Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban

[Denny Crane]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.

All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
[/FONT]

 

[Denny Crane]

Prop 8 cannot stand. As I pointed out in another thread, the people's will cannot include something like bringing back slavery - because it violates the US constitution to do so. Prop 8 violates the 14th, but not for the reason stated: "[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group." A State simply cannot discriminate against any class of citizens, protected or not.

(Gays are not a protected class, WRT the 14th)

[/FONT]

 

[Minstrel]

I believe at least one basis of the legal challenges is that making a fundamental change to the rights guaranteed by the state constitution is considered a revision, not an amendment. Amendments can be placed before the voters as a ballot initiative, but reivisions cannot. Revisions to the state constitution can only be placed before the voters by the state legislatures.

 

[MARIS61]

A State simply cannot discriminate against any class of citizens, protected or not.

So Affirmative Action is clearly unConstitutional.

 

[Denny Crane]

So Affirmative Action is clearly unConstitutional.

SCOTUS ruled against Michigan's AA program for university admissions, so yeah.

Though the 14th has a lot more legal stuff behind it than just the words. The concept of black people being a "protected group" (gays are not) being a biggie.

 

[hasoos]

Once again, why are we regulating marriage at all people? If marriage was completely deregulated, so there were no laws besides the age that you can get married in order to protect young people, then nobody would be fighting about this issue because it would purely be a personal decision. We would not be wasting all this money in political battles and court rooms, when that same money is needed elsewhere.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Once again, why are we regulating marriage at all people? If marriage was completely deregulated, so there were no laws besides the age that you can get married in order to protect young people, then nobody would be fighting about this issue because it would purely be a personal decision. We would not be wasting all this money in political battles and court rooms, when that same money is needed elsewhere.

A better question may be why does the losing side always feel the right to go to the judicial branch and insist on minority rule? There was an election. Those who felt the need to weigh in did so and made a majority decision. Like it or not, why can't it be left at that?

 

[elcap15]

Because some things should not be left to majority rule. Like the rights of a minority group.

 

[barfo]

A better question may be why does the losing side always feel the right to go to the judicial branch and insist on minority rule? There was an election. Those who felt the need to weigh in did so and made a majority decision. Like it or not, why can't it be left at that?

Why do you suppose we have a judicial branch? Should it be abolished?

barfo

 

[hasoos]

A better question may be why does the losing side always feel the right to go to the judicial branch and insist on minority rule? There was an election. Those who felt the need to weigh in did so and made a majority decision. Like it or not, why can't it be left at that?

On the other side of the coin, there have been many times where peoples rights and freedoms have only been preserved by the court protecting them from mean spirited people who wish to take them away. Just because people vote in a law, does not mean that the law, does not violate your inalienable constitutional rights that you have as a citizen of the United States.

 

[Furball]

But you are forgetting 1 thing. Gays are not classified as Minorities. It is a lifestyle. Many people are not born gay. Some maybe. But if your not born gay and you decide, hey I want to be a minority now, how is that being a minority? Gays classifying themselves as a minority is a joke. It's an insult to Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other ethnic groups. You cannot change a law to accomodate a lifestyle. Why not allow inscest between consenting adults? By banning incest, aren't we infringing on two consenting adults rights?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Why do you suppose we have a judicial branch? Should it be abolished?

barfo

Easy, to uphold the laws of the country and administer justice.

That said, IF the initiative is written in an unconstitutional manner, then that's fine. However, time after time we see just the opposite. The losing side hoping a court will act in a judicially activist manner rather than administer law.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

On the other side of the coin, there have been many times where peoples rights and freedoms have only been preserved by the court protecting them from mean spirited people who wish to take them away. Just because people vote in a law, does not mean that the law, does not violate your inalienable constitutional rights that you have as a citizen of the United States.

And that is a very astute point.

 

[elcap15]

But you are forgetting 1 thing. Gays are not classified as Minorities. It is a lifestyle. Many people are not born gay. Some maybe. But if your not born gay and you decide, hey I want to be a minority now, how is that being a minority? Gays classifying themselves as a minority is a joke. It's an insult to Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other ethnic groups. You cannot change a law to accomodate a lifestyle. Why not allow inscest between consenting adults? By banning incest, aren't we infringing on two consenting adults rights?

Why do homophobes always turn to incest? No one is talking about incest other than those trying to deny the rights of a minority group. Gays and incest have nothing in common. Open your fucking mind.

How are gays not a minority? If being gay is a lifestyle choice, than so is being straight and you shouldnt favor one over the other.

 

[Minstrel]

Easy, to uphold the laws of the country and administer justice.

That said, IF the initiative is written in an unconstitutional manner, then that's fine. However, time after time we see just the opposite. The losing side hoping a court will act in a judicially activist manner rather than administer law.

The main legal challenge is that this is revision of the constitution (a fundamental change to the rights granted by the state constitution) and a revision can't be put to popular vote by a ballot initiative. It can only be put to popular vote after a two-thirds approval by the state legislature. That is a legitimate legal issue, which is why it's going to the Supreme Court.

