PDA

View Full Version : Prop 8 overturned



theonedru
02-07-2012, 03:04 PM
This is an awesome quote

" Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote "

I believe this can be representative to not only prop 8 but any laws anywhere in which a segment of the population is legally discriminated against

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/court-overturns-prop-8-california-says-state-t-181451250.html

" The Court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. "

its nice to see we might actually see true equality for all in America in our lifetime

mrveggieman
02-07-2012, 03:12 PM
My spin is goes like this. Marriage is a religious ceremony and religous doctrine should be able to determine who gets married. However the state is not a religious institution and must protect all of it's citizens regardless of religious preference or lack of one. Let churches or other religious instutions perform marriages between who they see fit but the legal civil union between two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation be approved by the state. I couldn't care less who is married or has a civil union because it has absolutely no bearing on the marriage I have with my wife.

Star_Cards
02-07-2012, 03:45 PM
as long as states license marriages, same sex marriage should also be licensed. I get the religious baring on the term marriage but it's something recognized by the state and it's wrong to limit same sex couples from that right.

AUTaxMan
02-07-2012, 05:06 PM
I generally agree with mrv's take, as I don't like the idea of states licensing marriage, which is a religious institution.

However, from a legal perspective, I don't see a violation of the equal protection clause. Gays are not denied the ability to marry. They are just denied the ability to marry within their sex. Gays are also not a constitutionally protected class, so this law does not, in fact, discriminate against them. When it is proven that inherent homosexuality is a matter of fact, like one's gender, race, color, age, or national origin, or when it is accepted as a belief system such as religion, I will concede that gays are due the constitutional protections afforded those classes and that prop 8 unconstitutionally discriminates against them. Otherwise, there is no equal protection violation, because the law equally applies to all people-- whether you are gay, straight, or otherwise, you can marry a member of the opposite sex. Just because you don't desire to do so does not make the law discriminatory.

DaClyde
02-07-2012, 05:38 PM
It does seem that all non-religious organizations (government agencies, insurance companies, etc.) would just be better off changing the wording on all of their "marriage" related documents to "civil union" and eliminate all reference to gender. That settles all of the legal issues and leaves the religions free to argue amongst themselves and their own congregations without wading into the current troubled waters of government passing laws respecting specific religious views.

theonedru
02-07-2012, 08:25 PM
I generally agree with mrv's take, as I don't like the idea of states licensing marriage, which is a religious institution.

However, from a legal perspective, I don't see a violation of the equal protection clause. Gays are not denied the ability to marry. They are just denied the ability to marry within their sex. Gays are also not a constitutionally protected class, so this law does not, in fact, discriminate against them. When it is proven that inherent homosexuality is a matter of fact, like one's gender, race, color, age, or national origin, or when it is accepted as a belief system such as religion, I will concede that gays are due the constitutional protections afforded those classes and that prop 8 unconstitutionally discriminates against them. Otherwise, there is no equal protection violation, because the law equally applies to all people-- whether you are gay, straight, or otherwise, you can marry a member of the opposite sex. Just because you don't desire to do so does not make the law discriminatory.

" Gays are not denied the ability to marry. They are just denied the ability to marry within their sex. Gays are also not a constitutionally protected class, so this law does not, in fact, discriminate against them. "

" Gays are not denied the ability to marry. They are just denied the ability to marry within their sex.'
- So they are denied the right to marry

" Gays are also not a constitutionally protected class, so this law does not, in fact, discriminate against them. "
- How so?

AUTaxMan
02-07-2012, 08:42 PM
" Gays are not denied the ability to marry. They are just denied the ability to marry within their sex. Gays are also not a constitutionally protected class, so this law does not, in fact, discriminate against them. "

" Gays are not denied the ability to marry. They are just denied the ability to marry within their sex.'
- So they are denied the right to marry

" Gays are also not a constitutionally protected class, so this law does not, in fact, discriminate against them. "
- How so?

They can, as a matter of fact, marry someone who is not of their own sex. Just because they would prefer not to do so does not mean they don't have the ability to marry.

