Prop 8 is it Legal

Post Reply New Topic

Do you believe that prop 8 is legal?

For me I think it is illegal

1.) The United States of America's government is supposed to be separate from the churches in all ways which means a religious law such as Prop 8 is illegal.
2.) It violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the federal constitution.
3.) It is in conflict with earlier portions of the constitution.

I'm not American, am I right in thinking prop 8 is the ban on gay marriage?

Well its a law now, so it doesn't look very illegal to me.

Laws can be illegal if they violates parts of the constitution. Look at laws banning multiracial marriages, the laws were in place, they had strong support by the majority of the people and the supreme court ruled that the laws were a unconstitutional because of their discriminatory nature which was in contrast of what was in the constitution said.


Also gina-ghettoprincess prop 8 was used to to strip gay marriage away after the supreme court ruled that banning gay marriage is illegal and that homosexual have the right to marry.

Almost all laws are ethically bankrupt.

Read my sig: "The evil of prohibition is the evil of government itself."

The only power a government has is to arbitrairly define somthing as "wrong" and then use Force to punish it.

Prohibitions NEVER work.

We see that in "drugs".

We see that in homosexuality.

We see that in firearms.

"Prohibiting" things is simply a way for the government to oppress people and make money off the prosecution of oppression.

I am not asking is 8 ethical I am asking is it legal.

What's so wonderful about the constitution. Sure, it was revolutionary for it's time, but now it's a bit... vintage.

"Legal" is a fiction.

It was "Legal" to gas and burn Jews in Germany.
It was "Legal" to gas and burn the Branch Davidians at Waco
It was "Legal" to eradicate most of the Indiginous Peoples of North America.

"Legal" means nothing but "We're the Government and we're here to kill you".

Are you asking about a legal technicality, or genuinely trying to determine what should be done about a real issue in the real world? As many on this forum know, I was an opponent of government-recognized gay marriage, but now I'm not so sure. I objected previously because I thought that those who were for it were just trying to make it legal to prove a point, and that the sanctity of marriage was quite far from their minds. But, some gays must undoubtedly be as serious about lifetime commitment as are straights. And the government continues to recognize straight marriage despite a 50% divorce rate (which belies somewhat of a lack of seriousness -- or proper thoughtfulness before committing -- on the part of straights when it comes to marriage), so why shouldn't it be equally allowed for gays who also profess full seriousness about a lifetime commitment? I have no tolerance for those gays (or anyone else) who adpot an insulting, in-your-face, who-cares-what-you-think attitude toward those who disagree with them. But for those who are serious about commitment, and by all indications truly intend lifetime partnership, what other legal solution makes sense than for the government to simply say: "Ok. We see you two are together. We get it."? That would merely be the government admitting the obvious.

Last edited by Ragtime on 05 Mar 2009, 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Agreed. I would like the legal system to be remade so that you have to defend or accuse based on moral or practical values, instead of a mindless "sorry, you've broken law number X, no discussion".

Moral and practical views change over time, they evolve sometimes for the better but almost as often as for the worse. That is why laws based upon logic are the only option we can use it is that or we all become Vulcans and ban anyone from doing their government job every seven years. Anyways lets stay on topic k ^_^

So Henriksson do you think Prop eight is legal?

OK... let me ansqur question with a similar question...

Are US Gun Control Laws "Legal"?

It's essentially the same question...

The Supreme Court ruled, in Loving V. Virginia, that the laws in Virginia (and 16 other states) prohibiting interracial marriage were in violation of the perceived "right to privacy" implied by the rest of the Constitution. I would have been happier if they'd gone with the plain text of Article IV, Section 1, but there you go.

The California Supreme Court ruled that California's version of the gay marriage ban violated the California constitution's equal-protection provisions. Prop 8 inserted a constitutional amendment that specifically disallows gay marriage from protection status. Thus, it's quite legal, no matter how abhorrent its implications. (Now, should that amendment prohibit California from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states, that would run afoul of Article IV - and the US Constitution takes precedence over that of any one state - but I don't know if this is the case, and so far no one has seen fit to challenge it on this basis. Heck, it was only this week that a lesbian couple challenged the Defense of Marriage Act under Article IV!)

Note that both the California Supreme Court ruling and the Prop 8 response had to do with the state constitution, not the US constitution. So far, the US constitution doesn't say jack on the question...

MrMisanthrope they are two different things gay marriage is like apples and gun control laws are like oranges.


Now DeaconBlues I disagree I do not believe as you do that prop 8 is legal in any sense. If they had made changes to the rest of the constitution

1.) Like I said before Prop eight flies in the face of 14th amendment's equal protection clause of the federal constitution, because of this fact this lower law is not not valid.
2.) There are conflicts like the above with Prop eight and many other parts of the California state constitution. If they had modified and/or removed the parts causing the conflict then the rest of the California state constitution would not nullify prop eight, however because they are there is a conflict which nullifies prop 8.
3.) There are problems with the way prop eight was put into place, you can make minor changes with a simple popular vote but to make major changes like prop eight you need the legislative branch of the government as well.

No, using the criteria you posted they are EXACTLY equivelent. If there are Consitiutional Issues that make Prop 8 "illegal" similar Constitutional issues make Gun Control Laws "illegal".

Prohibition is Prohibition.

Laws/Legality are simply a Fiction designed by Government to oppress those they disagree with/fear.

I don't think "legal" is the right word here, I think you mean is it constitutional.

Legal = within the law. A law cannot be in breach of the law, it makes no sense.
Constitutional = within the constitution. A law CAN be in breach of the constitution.

(While I'm on this, I wish we (the UK) had a constitution. We need one, our government is screwing us over big time.)

Anyway, back on topic...I believe prop 8 is unconstitutional, yeah. But that won't stop it being enforced, sadly.