Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Czardas]

It absolutely is precedent. Homosexual and interracial are still fruits, even though one is apples and the other oranges. Besides, you're looking at it the wrong way. You're saying that we're saying that Loving v. Virginia is relevant because interracial can be substituted with homosexual. That's not what we're saying at all. Instead, Loving v. Virginia indisputably establishes marriage as a right in the US and with that in mind, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.

It establishes marriage between man and woman, as they understood it, as a right.

To be fair to people back then, it was still commonly believed that homosexuality was a mental disorder. If psychology had been up to modern scientific standards their conception of marriage would have probably been different.

Regardless, they'd be much more likely to cite Loving as a source for marriage being protected under the 14th amendment, if it was brought up at all. I'm not sufficiently familiar with American constitutional law to navigate in this region, but I'm sure TCT or someone will come along at some point to explain the ruling in simple, monosyllabic words even a General Forum poster could understand, and 'til then I won't bother speculating.

[Almaniania]

Well, Proposition 8 is unconstitutional...
Well, I guessed this would happen. Am I happy? Of course I am? Did I not expect this? Hell no.
Have you noticed that through much of history, the governments of the world become more liberal every time? I mean just look at England! They used to have an absolute monarchy. Now, it's basically a Parliamentary system.
The left will win in many cases, because the ideas of liberalism change with each generation. It's just the facts.

[New Amerik]

I run a dictatorship, and even we let people marry each other if they want, so dose that mean my dictatorship is more American than America?

I've given my two cents on it, but hell, I RP my nation as a corruption of American democracy and even we allow homosexual marriage....along with everything else.

[Scandavian States]

I'm not the biggest supporter of gay marriage, but all the same I'm happy this was stricken down. Marriage is a holy sacrament and the legal system cannot claim to respect the first amendment while at the same regulating what a church may or may not do. If homosexual couples want to actually marry, then they should find a church that willingly conducts homosexual marriages (and yes, they do exist).

Now, civil unions are a whole 'nother can of worms and that's where the equal protection clause comes in.

[Jusela]

Have you noticed that through much of history, the governments of the world become more liberal every time? I mean just look at England! They used to have an absolute monarchy. Now, it's basically a Parliamentary system.
The left will win in many cases, because the ideas of liberalism change with each generation. It's just the facts.

It is a downward trend, yes.

[Wiki SciCiv]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[Gahaldu]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Why should people get to vote on the rights of a minority?

[The Rich Port]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

Uhm, they are two sides of a moral-issue coin. Neither side has logic or reason... it's... a moral argument. 'Tis quite laughable that you would pretend your side is any less petty and "feelings-associated" than the other. Frankly anyone who knows me knows that I believe both groups are stupid. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Then the gays could do whatever the fuck they wanted (with all the lovers they wanted) while the anti-gays covered their eyes. Get government the f*ck out of marriage. Now. THAT is the only logical argument. The right and the left are just retarded and I'm sick of hearing them, even worse I'm sick of hearing people like YOU (generally it is the left, not the right although it happens in both sides) claiming that the opposite side does not compare with you when it comes to "logic" or "wisdom". The reason this really makes me burn is because NEITHER of you have it! I feel better now...

I feel better hearing someone actually making sense.

What sucks is that, in order to get government out, you have to get government IN. Who else is going to outlaw Prop. 8? Chuck Norris?

[Copiosa Scotia]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Judge Walker quoted West Virginia v. Barnette in his opinion, and I'll quote it here: "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

[Grave_n_idle]

Polygamy should be illegal. If something happens to one of the spouses, which spouse will get what, and who will answer for which spouse if 1 of them gets really sick? We are talking about marriage in the legal sense, of course. If your church allows polygamy, then go for it.

I wasn't really intending on following a hijack.

Marriage is a contract, and states have laws about how relations are dealt with (and property is disposed of, etc) in the case of unforeseen circumstance - and where it's not covered, you can cover those things with extra pre-nuptial agreements.

I see no reason why polygamous unions should be any different. Contracts are still contracts, whether there are two signatories or fifteen.

Not a good enough reason for it to be illegal, at any rate.

[Wiki SciCiv]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Why should people get to vote on the rights of a minority?

Majority Rules doesnt mean that the Majority gets to limit rights of the Minority.

[Dempublicents1]

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy,

Polygamy brings up separate legal issues and thus does not fall under equal protection.

animal marriage,

Animals cannot enter into contractual agreements or provide legal consent.

pedophilia

Children cannot enter into contractual agreements or provide legal consent.