 

[Minstrel]

But you are forgetting 1 thing. Gays are not classified as Minorities. It is a lifestyle. Many people are not born gay. Some maybe. But if your not born gay and you decide, hey I want to be a minority now, how is that being a minority? Gays classifying themselves as a minority is a joke. It's an insult to Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other ethnic groups. You cannot change a law to accomodate a lifestyle. Why not allow inscest between consenting adults? By banning incest, aren't we infringing on two consenting adults rights?

Even if you're right about homosexuality being a "lifestyle choice" (which I don't agree with), does that mean that it would be okay to define marriage as between a Muslim man and Muslim woman? No Christians allowed. Not a rights-infrigement, since Christianity is a lifestyle choice. Right?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The main legal challenge is that this is revision of the constitution (a fundamental change to the rights granted by the state constitution) and a revision can't be put to popular vote by a ballot initiative. It can only be put to popular vote after a two-thirds approval by the state legislature. That is a legitimate legal issue, which is why it's going to the Supreme Court.

I can safely guarantee you that if there was a measure to change the state constitution to add gay marriages (BTW, I have no opinion on the matter) and it passed and the losing side challanged it the lefties here would be all up in arms and the righties would be stating the opposite.

 

[Minstrel]

I can safely guarantee you that if there was a measure to change the state constitution to add gay marriages (BTW, I have no opinion on the matter) and it passed and the losing side challanged it the lefties here would be all up in arms and the righties would be stating the opposite.

Well, some legal challenges have more merit than others. If the situations were reversed, the losing side couldn't make the same challenge, because adding gay marriage doesn't take away rights, so wouldn't count as revision (I don't think, anyway...I'm not a legal scholar). I'm sure they'd make some legal challenge, though, and people on both sides would argue for and against it. Without knowing what that hypothetical legal challenge would be, it's impossible to judge the relative merit of the reverse legal challenge.

But whether or not this legal challenge succeeds, it seems like legitimate legal issue.

 

[Ed O]

Even if you're right about homosexuality being a "lifestyle choice" (which I don't agree with), does that mean that it would be okay to define marriage as between a Muslim man and Muslim woman? No Christians allowed. Not a rights-infrigement, since Christianity is a lifestyle choice. Right?

That would violate protections specific to religion in the US Constitution.

There are no protections for gay people, in particular, in the US Constitution.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Why do homophobes always turn to incest? No one is talking about incest other than those trying to deny the rights of a minority group. Gays and incest have nothing in common. Open your fucking mind.

I think that your mind is actually pretty closed if you cannot see that any protections extended to homosexuals should logically be extended to consenting incestuous adults. Why can't a brother and sister marry?

It's not about being a homophobe to point that logical extension out to people like you, who clearly has such an emotional connection to this issue.

How are gays not a minority? If being gay is a lifestyle choice, than so is being straight and you shouldnt favor one over the other.

Lifestyles are promoted or discouraged by the government all the time. People that have kids or own houses get more tax relief than those who do not. Smokers are taxed for their vice.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

That would violate protections specific to religion in the US Constitution.

I wasn't referring to whether it would be legal by the Constitution, simply questioning his reasoning, that it being a "lifestyle choice" (in his opinion) is the crucial issue.

 

[Minstrel]

I think that your mind is actually pretty closed if you cannot see that any protections extended to homosexuals should logically be extended to consenting incestuous adults. Why can't a brother and sister marry?

There's some difference. Brother and sister is not much of a problem, but if it were parent and child, there's the question of whether the parent influenced their child prior to their majority. Introducing the possibility of a future relationship beyond parent-child can be seen as a conflict of interests; some parents may not do the best thing for the child, prior to adulthood, if they desire something in the vein of romance/sex once the child is adult.

And, of course, there's solid reason why procreation should be disallowed by incestuous couples, since it carries the risk of damage to the child.

But if we ignore concern one and allow marriage without procreation, there really isn't any reason why it should be banned. I suspect the reason that people dislike the association between homosexuality and incest is because incest is a rational taboo...it stems from the dangers of inbreeding. Yes, if you carefully define it as just marriage without procreation, it takes away the danger, but simply saying "incest" includes the sexual aspect. It's a common tactic to taint homosexuality, which harms no one, by associating it with an activity that has harmful connotation.

 

[Furball]

Why do homophobes always turn to incest? No one is talking about incest other than those trying to deny the rights of a minority group. Gays and incest have nothing in common. Open your fucking mind.

How are gays not a minority? If being gay is a lifestyle choice, than so is being straight and you shouldnt favor one over the other.

First of all, I'm not a homophobe. The reason I turn to incest is that people who support gay marriage want to change laws to affirm their lifestyle. A lifestyle I have no problem with, just not a lifestyle that I support changing the laws for.

 

[MARIS61]

First of all, I'm not a homophobe. The reason I turn to incest is that people who support gay marriage want to change laws to affirm their lifestyle. A lifestyle I have no problem with, just not a lifestyle that I support changing the laws for.

Not true.

You supported Prop. 8, which changed the law.

 

[MARIS61]

I think that your mind is actually pretty closed if you cannot see that any protections extended to homosexuals should logically be extended to consenting incestuous adults. Why can't a brother and sister marry?

Ed O.

Straw man.

 

[Furball]

Not true.

You supported Prop. 8, which changed the law.

No, it reverted back to a measure that was passed and the court overturned.