As to the latter point, I would just suggest you do some independent research on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It would be very difficult to explain the whats and whys in a short board post.

redmac04
02-07-2012, 08:58 PM
I look at this very different from all of you. To me this is another step toward destroying democracy. If a guy wants to marry a guy, great and the same goes for girls but if this is put to a vote by the people for the people and they vote no same sex marriage then it should stand regardless of how the courts interpet the laws. The majority should always win. If you want to switch the laws then convince those who are against it to change their minds. That's true democracy. Something that is very fast dissapearing from this country.

*censored*
02-07-2012, 11:31 PM
I look at this very different from all of you. To me this is another step toward destroying democracy. If a guy wants to marry a guy, great and the same goes for girls but if this is put to a vote by the people for the people and they vote no same sex marriage then it should stand regardless of how the courts interpet the laws. The majority should always win. If you want to switch the laws then convince those who are against it to change their minds. That's true democracy. Something that is very fast dissapearing from this country.

This country is actually a republic rather than a democracy. But that's not the point here.

Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ever given a direct vote to the people? Or the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Do you think the majority of the country would have voted in favor of it if it was? Do you think it was right to pass regardless?

duwal
02-08-2012, 03:07 AM
I look at this very different from all of you. To me this is another step toward destroying democracy. If a guy wants to marry a guy, great and the same goes for girls but if this is put to a vote by the people for the people and they vote no same sex marriage then it should stand regardless of how the courts interpet the laws. The majority should always win. If you want to switch the laws then convince those who are against it to change their minds. That's true democracy. Something that is very fast dissapearing from this country.


but just because the majority of the country would be for something doesn't necessarily mean that its right. 70 years ago an overwhelming majority of the country thought blacks and whites couldn't fight in a war alongside each other. 60 years ago majority of the country didn't even think that whites should share a bathroom with other races

This is a step in the right direction, a way to have every citizen, no matter what race or sexual orientation, be treated equally. Have the same benefits as others

Star_Cards
02-08-2012, 08:25 AM
They can, as a matter of fact, marry someone who is not of their own sex. Just because they would prefer not to do so does not mean they don't have the ability to marry.

As to the latter point, I would just suggest you do some independent research on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It would be very difficult to explain the whats and whys in a short board post.

While this statement is technically true as homosexuals can enter into a heterosexual marriage I find it completely absurd and rather insensitive.

Star_Cards
02-08-2012, 08:39 AM
I look at this very different from all of you. To me this is another step toward destroying democracy. If a guy wants to marry a guy, great and the same goes for girls but if this is put to a vote by the people for the people and they vote no same sex marriage then it should stand regardless of how the courts interpet the laws. The majority should always win. If you want to switch the laws then convince those who are against it to change their minds. That's true democracy. Something that is very fast dissapearing from this country.

There are a lot of problems with the "majority rules" stance. Just because a majority thinks one way doesn't mean they have more rights than minorities. If we fashioned everything around that we'd be a much different society. Minorities deserve the right to be represented in this country.

redmac04
02-08-2012, 09:25 AM
This country is actually a republic rather than a democracy. But that's not the point here.

Was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ever given a direct vote to the people? Or the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Do you think the majority of the country would have voted in favor of it if it was? Do you think it was right to pass regardless?

Yeah your a little off on the republic thing my friend. Look at the definitions of both democracy and republic. We are in fact a republic only when it comes to voting for a president. But on the state level we are in fact a true democracy. Republic is when one persons vote is not equal to another persons vote such as the electoral college or California has a greater say in voting for the president then Utah does, but when you vote on state level issues everyones voice is equal because politicians and some laws(referendums) get passed by popular vote (true democracy). So when you tell the majority you are wrong that is stepping on democracy regardless of your individual opinion because the other side has an opinion too. This would be the same thing as when you vote for governor of your state, the minority gets their candidate and the majority loses. When has that ever happened?



but just because the majority of the country would be for something doesn't necessarily mean that its right. 70 years ago an overwhelming majority of the country thought blacks and whites couldn't fight in a war alongside each other. 60 years ago majority of the country didn't even think that whites should share a bathroom with other races

This is a step in the right direction, a way to have every citizen, no matter what race or sexual orientation, be treated equally. Have the same benefits as others

Just because you say something is a step in the right direction also does not mean it's right, correct? One might ask who made you the king of right and wrong? And considering that this is suppose to be a country that believes in GOD, JESUS CHRIST, and the BIBLE, what are their stance on this issue? Considering that almost everything about our country is based off them and the things they preached. I don't believe one word from any of those but the majority of this country does and that's why we have to accept it for now and try to change peoples minds instead of canceling out their opinions because others don't agree.

