I'm not holding my breath, this is California after all, but everything I've heard so far indicates Prop 8 might survive a state supreme court challenge....which is ironic since it's a constitutional amendment supposedly making it unchallengable in the state supreme court.

Quote:With thousands chanting slogans and waving placards outside, a majority of California Supreme Court justices seemed inclined at a hearing Thursday to uphold Proposition 8, the state's same-sex marriage ban.

Quote:"We are dealing with the power of the people -- an inalienable right to amend the constitution as they like,"

http://cbs5.com/local/gay.marriage.prop8.2.951150.html

From how the Court handled Oral Arguments, there is no way to tell how they are leaning?

Gay Marriage, Oral Arguments,

(03-09-2009 02:52 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  From how the Court handled Oral Arguments, there is no way to tell how they are leaning?

This has gotten a lot of coverage in this state and the people who are supposed to be experts on the Cal Supreme Court pretty much think the court will keep the ban and continue to allow the existing marriages. But who really knows?

(03-09-2009 03:03 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 02:52 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  From how the Court handled Oral Arguments, there is no way to tell how they are leaning?

This has gotten a lot of coverage in this state and the people who are supposed to be experts on the Cal Supreme Court pretty much think the court will keep the ban and continue to allow the existing marriages. But who really knows?

Which ever way you feel on this issue we must deal with the rights of states to define marriage. Most states define it as between one man and one woman. The simple truth is that Vermont doesn't have the right under the US Constitution to tell Arkansas what marriage is and Arkansas doesn't have the right under the US Constitution to dictate the definition of marriage to other states.

Just because a big enough majority believes in something to make it a Constitutional Ammendment, doesn't make it right, ethical, or fair.

I'm constantly amused by how many people find it offensive that humans evolved from apes, yet are still quabbling over religion, skin color, and sexual preference. We are the best our planet has to offer intellectually. How very sad.

By the way .... just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. The people should not, regardless of popularity, have the power to trample the equal rights of a minority, no matter how small that minority is.

And no minority has the right to trample the rights of the majority, it happens all the time on much larger issues than GAY MARRIAGE. People are mostly against it because of the "IN YOUR FACE TACTICS OF GAY PEOPLE", get rid of that and people will be more supportive.

(03-11-2009 01:53 AM)supertiger Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 03:03 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-09-2009 02:52 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  From how the Court handled Oral Arguments, there is no way to tell how they are leaning?

This has gotten a lot of coverage in this state and the people who are supposed to be experts on the Cal Supreme Court pretty much think the court will keep the ban and continue to allow the existing marriages. But who really knows?

Which ever way you feel on this issue we must deal with the rights of states to define marriage. Most states define it as between one man and one woman. The simple truth is that Vermont doesn't have the right under the US Constitution to tell Arkansas what marriage is and Arkansas doesn't have the right under the US Constitution to dictate the definition of marriage to other states.

If a state wanted to define marriage as only between 2 whites or 2 blacks, would the federal government be OK with that? Do the people of a state have an inalienable right to make that amendment to their constitution?

(03-11-2009 02:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Just because a big enough majority believes in something to make it a Constitutional Ammendment, doesn't make it right, ethical, or fair.

I'm constantly amused by how many people find it offensive that humans evolved from apes, yet are still quabbling over religion, skin color, and sexual preference. We are the best our planet has to offer intellectually. How very sad.

By the way .... just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. The people should not, regardless of popularity, have the power to trample the equal rights of a minority, no matter how small that minority is.

I was always taught that Majority and Minority Status was Constitutionally kept for Races of Human Beings and not Life Styles.

If all is OK on who or "What" you can Marry, then if I want to be a Bank Robber or a Drug Lord, that is a Life Style that should be Constitutionally upheld at all cost just the Exact Same As Being Gay is Upheld.

You just can not have this kind of diluted mess - - it affects and effects every other thing associated with it and reforms precedents long set into law.

