[Drachmar]

Yes it is. The majority votes people into office to represent them and make decisions they would want. Elected officials should serve the majority of people because the majority voted them into office.

You don't understand checks and balances very well, do you?

Fine. Enlighten me good sir and tell me how it relates to this situation.

Why don't you read the 43 damn pages of this thread? You might find new arguments, instead of rehashing arguments made last Wednesday.

Federal judges are appointed by the President. The senate approves them. Check
Federal judges rule on the constitutionality of law. Congress may pass constitutional amendments that overrule a judge's ruling. Check

In a nutshell, that's how it works. Federal judges are not chosen by the people, but their seats are approved by congress. Federal judges can override the decisions of "The People." That includes the State of California's Constitutional amendments.

[Rolling squid]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

That's not how it works. The courts exist to protect the rights of the minority, which are not subject to the whims of the majority. Otherwise, why have minority rights?

Minorities do not take presidence over majorities. Because there are MORE people in majorities we need to work first to please them.

Wrong. The majority does not have a right to interfere with the rights of the minority. If you don't understand that, you don't understand one of the founding principles of the western world.

[Ifreann]

I never said they were. I was saying that they should still act in the interest of the majority and not themselves because they are public servants.

That's not how it works. The courts exist to protect the rights of the minority, which are not subject to the whims of the majority. Otherwise, why have minority rights?

Minorities do not take presidence over majorities. Because there are MORE people in majorities we need to work first to please them.

Majorities do not take precedence over rights guaranteed to all by the supreme law of the land.

[Sanctaria]

I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage. Don't make rash generalisations.

Oh, I'm also a law student, specialising in constitutional and criminal law, and I still would have found Prop 8 unconsitutional.

Why would some that's gay be against gay marriage?

Because I, personally, think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's the way it has been for some time now, and I really don't like change. Where I am, it's not a civil right and I agree with that - it shouldn't be a civil right to marry.

However, the US Constitution, under review, would allow and, as far as I'm aware, already considers (I'm sure there was a SCOTUS ruling) marriage to be a civil right. As such, it is only right that the law doesn't discriminate and therefore Prop 8 be struck down.

I, unlike many of the posters here I noticed, try not to let my personal beliefs impede on matters that would have wide-ranging consequences. One should be objective, especially a judge.

[Ifreann]

I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage. Don't make rash generalisations.

Oh, I'm also a law student, specialising in constitutional and criminal law, and I still would have found Prop 8 unconsitutional.

Why would some that's gay be against gay marriage?

At a guess, because they're against marriage in general, maybe?

[The Rich Port]

I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage. Don't make rash generalisations.

Oh, I'm also a law student, specialising in constitutional and criminal law, and I still would have found Prop 8 unconsitutional.

Why would some that's gay be against gay marriage?

Because I, personally, think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's the way it has been for some time now, and I really don't like change. Where I am, it's not a civil right and I agree with that - it shouldn't be a civil right to marry.

However, the US Constitution, under review, would allow and, as far as I'm aware, already considers (I'm sure there was a SCOTUS ruling) marriage to be a civil right. As such, it is only right that the law doesn't discriminate and therefore Prop 8 be struck down.

I, unlike many of the posters here I noticed, try not to let my personal beliefs impede on matters that would have wide-ranging consequences. One should be objective, especially a judge.

... You sound like a Conservative... But have the logic of a liberal... I LIKE you.

[Thevenin]

.[/quote]
No, not all straight people are against gays but all gays are for gays. Its like asking a black person if blacks marrying should be illegal or asking a white person.[/quote]


So only straight people have the ability to be impartial? I think not.

[Drachmar]

I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage. Don't make rash generalisations.

Oh, I'm also a law student, specialising in constitutional and criminal law, and I still would have found Prop 8 unconsitutional.

Why would some that's gay be against gay marriage?

Because I, personally, think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's the way it has been for some time now, and I really don't like change. Where I am, it's not a civil right and I agree with that - it shouldn't be a civil right to marry.

However, the US Constitution, under review, would allow and, as far as I'm aware, already considers (I'm sure there was a SCOTUS ruling) marriage to be a civil right. As such, it is only right that the law doesn't discriminate and therefore Prop 8 be struck down.

I, unlike many of the posters here I noticed, try not to let my personal beliefs impede on matters that would have wide-ranging consequences. One should be objective, especially a judge.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly what the plaintiffs argued.