As for your having the same benefts as others why don't single people get to have the same benefits as married people? That's unfair also wouldn't ya say? Why is it ok to make single people pay more in taxes then married people? That is truely unfair by the very definition of unfair. Two sources of income is greater then one source of income so you could say married folks should have to pay atleast the same percent as single folks regardless if one or both work.

And I want you both to explain to me why the 7 million voices that voted for the bill have their opinions not count? How is that fair. Sorry but you don't count bye bye. That is another form of discrimination. But the 6.4 millions voices have their opinion count. Again that is not democracy. The more we go down this path the more we are turning into dictatorship politics and we the people don't get a say in what happens.

I am for letting people live their own lives as they see fit. I grew up with a family member being gay and sat back out of the spotlight due to fear because of their sexual preference and being a cop. And like I said, if you want to changes the laws you go out spread your voice and try to convince people that they were wrong for voting for it in the first place just like what's going on here in Wisconsin on the recall of Walker.

As for the african american issues you bring up, remember slavery was started by the africans themselves not americans or europeans. Look it up. They went out and sold their own people for money. Lyndon B. Johnson started the massive changed (Ole Abe was the first step in the process) by voicing his opinion on the issue and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which also included white women by the way so it wasn't just an african thing) which started to get people to change thier minds on the issue. Then JFK came along and voiced his opinion on the matter and was voted into office because of his opinions which the majority of the people agreed with and went onto changed things even more by passing his civil rights bill. Or in other words, people were convinced that they were wrong and needed to changed their stance on the issue of slavery. Hopefully we will get to the point were everyone is looked upon as equal. We are still nowhere near that right now from both black and white points of view.

This topic could go on between us for months but the issue I talk about is how we are slowly fading away from the people having any say in important matters. This is a state issue right now and state level politics are true democracy. So if we let the minority continue to win, then we all lose because the voice of the people no longer counts.

mrveggieman
02-08-2012, 09:29 AM
And considering that this is suppose to be a country that believes in GOD, JESUS CHRIST, and the BIBLE,





I'm sorry I must have missed that memo. When was the 1st amendment repealed and we all forced to practice christanity?

redmac04
02-08-2012, 09:30 AM
There are a lot of problems with the "majority rules" stance. Just because a majority thinks one way doesn't mean they have more rights than minorities. If we fashioned everything around that we'd be a much different society. Minorities deserve the right to be represented in this country.

I never said they had more rights then others. I am saying if we stand by the definition of democracy as all politicians and people say is the right way, then the law should stand until other people agree with them. When I say minorities I am not talking about people of color. I am talking about number of votes. 10 votes is majority and 5 votes is minority.

redmac04
02-08-2012, 09:31 AM
I'm sorry I must have missed that memo. When was the 1st amendment repealed and we all forced to practice christanity?

You clearly miss read the statement. It's just another opinion in this country and why does their opinion not count? It's an opinion I don't agree with as well but I respect it because they are my equal.

ensbergcollector
02-08-2012, 10:07 AM
i understand the argument that just because something is voted on by the majority doesn't mean it should be law. my issue is that we need a system where things go through the supreme court before they can be voted on by the public.
It does nothing to promote faith in the government if 15 million people vote on an issue only to have a panel of 5-10 people overturn what they voted for. What was the point? Every election we encourage people to vote and we tell them it is their greatest right and greatest responsibility. Then we tell them that their votes don't actually count as much as 1 judge who was appointed by a buddy to the right court.

habsheaven
02-08-2012, 10:19 AM
i understand the argument that just because something is voted on by the majority doesn't mean it should be law. my issue is that we need a system where things go through the supreme court before they can be voted on by the public.
It does nothing to promote faith in the government if 15 million people vote on an issue only to have a panel of 5-10 people overturn what they voted for. What was the point? Every election we encourage people to vote and we tell them it is their greatest right and greatest responsibility. Then we tell them that their votes don't actually count as much as 1 judge who was appointed by a buddy to the right court.

