Pop 8 ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit panel!

[Whiskey_Lord]

Q_Q some MOAR, fundies. One more victory for a saner America.

 

[wilycoyote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

Too many.

Go North Carolina! Maybe the South isn't all bad.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Go North Carolina! Maybe the South isn't all bad.

North Carolina bans same-sex marriage, it just isn't in the constitution.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Sure, but it's still discriminating against an entire group of people, who may or may not hold similar beliefs, who shouldn't find that they're restricted to things that they should be entitled too, just because of how certain religions/certain religious groups feel.

It's not about what's right and wrong, it's about what they feel. So you may not like them, but they pray for you and love you all the same.

 

[woody60707]

THIS decision doesn't affect a state like Arizona, which has almost a verbatim copy of Pop. 8. However, once the Supreme Court takes up the issue, it will affect all states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

This is a FEDERAL court. My understanding is that "IF" the 9th just ruled Same sex marriage is a right and any ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Then that would be the law of the land unless/till the Supreme Court took the case.

And Arizona falls under the Ninth Circuit as well. Hopefully JR won't won't be feeling trollish and explain this better.

 

[kramerfan86]

I would really like someone to give a non-religious reason for banning it.

And please, the bestiality and pedophilia arguments are not only insulting, they are illogical. Animals and children cant make life altering decisions. There is a reason there is a slew of adult things children are not allowed to do until they are older. The animal one is laughable since an animal cant agree to anything.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

It's not about what's right and wrong, it's about what they feel. So you may not like them, but they pray for you and love you all the same.

They can pray and love all they want in private. They don't have the right to force their backwards morality on other people.

 

[wilycoyote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

This is a FEDERAL court. My understanding is that "IF" the 9th just ruled Same sex marriage is a right and any ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Then that would be the law of the land unless/till the Supreme Court took the case.

And Arizona falls under the Ninth Circuit as well. Hopefully JR won't won't be feeling trollish and explain this better.

The decision is crafted in such a way to only affect California. If they wanted to, it could have affected Arizona. I would think that they are just allowing the Supreme Court to take it to the interstate scope that I'm sure it will eventually reach.

 

[wilycoyote]

I would really like someone to give a non-religious reason for banning it.

And please, the bestiality and pedophilia arguments are not only insulting, they are illogical. Animals and children cant make life altering decisions. There is a reason there is a slew of adult things children are not allowed to do until they are older. The animal one is laughable since an animal cant agree to anything.

The only possible non-religious argument that I can think of is that biologically heterosexual sex is necessary for a species to continue to exist. Homosexual sex isn't. Also, one might think that law should only support something that is natural, not unnatural. In other words, heterosexual sex is necessary for the well-being of a society, homosexual sex really isn't. Sex can then be expanded to marriage.

I don't support that argument, but it is all I got for the pro-being-a-huge-bigot position.

 

[kramerfan86]

The only possible non-religious argument that I can think of is that biologically heterosexual sex is necessary for a species to continue to exist. Homosexual sex isn't. Also, one might think that law should only support something that is natural, not unnatural. In other words, heterosexual sex is necessary for the well-being of a society, homosexual sex really isn't.

I don't support that argument, but it is all I got for the pro-being-a-huge-bigot position.

By that same logic infertile people shouldnt be allowed to marry either seeing as their sex is non-productive so that would be a rather laughable argument for them to toss out there. Not to say they wouldnt, their whole stance on this issue is absurd to begin with.

 

[Cutlass]

The only possible non-religious argument that I can think of is that biologically heterosexual sex is necessary for a species to continue to exist. Homosexual sex isn't. Also, one might think that law should only support something that is natural, not unnatural. In other words, heterosexual sex is necessary for the well-being of a society, homosexual sex really isn't. Sex can then be expanded to marriage.

I don't support that argument, but it is all I got for the pro-being-a-huge-bigot position.

That argument wouldn't be worth anything anyways. There's not enough homosexual relationships to ever jeopardize the future of the human race.

