Pop 8 ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit panel!

[woody60707]

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.

Yea, no way in hell do I believe not one person (ACLU LGBT ect ect) challenged this vote. Do you?

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

You sure? I'm pretty sure they can set precedent, at least in there own district, if not nation wide.

 

[Save_Ferris]

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

But, in their mind they see it as the only sane thing to do. They feel it is their duty to fight against sin.

Once again, I too see this as unconstitutional, but it is important to have multiple viewpoints.

 

[wilycoyote]

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.

I've heard arguments that SCOTUS may rule on this, but not make it nationally affective, but I just can't see that happening. The interesting part of this case, and SCOTUS seems to only take up those types of cases, is the gay-marriage debate, not the "taking a right away that was already given" part.

 

[Cutlass]

Yea, no way in hell do I believe not one person (ACLU LGBT ect ect) challenged this vote. Do you?


You sure? I'm pretty sure they can set precedent, at least in there own district, if not nation wide.

Precedent is different from a universal ruling. When these other laws reach the federal courts, then the precedent is going to be a big issue.

 

[wilycoyote]

Yea, no way in hell do I believe not one person (ACLU LGBT ect ect) challenged this vote. Do you?


You sure? I'm pretty sure they can set precedent, at least in there own district, if not nation wide.

California is about six times the size of Arizona. I doubt anyone cares what's going on in Arizona when the case that will be in front of SCOTUS will obviously come from California. Yet, it seems ridiculous to me too. I'm just paraphrasing the Arizona Republic.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

But, in their mind they see it as the only sane thing to do. They feel it is their duty to fight against sin.

Once again, I too see this as unconstitutional, but it is important to have multiple viewpoints.

Yes, I understand the Christian viewpoint. My point is that it is irrelevant so far as the law is concerned.

 

[GamezRule]

It's about time that the courts looked further at this issue.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Yes, I understand the Christian viewpoint. My point is that it is irrelevant so far as the law is concerned.

Their viewpoints reflect the mostly Christian America of the 1800s, when, yes, we in fact did have a country based on Christian morals. Yet they do not seem to be in touch with the America against this.

 

[Arwon]

Is this being ruled unconstitutional accordint to the Californian constitution or the US constitution?

And am I right in my understanding that the key distinction that will keep this ruling California specific is that people did have the right to gay marriage[/i] and then it was taken away and that can't be done without reason? Would the ruling therefore suggest that the right to gay marriage is irreversible once instituted in a given jurisdiction?

 

[kramerfan86]

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.

To me the law having merit does matter. Even if one doesnt buy the discrimination argument, as far as I am concerned this also violates the freedom of religion part of the first amendment because if no one can give a logical non-religious reason for the law then you are essentially admitting you specifically passed a law enforcing a religious viewpoint. That simply shouldnt be allowed.

 

[capslock]

They cannot get the same tax benefits as married couples though so it is not legally bound. There are also other legal benefits and it has happened that a lesiban couple one partner was not allowed to see the other in the hospital (and she died) as they were not legally married, despite not being able to get legally married. I remember reading in the news several years ago.

Yah, and I don't get those benifits with my roomate, either. What's your point?

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

No, I don't believe i mentioned bestiality, and I didn't have to put child in that list.

A gay man isn't being discriminated against because his neighbor joe married sue anymore than i am. I could get married and get the love and adoration of society anytime, but I choose not too (although my reasons are different than yours no doubt).

Children cannot enter a legal contract anyways. With the sister that is incense.

So what if its incest? They are both grown adults, who are you to tell them what they can and can't do? Same for polygamists.

 

[Arwon]

You're half right actually. Non-reproductive incest should be legal, and the only reason polygamy shouldn't is pragmatism, not morality.

 

[kramerfan86]

There is a health reason to ban incest, it is a poor example.

And this idea that no one can get a gay marriage therefore it is equal is ludicrous. Gay people arent attracted to the opposite sex, you are depriving them the right to marry the person they are attracted to and that is a right you DO have and it is a right to are taking from them. And before you attempt to loop that logic back around to incest, bestiality, or pedophilia, the aforementioned arguments against those still come into play.

 

[capslock]

Hell, i'm attracted to Olivia Wilde, I don't think I'll be marrying her anytime. Are my rights being trampled on?

 

[kramerfan86]

Hell, i'm attracted to Olivia Wilde, I don't think I'll be marrying her anytime. Are my rights being trampled on?

You have the right to marry her legally though, that example really doesnt make much sense since the whole argument is about legal rights.

 

[CaptainF]

Hell, i'm attracted to Olivia Wilde, I don't think I'll be marrying her anytime. Are my rights being trampled on?

You clearly have no understanding of rights, or of discrimination if you really think this is the equivalent of denying gay people a lawful union of their choice.

For that, I pity you.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Hell, i'm attracted to Olivia Wilde, I don't think I'll be marrying her anytime. Are my rights being trampled on?

I am beginning to wonder if you are a parody.

Moderator Action: Address the points, not the poster. Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[capslock]

Polygamists are denied the lawful union of their choice. So are Joe and his cousin Sally (the health reasons are not substantial enough to forbid this). And my roomate and I, who are heterosexual but choose not to marry becuase we like the bachelor lifestyle, are being deprived of tax benifits, visitation, inheritance rights, and societal recognition.

Fact is, I am not being discriminated against because other men and women get married. If I was homosexual, i would still not be getting discrimated against.

 

[kramerfan86]

Polygamists are denied the lawful union of their choice. So are Joe and his cousin Sally (the health reasons are not substantial enough to forbid this). And my roomate and I, who are heterosexual but choose not to marry becuase we like the bachelor lifestyle, are being deprived of tax benifits, visitation, inheritance rights, and societal recognition.

Fact is, I am not being discriminated against because other men and women get married. If I was homosexual, i would still not be getting discrimated against.

The health issues of inbreeding are rather severe, you cant just wash them away by going 'well I dont think they are bad so Im going to go ahead and use this example'. Polygamy should be legal as far as I am concerned, how is bringing up that really a counterpoint? That would be like saying it would be ok to discriminate against asian americans because you are currently discriminating against african americans. And your last example doesnt even make sense because it is not as though one group of people are being given that right to a non-marriage marriage but you arent, which is EXACTLY what is happening to gays.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Fact is, I am not being discriminated against because other men and women get married. If I was homosexual, i would still not be getting discrimated against.

You could twist that around quite easily --

"Fact is, I am not being discriminated against because other men and women of the same skin-color get married. If I was not white, I would still not be getting discriminated again."

Or
"Fact is, I am not being discriminated against because other men and women who have an income of at least a million dollars get married. If I was poorer than that, I would still not be getting discriminated against."