Prop 8 Struck Down

Post Reply New Topic

Whatever the "purpose" of Prop 8, the effect was to deny gay people the right to be married in California. That is the right that people are referring to, and that is what the court decided was unconstitutional.

JSB

Gay people have the right to get married just the same as heterosexual people. They have always had that right. They just choose not to exercise that right. What the judge did in this case is to redefine marriage in spite of the legitimate vote of over 7 million people. Marriage is between men and women. This is the way it has been for thousands of years. If the law forbade people from living with one another, then I would see where the judge would have a point, but that is not what prop 8 did.

cyberscan,

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Suggesting that gay people have the same right to be married as heterosexual people is an utter falsehood. Since consummation is a necessary component of marriage at common law (and in canon law, for that matter), the right of a gay person to marry is constrained by that person's willingness to consummate the marriage, and the willingness of a person of the opposite sex to be married to a person who has no interest in consummating the marriage.

As for cohabitation, it is well established in law that "separate but equal" does not meet the requirements of equal protection. You can't set up a water fountain for "coloureds" next to one for "whites only" and you can't set up "registered partnerships" for gay citizens next to marriage for "heteros only."

Your argument fails in both canon law and common law, and more to the point, it fails in common sense.

The church is free to refuse to marry couples it chooses not to allow to marry. I don't see any court suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is obliged to marry divorced members, and I don't foresee any court suggesting that a religious institution would be obliged to marry a same sex couple.

But civil authorities are quite another matter, and outside the reach of doctrine.

Like I said before, gays always had the right to get married. Many refuse to do so. As far as the R.C.C. and other religious institutions being compelled to accept and "marry" gays, that will soon come, and the vote of the people be damned. What this judge has done is turn on its head thousands of years of precedent as well as the vote of the people. As far as the water fountain analogy is concerned, you are comparing apples to oranges. We effectively live in a Communist dictatorship rather than a constitutional republic. Our vote no longer counts.

I would like to point out that declaring Prop 8 as unconstitutional only leaves out the words expressing that under California law, prop 8 would make legal marriage only between a man and a woman. People claiming that children will be forced to learn that gay marriage is ok is bs. If a parent doesn't want their children learning that, then the school, under the law, can't force that child to learn that. Also, the churches aren't required to marry gay couples because the law also says that churches can't be forced to do something that is contrary to their beliefs.
People can still be against gay marriage if they want to, but I don't think that you should have a say in something that doesn't really affect you or the way you live. While churches frown upon gay marriage and homosexuality, they also recommend that everyone should be tolerant and respectful of everyone else. Treat others like you would like to be treated.

I'm a Christian, and I support the judge's decision. I see no reason why two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry. As for the whole "marrying a goat" argument, when was the last time a goat gave consent to be married...? It's all about consent.
So a majority of Californians voted for Prop 8.. just because a (very slim) majority of Californians supported it doesn't make it right.. I'm sure a majority of South Carolinians would have voted in 1860 to allow slavery.. does that make it right? If a majority of a state voted to ban interracial marriages.. would you be opposed to a judge turning that over?

I agree with you 100%.

this is a very nice and excellent web site.

about to this languages which is one of the best web site and giving the confidence for reading.

every one like to visit and read its all future.

i was just reading and getting the information about religion.

For some ungodly reason visagrunt, it would appear your argument here has roared over cyberscan's head like a Stuka
dive bomber.

I understand peoples' arguments here completely. You all who are for this judge' overriding of the peoples' will will find out that this is only a small step. If a judge can violate the constitution as well as override the will of the people, what makes you think that it won't be done when a gay couple complains about a church not performing a same sex "wedding." As cannon and common law is concerned, name one example of a gay couple getting "married" 40 years ago. Marriage requires a bride and a groom. Who is the bride, and who is the groom? What this judge did is redefine marriage itself. I just wonder who made him god.

All law in a free society is based upon morals. It is against the law to murder because it is immoral to do so. It is against the law to steal because it is immoral to do so. Most of the voters say that marriage is between a man and a woman. This too, is based upon a moral argument. Now, if gay couples wanted a civil union or partnership which had the same legal benefits as marriage, then the people may very well have voted in favor of it. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. business owners will be forced to grant same sex couples the same insurance benefits as married couples despite their moral and religious objections to doing so. This infringes upon their religious freedoms. The voters of California decided that the several thousand year definition of marriage was the correct one and voted to make sure that that definition would be upheld. The vote was deemed constitutional by courts as well as election officials before it even made it to the ballot. One biased government official took it upon himself to override the entire vote and process and say f*** you to the people of California.

What is next? Incestuous marriage? Multiple partner marriages? Euthanasia? When Communists decide to take over a government, one of the biggest tasks involved in doing so is to overthrow the traditional nuclear family. The easiest way to do that is to redefine the basic building block of the nuclear family, and that is based upon marriage.