If you think for one second NAMBLA won't try to use this to marry 10 year old little boys, you are wrong or some Beastiality Think Tank won't want to press marrying a herd of Sheep into Constitutional Law, or some other kind of Nutbag Stirring, then I've got a $1000 Dollar Bill for ya.

And what Racial Minority, who has fought for their very lives to be Equal, would want this kind of Foolishness Loaded onto their Suffering for their Cause ???

Legal Unions/Partnerships, what can you say, Full Marriage, not on your life.

.

(03-11-2009 05:29 PM)Tripster Wrote:  I was always taught that Majority and Minority Status was Constitutionally kept for Races of Human Beings and not Life Styles.

If all is OK on who or "What" you can Marry, then if I want to be a Bank Robber or a Drug Lord, that is a Life Style that should be Constitutionally upheld at all cost just the Exact Same As Being Gay is Upheld.

Being a bank robber or a drug lord is a choice someone makes. Being gay is not a choice.

(03-11-2009 02:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Just because a big enough majority believes in something to make it a Constitutional Ammendment, doesn't make it right, ethical, or fair.

I'm constantly amused by how many people find it offensive that humans evolved from apes, yet are still quabbling over religion, skin color, and sexual preference. We are the best our planet has to offer intellectually. How very sad.

By the way .... just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. The people should not, regardless of popularity, have the power to trample the equal rights of a minority, no matter how small that minority is.

Well the California Legiuslature is already considering ways to bypass Prop 8 by deleting the term "marriage" from all relevant California laws.

(03-11-2009 06:34 PM)subflea Wrote:  Being gay is not a choice.

If that's true, and no one knows for sure at this point, that would essentially make them mutants(no offense, I just can't, at this moment, think of a better term) who would not be able to perpetuate their kind on their own. That makes them different and so, too, their relationships. And if their relationships are different then they need to be called something different.

Gays can still do all the things straights can do only the term "marriage" is reserved for straight people just as the term "wife" is reserved for a woman and "husband" reserved for a man. There are no rights being violated by having straight couples being the only ones allowed to call themselves married. It's a friggin word. What's next, women demanding to be called men because they feel slighted when they're called something different?

Finally, liberals usually feel they can do what ever they want with little intervention from the government and feel their rights are violated when the government tells them what to do. So why is it they feel gays need the approval of the government in order to validate their unions and have a standard marriage certificate? Which, by the way, says Bride and Groom and there ain't none of those in a gay marriage.

And if all this isn't bad enough, 2 San Diego college students are trying to get a ballot measure which will eliminate the term marriage and describe all unions as..well......unions. So the gays don't want to be in civil unions but they'll accept it if that's the only game in town. The term marriage is so dear to them that they want to eliminate it completely. Now that's gay.

(03-11-2009 04:00 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  If a state wanted to define marriage as only between 2 whites or 2 blacks, would the federal government be OK with that? Do the people of a state have an inalienable right to make that amendment to their constitution?

Be it right or wrong, if the people of a state vote to change the constitution, then it's done. How can a judge (except in California) say the new constitution is unconstitutional?

(03-11-2009 08:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And if all this isn't bad enough, 2 San Diego college students are trying to get a ballot measure which will eliminate the term marriage and describe all unions as..well......unions. So the gays don't want to be in civil unions but they'll accept it if that's the only game in town. The term marriage is so dear to them that they want to eliminate it completely. Now that's gay.

Here is my problem... Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, a California marriage is valid in courts of other states of the US.

But what happens if the state doesn't recognize the gay marriage? Do we set up an Equal Protection challenge when we deny the right to a divorce, or a survivorship claim?

You can blame the District Attorney in Houston Texas for all of this mess... because if he had just dismissed the charges of "deviate sexual intercourse" at the Trial Court level, then Lawrence v. Texas would not have ever made it up to the US Supreme Court.

It was that opinion that opened this can of worms in the first place.