(insert your choice of sexual perversion here)

Any "sexual perversion" that does not harm other should be legal.

[Ashmoria]

Polygamy should be illegal. If something happens to one of the spouses, which spouse will get what, and who will answer for which spouse if 1 of them gets really sick? We are talking about marriage in the legal sense, of course. If your church allows polygamy, then go for it.

thats why you cant legalize it with the stroke of a pen.

if you want polygamy to be legal--and there is no big reason why not to--you would have to pass comprehensive laws that protect each spouse equally. and protect the children of such a marriage equally.

[TurtleShroom]

DRAT.


I was strongly disappointed in this ruling, but I agree that it was bound to happen. The queers backed up behind the minority shield and now cry discrimination when people try to protect true marriage.
Instead of facing their disease and taking steps or therapy to overcome it, they “embrace” it and march their flaw down our streets and make out in public JUST to tick the religious minority off. Until 1975, homosexuality WAS a disease and there were even ways in development to help treat it.

What if we had Straight Pride Parades and marched THAT down the gayest district of your local metropolis? How would that feel?


Even if you’re not religious, the implications are obvious. Marriage is a (holy) social contract binding a male and a female for economic, inheritance, sexual/procreation, and of course, relegious reasons. Take the religion out, and you still have one man and one woman filing joint taxes, having kids, and sharing a bed.

Plus, homosexuality is a defiance of human nature. While it has existed since the beginning of mankind, it was never considered “natural” in mordern times until the cultural revolutions of the 1960s. (-and don’t say Rome thought it was: just because Calligula or soem other nutjob emperor had gay reproduction doesn’t mean it’s right, he’s not even that good an example!)
If you want to challenge me, take an electrical plug. Now, take another electrical plug. Try to connect the two and turn the two on. It doesn’t work. Now, take that same plug and plug it into an electrical socket. Does it light up?

Learn a lesson from plumbing or computing: everything goes into something, and a male plug and a male plug don’t work. There must be something it fits into for the current to be carried! It’s common sense!

Face it, most of the country doesn't like gays (that or they're apathetic). Some time soon, the Masses will take up their arms of bigotry and do SOMETHING to halt this madness.


This is NOT like the civil rights of the 1960s. Race can't be helped. I'm a white guy and he's a black guy. Or, I'm a man, she's a woman. That's just how we are, it's natural. Such things mean nothing in the workplace. However, if my workers start flirting with their own gender instead of being productive, I'd fire them! Or better... put a "NO GAYS NEED APPLY" sign on my busineess' door. I'd have plenty others to hire.

Religiously, there is no Biblical reason barring interracial marriage, but marriage is defined in the Bible. This is not a Christian nation and it's not a nation that is permitted to have a state faith, but I don't think someone has the right to violate another's absolute core beliefs. Besides, this was NEVER a problem until recently. If it was so important, why didn't the so-called "gay rights" spring up when the real battles began in the 1960s?

---

At least this affront to decency won’t touch Georgia. Yet.

I guess we’ll have to take it higher. FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT, here we come! I am confident that the silent majority will stop this madness if it begins knocking on their home state's door.

This is a downer. ...-but... there's still more than thirty eight states who would sign on to a federal ban... -and until you can convince the entire Southeast that homosexuality is okay, I don't think they'll shut up about it. Start with the schools: indoctrinate "gay is okay" into the public school system. Maybe you'll get minions down South if you do.


(Also, how is a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? Didn't the PEOPLE want a ban on gay marriage? Did most of California not express their views by their right to vote? What gives a tiny minority of people the right to disallow everyone else from protecting marriage?)

[Zephie]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

Uhm, they are two sides of a moral-issue coin. Neither side has logic or reason... it's... a moral argument. 'Tis quite laughable that you would pretend your side is any less petty and "feelings-associated" than the other. Frankly anyone who knows me knows that I believe both groups are stupid. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Then the gays could do whatever the fuck they wanted (with all the lovers they wanted) while the anti-gays covered their eyes. Get government the f*ck out of marriage. Now. THAT is the only logical argument. The right and the left are just retarded and I'm sick of hearing them, even worse I'm sick of hearing people like YOU (generally it is the left, not the right although it happens in both sides) claiming that the opposite side does not compare with you when it comes to "logic" or "wisdom". The reason this really makes me burn is because NEITHER of you have it! I feel better now...

I feel better hearing someone actually making sense.

What sucks is that, in order to get government out, you have to get government IN. Who else is going to outlaw Prop. 8? Chuck Norris?