The next step may be the changing of the definition of man, woman, or child. If a judge can presume to change the definition of marriage, then he or she can change the definitions of any other concept in spite of the wishes of the people or the thousands of years of precedent. The people know what marriage is, they know what a man, woman, or child is, and they have even went as far as telling the state government and court what marriage is. Now, a single judge is dictating to the people that marriage is not what it is.

The divorce rate in America is over 50%. The institution of marriage as it exists in America today is a farce.
I think all secular (read government sanctioned) marriage should be replaced by the civil union and open to any two consenting adults.

Since the fundies want to make a fuss about marriage as this super-sacred thing, I think we should give the babies their bottle.
I think marriage should be a sacred contract between a man and a woman and breakable only by death or by proof of some sort of truly heinous abuse.

Further, I think any man and woman engaged in a marriage must be compelled to live together until such time as the marriage is dissolved by the conditions stated above. Also, I think any violation of the sacred marriage contract, such as adultery, should be punishable by a lengthy prison sentence.

Do that and I bet you won’t see many fundies bitchin’… or getting married.

When the will of the people is in violation of the Constitution, what prevails? The whole point of rule of law is that no person, and no group of people (not even a majority) is above the law.



What provision of the constitution has the court violated? It is entirely within the jurisdiction of the court to exercise judicial review of any decision of the electorate or the legislature and determine whether that decision is consistent with the constitution.

Given that no divorced Roman Catholic has successfull sued for the right to be remarried by the Church, your argument is alarmist, and of no probative value.



Law is a dynamic thing. A couple of centuries ago a woman was a chattel of her husband. Does that me that all women must be chattels of their husband's today? Of course not. If the law is constrained from any innovation, then black children would still be in separate schools in Alabama, today.



I disagree. Because morality is a personal thing, there can never be one standard of morality, and hence there cannot be one standard of law. But the law must be consistent for all citizens within a jurisdiction. I may think that it is morally correct to withhold that portion of my taxes that supports my Government's military intervention in Afghanistan, but that moral view has no weight at law. On the other hand, I think that same-sex marriage is perfectly moral when celebrated between two consenting adults. So whose moral view is superior.

The simple answer is, of course, that the superiority of moral views is irrelevant, because the law is amoral. The law exists to provide a framework for civilized behaviour. There are certainly offences that are malum in se but that is not the jurisprudential basis for their criminalization.



That's irrelevant. It's not the question that was put, and it was not the subject of the litigation.



Is a muslim in secular business free to refuse to hire a woman because of his religious views? If your religious views do not permit you to do business the way that the law requires you do to business, you are free to refrain from doing business. If you hire people, you obey the law. If you give your employees employment benefits, you obey the law. Religious views are a not a free pass outside of their proper sphere.



More accurately, the voters of California decided to say f*** you to the Constitution of the United States, and the Court has told them that they are not free to do so.



Again with the alarmism. The issue here is monogamous, same sex marriage. If someone brings an action to legitimate one of these other issues, then the Court will deal with it at that time.



Definitions at law do change. The definition of man and woman has already been changed in the last 60 years because of new insights into sexual dimorphism in humans, and the availability of sex reassignment surgery. The definition of a child has changed. When parents divorce and remarry, the relationship of the child to its step-parents is not one that was conceived in the legal definition of a child even 100 years ago (let alone thousands).

The law must speak in the present tense.

They are free to discriminate against autistic people. Businesses are free to NOT hire someone because they are autistic. However, the constitution prohibits GOVERNMENT from refusing to hire women. Speaking even with today's interpretation of the constitution, there is SPECIFIC protections put in place for women as well different races.
There is no specific protections within the constitution dealing with how people decide to conduct their sex lives.



What provision of the constitution has the court violated? It is entirely within the jurisdiction of the court to exercise judicial review of any decision of the electorate or the legislature and determine whether that decision is consistent with the constitution. There is no legal basis whatsoever for this judge to decide to redefine marriage. Marriage falls under state jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the people. In this case BOTH decided to keep the same definition of marriage that has has been for thousands of years. The fourteenth amendment makes no mention of one's sexual preference if you are going to try the equal protection card. Gays have always have had the right to marry just as any heterosexual.



Yes, and the court will allow all of these too even against vote of the people. Government's role is to protect society, but increasingly, many have taken it upon themselves to destroy society.




You wonder why the divorce rate is so high? At work here is the use of government to destroy the very basis of free society. Once this is done, then NONE of us will be able to enjoy rights, including gays. If one can change the very meaning of things at the whim of some judge, group of legislators, voters, or other bureaucrats, then we have little hope of retaining freedom. Don't like autistic people? Change the meaning of human to a definition that includes something that autistic people are not known to be capable of doing. Autistic people lose the exercise of human rights.