 

[woody60707]

Exactly. But then that's the way the courts work. A bit at a time.

But this is a federal court, not a state one. Explain why the 9th allowed Arizona Proposition 102 but CA's Prop 8 is unconstitutional? They are both in the same district.

And with the courts usage of "fact findings" and "merit" in it's ruling, this is very much the courts ruling that the voters voted wrong.

 

[kramerfan86]

It is indeed saying the voters voted wrong, what of it? Voters cant overrule the constitution any more than politicians can. Voters could vote 90% to ban a religion in a state, it isnt going to fly with the courts.

 

[wilycoyote]

But this is a federal court, not a state one. Explain why the 9th allowed Arizona Proposition 102 but CA's Prop 8 is unconstitutional? They are both in the same district.

And with the courts usage of "fact findings" and "merit" in it's ruling, this is very much the courts ruling that the voters voted wrong.

Simple: no one has brought the legal challenge to that law in Arizona, according to the local newspaper. Also, the district court kept the scope of their ruling very narrow.

 

[Cutlass]

But this is a federal court, not a state one. Explain why the 9th allowed Arizona Proposition 102 but CA's Prop 8 is unconstitutional? They are both in the same district.

And with the courts usage of "fact findings" and "merit" in it's ruling, this is very much the courts ruling that the voters voted wrong.

District and circuit courts try issues one at a time. You want a universal ruling, you need the Supremes to chime in.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

It is indeed saying the voters voted wrong, what of it? Voters cant overrule the constitution any more than politicians can. Voters could vote 90% to ban a religion in a state, it isnt going to fly with the courts.

This post, I completely agree with.

 

[woody60707]

I would really like someone to give a non-religious reason for banning it.

And please, the bestiality and pedophilia arguments are not only insulting, they are illogical. Animals and children cant make life altering decisions. There is a reason there is a slew of adult things children are not allowed to do until they are older. The animal one is laughable since an animal cant agree to anything.

I can't give you one. but i'm pro same sex marriage. But I will say in voter-box you don't need to have a reason for how you vote. But yet the 9th more or less said the people who voted yes on Prop 8 didn't have a good enough reason for there vote, so they over tuned it.

I would be happy and fine if it was ruled a ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, but to just say only Prob 8 is because of merit doesn't sit well with me.

 

[illram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

This is a FEDERAL court. My understanding is that "IF" the 9th just ruled Same sex marriage is a right and any ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Then that would be the law of the land unless/till the Supreme Court took the case.

And Arizona falls under the Ninth Circuit as well. Hopefully JR won't won't be feeling trollish and explain this better.

They ruled that once a State makes something a right, you cannot take it away without a legitimate reason. They upheld the lower Judge's ruling that the reasons put forth for taking away rights provided in California prior to Prop 8 were not legitimate.

They intentionally stayed away from saying gay marriage is a right, and they crafted it to apply to California's specific situation. Whatever happens in the SCOTUS it is therefore likely to be limited to California; this case is totally aligned with anyone that is super gung-ho on State's rights.

The merits and why it is unconstitutional are aligned. The problem is not the voter not having the right reasons, the problem is the State does not have the authority to enforce whatever stupid law voters want to enact. For instance California cannot go out tomorrow and vote that black people cannot go to college. If we did it would be struck down as unconstitutional and the courts would be saying that that any governmental reason to enforce that rule has no merit; obviously that would be the right decision.

 

[Cutlass]

I can't give you one. but i'm pro same sex marriage. But I will say in voter-box you don't need to have a reason for how you vote. But yet the 9th more or less said the people who voted yes on Prop 8 didn't have a good enough reason for there vote, so they over tuned it.

I would be happy and fine if it was ruled a ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional, but to just say only Prob 8 is because of merit doesn't sit well with me.

That's not at all what they said. They said that they cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Are you seriously pulling out the old pedophilia and beastiality argument, capslock?

Well, homosexuality isn't as bad as the other two, but Christians feel like it will be the beginning of going against their beliefs. You do have to symphasize.