Why is it bad in the first place? Gays don't want equal rights, they want special rights.

[Karsol]

I'm not the biggest supporter of gay marriage, but all the same I'm happy this was stricken down. Marriage is a holy sacrament and the legal system cannot claim to respect the first amendment while at the same regulating what a church may or may not do. If homosexual couples want to actually marry, then they should find a church that willingly conducts homosexual marriages (and yes, they do exist).

Now, civil unions are a whole 'nother can of worms and that's where the equal protection clause comes in.

Only under Christian marriage (and only non-Anglican churches), there are tens of other religions in america that allow gay marriage and would be affected by the bill.

[Czardas]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

Uhm, they are two sides of a moral-issue coin. Neither side has logic or reason... it's... a moral argument. 'Tis quite laughable that you would pretend your side is any less petty and "feelings-associated" than the other. Frankly anyone who knows me knows that I believe both groups are stupid. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Then the gays could do whatever the fuck they wanted (with all the lovers they wanted) while the anti-gays covered their eyes. Get government the f*ck out of marriage. Now. THAT is the only logical argument. The right and the left are just retarded and I'm sick of hearing them, even worse I'm sick of hearing people like YOU (generally it is the left, not the right although it happens in both sides) claiming that the opposite side does not compare with you when it comes to "logic" or "wisdom". The reason this really makes me burn is because NEITHER of you have it! I feel better now...

This may be somewhat pertinent here.

[Nova Magna Germania]

So, this thread will attract all the homophobic freaks like light does for bugs, and non-homophobes will repeat the same arguments that's been repeated for thousands of times. What's new, really?

[Unchecked Expansion]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

So the constitution is not there to protect rights from the tyranny of the majority?
Huh

[Karsol]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

Uhm, they are two sides of a moral-issue coin. Neither side has logic or reason... it's... a moral argument. 'Tis quite laughable that you would pretend your side is any less petty and "feelings-associated" than the other. Frankly anyone who knows me knows that I believe both groups are stupid. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Then the gays could do whatever the fuck they wanted (with all the lovers they wanted) while the anti-gays covered their eyes. Get government the f*ck out of marriage. Now. THAT is the only logical argument. The right and the left are just retarded and I'm sick of hearing them, even worse I'm sick of hearing people like YOU (generally it is the left, not the right although it happens in both sides) claiming that the opposite side does not compare with you when it comes to "logic" or "wisdom". The reason this really makes me burn is because NEITHER of you have it! I feel better now...

I feel better hearing someone actually making sense.

What sucks is that, in order to get government out, you have to get government IN. Who else is going to outlaw Prop. 8? Chuck Norris?

Why is it bad in the first place? Gays don't want equal rights, they want special rights.

Marrying the person I love instead of the persona I am ORDERED to love is a special right?

What ever happened to LIBERTY!?

[Grave_n_idle]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

The California voters don't get to change the laws to something unconstitutional - and that's by design.

[Jusela]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Why should people get to vote on the rights of a minority?

The minority should have the same equal rights as the majority does. And the majority can only marry people from the opposite sex. Why should minorities have extra rights? They already have the equal rights that the majority have.

Also TurtleShroom makes a great deal of sense.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

How many times must I explain the Ninth Amendment. I'll post it in big, bold letters.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, as it has been said numerable times, Loving v. Virginia establishes marriage as a right in the United States of America. To deny a couple this right would be a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause. My post:

Again, you're misunderstanding. Let's take homosexual marriage out of the equation. Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a right. Justice Warren wrote, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival[...]." The case was about an anti-miscegenation, so naturally they wrote their Opinion in the context of race. But the fact that it declares marriage as a fundamental right is crystal clear. That being said, then we review Prop 8 and its clear that denying homosexuals the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause.

[Zephie]

So, this thread will attract all the homophobic freaks like light does for bugs, and non-homophobes will repeat the same arguments that's been repeated for thousands of times. What's new, really?

nothing lol. But disagreeing with the oxymoron of gay marriage doesn't make someone homophobic.

[Greater Americania]

The Equal Protection Clause is a major support. It obviously is a different support of protection under the Californian policy. States cannot just vote in laws without minding the Constitution.

And before you say its a violation of state sovereignty, ill point to the Supremacy Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

That's a bunch of crap. Under no part of any of those is the right to gay marriage guaranteed. Gay marriage is not a right, and denying it is not tyranny. If the people who wrote the Constitution, the founding fathers had meant for those clauses to apply to gays trying to marry, then they would already have been able to do so.