I agree with this.

Star_Cards
02-08-2012, 10:47 AM
I never said they had more rights then others. I am saying if we stand by the definition of democracy as all politicians and people say is the right way, then the law should stand until other people agree with them. When I say minorities I am not talking about people of color. I am talking about number of votes. 10 votes is majority and 5 votes is minority.

I wasn't speaking of people of color either. The U.S. is filled with tons of groups of people who are in the minority when it comes to all sorts of things including religion, sexual preferences, and so on. Even in just straight votes, the 5 is a minority and that isn't limited to skin color. My point is that just because a group has more people doesn't necessarily mean they are right or everyone should live by their beliefs.

By ruling on votes of the majority it's pretty obvious that the minority would then in fact have less rights, at least within that specific topic.

Star_Cards
02-08-2012, 10:49 AM
i understand the argument that just because something is voted on by the majority doesn't mean it should be law. my issue is that we need a system where things go through the supreme court before they can be voted on by the public.
It does nothing to promote faith in the government if 15 million people vote on an issue only to have a panel of 5-10 people overturn what they voted for. What was the point? Every election we encourage people to vote and we tell them it is their greatest right and greatest responsibility. Then we tell them that their votes don't actually count as much as 1 judge who was appointed by a buddy to the right court.

I agree. Seems counterproductive to tell people to vote and then possibly overturn it later although even in some cases votes should have wiggle room to adjust down the road.

something like this should have never been put up to a majority vote.

Star_Cards
02-08-2012, 10:59 AM
ust because you say something is a step in the right direction also does not mean it's right, correct? One might ask who made you the king of right and wrong? And considering that this is suppose to be a country that believes in GOD, JESUS CHRIST, and the BIBLE, what are their stance on this issue? Considering that almost everything about our country is based off them and the things they preached. I don't believe one word from any of those but the majority of this country does and that's why we have to accept it for now and try to change peoples minds instead of canceling out their opinions because others don't agree.

This country is most certainly not a country that is supposed to believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the bible. It is true that a majority of people in the U.S. do, we have the right to believe whatever we want her and just because the majority believes in christianity doesn't mean those beliefs should govern our country.


As for your having the same benefts as others why don't single people get to have the same benefits as married people? That's unfair also wouldn't ya say? Why is it ok to make single people pay more in taxes then married people? That is truely unfair by the very definition of unfair. Two sources of income is greater then one source of income so you could say married folks should have to pay atleast the same percent as single folks regardless if one or both work.

I do think that married people shouldn't get any extra tax breaks over single people.




And I want you both to explain to me why the 7 million voices that voted for the bill have their opinions not count? How is that fair. Sorry but you don't count bye bye. That is another form of discrimination. But the 6.4 millions voices have their opinion count. Again that is not democracy. The more we go down this path the more we are turning into dictatorship politics and we the people don't get a say in what happens.

As for counting opinions, there are some issues, especially rights of others, where opinions can;t be counted up to decide. If that was the case we would be living in a much different country as far as race goes. Not everything can or should be decided by a majority vote.

duane1969
02-08-2012, 12:08 PM
i understand the argument that just because something is voted on by the majority doesn't mean it should be law. My issue is that we need a system where things go through the supreme court before they can be voted on by the public.
It does nothing to promote faith in the government if 15 million people vote on an issue only to have a panel of 5-10 people overturn what they voted for. What was the point? Every election we encourage people to vote and we tell them it is their greatest right and greatest responsibility. Then we tell them that their votes don't actually count as much as 1 judge who was appointed by a buddy to the right court.

+1000000000000000000000000000000