I think the wealthy should be protected from unfair taxation. The government discriminates based on income or wealth. The minority gets their taxes raised by the majority. The fact that 95% of american get a tax cut, while the other 5% is responsible for paying back the massive debt this country has racked up. As for marriage that is legal contract. Just like a merger of corportations. Its a financial matter. Married people have certain financial benefits in the tax code. This debate is about money just like every think else. Single people who are straight who choose not to marry or are unable to find a willing partner are not getting the perks either. We give tax deductions for parents, while single peoople without kids don't get those deductions, yet still are taxed to pay for schools to educate the children of those with kids. Married people should pay a higher tax because of the extra cost of health coverage for families. People who have children should be taxed more single or not. They want the goverment to provide all these services then they should pay for those services. Should be a fee to get married, but a large one to get divorced. That way people take is serious and not just a hip think to do.

(03-11-2009 08:53 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 04:00 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  If a state wanted to define marriage as only between 2 whites or 2 blacks, would the federal government be OK with that? Do the people of a state have an inalienable right to make that amendment to their constitution?

Be it right or wrong, if the people of a state vote to change the constitution, then it's done. How can a judge (except in California) say the new constitution is unconstitutional?

Exactly.

(03-11-2009 06:34 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 05:29 PM)Tripster Wrote:  I was always taught that Majority and Minority Status was Constitutionally kept for Races of Human Beings and not Life Styles.

If all is OK on who or "What" you can Marry, then if I want to be a Bank Robber or a Drug Lord, that is a Life Style that should be Constitutionally upheld at all cost just the Exact Same As Being Gay is Upheld.

Being a bank robber or a drug lord is a choice someone makes. Being gay is not a choice.

What about being an alcoholic? Should drunk driving be protected under the ADA?

WHile not a perfect analogy, you'll find it's much closer to this issue than citing race.

(03-11-2009 09:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 08:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And if all this isn't bad enough, 2 San Diego college students are trying to get a ballot measure which will eliminate the term marriage and describe all unions as..well......unions. So the gays don't want to be in civil unions but they'll accept it if that's the only game in town. The term marriage is so dear to them that they want to eliminate it completely. Now that's gay.

Here is my problem... Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, a California marriage is valid in courts of other states of the US.

But what happens if the state doesn't recognize the gay marriage? Do we set up an Equal Protection challenge when we deny the right to a divorce, or a survivorship claim?

That most certainly will come next. That's part of the strategy of those who support "gay marriage." It is no coincidence that these efforts have been concentrated in select states...Thus, a few in one particular state get to dictate the law in all 50. I find that particularly offensive.

Quote:You can blame the District Attorney in Houston Texas for all of this mess... because if he had just dismissed the charges of "deviate sexual intercourse" at the Trial Court level, then Lawrence v. Texas would not have ever made it up to the US Supreme Court.

It was that opinion that opened this can of worms in the first place.

Things were headed in this direction regardless of Lawrence v TX. It's been talked about for decades.

(03-11-2009 02:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Just because a big enough majority believes in something to make it a Constitutional Ammendment, doesn't make it right, ethical, or fair.

You've yet to offer any source for ethics or fairness. Where do you get your value judgements from? Majority or minority, you're trying to impose YOUR beliefs on others here...where do you derive that "right".

Quote:I'm constantly amused by how many people find it offensive that humans evolved from apes, yet are still quabbling over religion, skin color, and sexual preference. We are the best our planet has to offer intellectually. How very sad.

Indeed. It's sad when the "best intellectual" explanation of origins sweeps past all the difficult questions, and tries to bluster its way into universal acceptance.

Quote:By the way .... just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right.

Can I quote you on this the next time you cite how many "scientists" accept the theory of evolution?

(03-11-2009 06:34 PM)subflea Wrote:  Being gay is not a choice.

really, then how come there are 'ex-gays' who use to be gay but are now in total opposition to it? or for that matter ex-heterosexuals....if its not at its core a lifestyle choice?