Prop 8 overturned

[theonedru]

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/...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

" 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]

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*]

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]

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