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]
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]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. 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.