[Copiosa Scotia]

The law was created by the majority. Plus there is no mention of gay marriage in the Constitution so the law serves the people, not the other way around.

The Constitution does not mention gay marriage, true. You may notice that it does mention equal protection of the laws, though.

[Ifreann]

I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage. Don't make rash generalisations.

Oh, I'm also a law student, specialising in constitutional and criminal law, and I still would have found Prop 8 unconsitutional.

Why would some that's gay be against gay marriage?

Because I, personally, think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's the way it has been for some time now, and I really don't like change. Where I am, it's not a civil right and I agree with that - it shouldn't be a civil right to marry.

Where are you that marriage isn't a right?

However, the US Constitution, under review, would allow and, as far as I'm aware, already considers (I'm sure there was a SCOTUS ruling) marriage to be a civil right. As such, it is only right that the law doesn't discriminate and therefore Prop 8 be struck down.

Loving v. Virginia

[Sanctaria]

I'm gay and I'm against gay marriage. Don't make rash generalisations.

Oh, I'm also a law student, specialising in constitutional and criminal law, and I still would have found Prop 8 unconsitutional.

Why would some that's gay be against gay marriage?

Because I, personally, think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's the way it has been for some time now, and I really don't like change. Where I am, it's not a civil right and I agree with that - it shouldn't be a civil right to marry.

Where are you that marriage isn't a right?

Ah, I apologise, it's 3am and I got distracted and went off on a tangent about something different.

I should clarify. Under my Constitution, the Irish Constitution, it is clear that when Marriage is mentioned, as it is, it is mentioned in the context of the "family". As the text surrounding the specific subclause regarding marriage is consistently mentioning children and the family, it is understood that marriage in our constitution means between a man and a woman. It's a fundamental right by our Constitution, to be applied to, as it is written and taking in its context, men and women who are straight.

It's not, and as far as I am concerned cannot, be gleaned from the Constitution that gays should be allowed to get married as for them, under this our Constitution, it's not a civil right. And if on the Irish Supreme Court, I'd uphold that belief.

It has to be noted, the Irish Supreme Court upheld in 1988 that homosexuality was illegal, and if it weren't for the ECHR's decision on the appeal, I have a feeling the LGBT laws in Ireland wouldn't have gotten as far as they have. Homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1993.

However, the US Constitution, under review, would allow and, as far as I'm aware, already considers (I'm sure there was a SCOTUS ruling) marriage to be a civil right. As such, it is only right that the law doesn't discriminate and therefore Prop 8 be struck down.

Loving v. Virginia

Thank you. Then, as stated, if the US Constitution views marriage as a civil right, applicable to everyone, then an objective judge would have to strike down Prop 8.

[Sucrati]

Something called checks and balances reminds me that a judge can't decide what is policy or what isn't policy, especially if it passed by the state or federal legislatures.

[The Rich Port]

Something called checks and balances reminds me that a judge can't decide what is policy or what isn't policy, especially if it passed by the state or federal legislatures.

The checks and balances system allows the judge to rule Prop. 8 unconstitutional, opening it up to the possibility of appealing it by gays and it's continued estance by the Right. It's not as simple as "YOU CAN'T DO THAT"

[Sanctaria]

Something called checks and balances reminds me that a judge can't decide what is policy or what isn't policy, especially if it passed by the state or federal legislatures.

No, but a judge can decide whether a policy is constitutional or not. It's Administrative Law 101.

[Sucrati]

Something called checks and balances reminds me that a judge can't decide what is policy or what isn't policy, especially if it passed by the state or federal legislatures.

No, but a judge can decide whether a policy is constitutional or not. It's Administrative Law 101.

so technically its still illegal to get have homosexual marriage in California until dealt with by the legislature.

[Farnhamia]

Something called checks and balances reminds me that a judge can't decide what is policy or what isn't policy, especially if it passed by the state or federal legislatures.

No, but a judge can decide whether a policy is constitutional or not. It's Administrative Law 101.

so technically its still illegal to get have homosexual marriage in California until dealt with by the legislature.

No, this ruling strikes out the amendment to the California constitution, returning it to legality. In fact, Governor Schwartzenegger and the California AG, Jerry Brown, have both petitioned the judge in this case to lift his stay on the ruling and allow gays to marry as they did before Prop. 8.