Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional.

[JoeChalupa]

Just heard on the news. Need to find link.

BREAKING: Appeals court rules California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

[JoeChalupa]

This prop 8 decision never would have happened under President Gingrich.... because there would be no ninth circuit.

[boutons_deux]

Christian haters gonna push up to SCOTUS

The out-of-state Mormon Taleban who bought that election will no doubt contribute to the appeal fund

[boutons_deux]

Christian haters gonna push it up to SCOTUS

The out-of-state Mormon Taleban who bought that election will no doubt contribute to the appeal fund

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone know the details?

How can a properly approved constitutional change be unconstitutional?

Time for SCOTUS to weigh in.

[ChumpDumper]

How can a properly approved constitutional change be unconstitutional?Are you serious?

[Sportcamper]

So a State full of liberals voted to re affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman…Then political judges with an agenda decide that voters opinion does not matter…And Joe is cheering for this?

[101A]

Will get overturned @ SCOTUS.

If Romney vs. USA is any indication, should be a slam dunk, IMO.

[TimmehC]

How can a properly approved constitutional change be unconstitutional?

Because it infringes on the religious freedom of Unitarians, among others. Perhaps you've heard of the first amendment?

[101A]

Because it infringes on the religious freedom of Unitarians, among others. Perhaps you've heard of the first amendment?

Didn't we cover this 120 years ago with Polygamy/Mormons? Again: Romney et al. Vs. USA

[Winehole23]

Assuming you meant this...

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/136/1/case.html

....could you point me to the relevant point(s)?

[Wild Cobra]

Assuming you meant this...

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/136/1/case.html

....could you point me to the relevant point(s)?
Looks like to me it means marriage is between one man and one woman.

:stirpot:

[FromWayDowntown]

Because it infringes on the religious freedom of Unitarians, among others. Perhaps you've heard of the first amendment?

I think this is much more a matter of equal protection than one of religious freedom.

[101A]

Assuming you meant this...

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...36/1/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/136/1/case.html)

....could you point me to the relevant point(s)?

Isn't great precedent; just liked the fact that Romney was (sometimes referenced) in the title TBH: but from the syllabus:


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was incorporated February, 1851, by an act of assembly of the so-called State of Deseret, which was afterwards confirmed by act of the Territorial Legislature of Utah, the corporation being a religious one, and its property and fund, held for the religious and charitable objects of the society, a prominent object being the promotion and practice of polygamy, which was prohibited by the laws of the United States. Congress, in 1887, passed an act repealing the act of incorporation and abrogating the charter and directing legal proceedings for seizing its property and winding up its affairs.from the ruling of Justice Bradley


The existence of such a propaganda is a blot on our civilization. The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world. The question, therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our laws and to the principles of our civilization, is to be allowed to continue by the sanction of the government itself, and whether the funds accumulated for that purpose shall be restored to the same unlawful uses as heretofore, to the detriment of the true interests of civil society.Basically, your marriage practices are not decent. They are un-Christian, therefore they are un-American. We can not only ban Polygamy, we can disband your church and seize its property.

Anyone who thinks a right to marry who you want is obvious in the Constitution, need only look at that case to see SCOTUS could find otherwise.

Again, however, it is weak sauce to cite something that dates back (and featuring Justices of similar bent) to Plessy, but "Romney" being central to the whole thing makes me chuckle. GOT to be an ancestor (although hard to track with all those wives).

[ElNono]

Looks like to me it means marriage is between one man and one woman.

:stirpot:

Where you see that there?

[Winehole23]

Looks like to me it means marriage is between one man and one woman.I see no language to that effect, but found this:


The state has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced.

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't we cover this 120 years ago with Polygamy/Mormons? Again: Romney et al. Vs. USAReynolds v. United States tbh

The ruling for that case seems pretty sketchy when I look at it, though.

[FromWayDowntown]

Anyone who thinks a right to marry who you want is obvious in the Constitution, need only look at that case to see SCOTUS could find otherwise.

It could, but it's going to have to explain that Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail -- each of which says or suggests that the right to marry is a fundamental right -- don't really mean what they say.

[Winehole23]

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of [98 U.S. 145, 166] the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145

[Wild Cobra]

I'm all for polygamy. Let the rich men have as many waives as they can take care of. Let the loser men go without a woman.

:stirpot:

[DarrinS]

Great news for FuzzyLumpkins and ChumpDumper.


Contrats. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

Mr. and Mr. FuzzChump... or is it ChumpFuzz?

When's the wedding?

[boutons_deux]

The fundamental rights are all secular and man-made. God is not in that picture, at all.

The fundamental right here not be be discriminated against, with the discrimination being based on sexual orientation.

The financial implications are enormous, since when same sex partner dies, the other could have access to some of the partners' SS checks, and private pension checks.

[101A]

It could, but it's going to have to explain that Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail -- each of which says or suggests that the right to marry is a fundamental right -- don't really mean what they say.


See, I knew you would jump in.

Not fair, I've got a single undergraduate con-law book, remembered "Romney", and went from there.

Lawyers.

[ChumpDumper]

Great news for FuzzyLumpkins and ChumpDumper.


Contrats. :toast


Mr. and Mr. FuzzChump... or is it ChumpFuzz?

When's the wedding?:huh

Explain.

[101A]

The fundamental right here not be be discriminated against, with the discrimination being based on sexual orientation.



There's no discrimination.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a gay guy marrying a lesbian.

[DisAsTerBot]

I'm all for polygamy. Let the rich men have as many waives as they can take care of. Let the loser men go without a woman.

:stirpot:

lol, cause "losers" are never married. good logic

[FromWayDowntown]

The fundamental rights are all secular and man-made. God is not in that picture, at all.

Well there is that whole: ". . . that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Then again, there is the whole "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

It is undoubtedly true that fundamental rights exist only insofar as the government permits. Whatever rights we might think fundamental are decidedly not guaranteed to many on this planet.

Our social compact, though, has been long understood to ensure that fundamental rights aren't at risk in an election and are not subject to the whims of a majority. It doesn't take a scholar to realize that the Constitution, and certainly the Bill of Rights, are manifestly countermajoritarian. The imprimatur of the majority doesn't make a governmental act constitutional.


The financial implications are enormous, since when same sex partner dies, the other could have access to some of the partners' SS checks, and private pension checks.

There are also benefits under the Internal Revenue Code, health and survival benefits in a variety of fields, statutory inheritance rights for those who die intestate -- just to name a few.

[ChumpDumper]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145The next paragraph is where the court strawmans itself into a decision.


In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? Basically, it says the federal government can pass any law that regulates a person's actions, which is kind of stupid on its face.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's no discrimination.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a gay guy marrying a lesbian.

State of Virginia, 1962:

"There's no discrimination in our law.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a black man marrying a black woman, or a white man marrying a white woman."

[Wild Cobra]

:huh

Explain.
LOL...

Sorry Chump.

I couldn't help but run with what Darrin said. I don't particularly like you, but I hope you accept my apologies. To put you in a class with Fuzzy...

Really, I'm sorry. You at least have style and good intelligence. He's a complete loser.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

Sorry Chump.

I couldn't help but run with what Darrin said. I don't particularly like you, but i hope you accept my apologies. To put you in a class with Fuzzy...

Really, I'm sorry. You at least have style. He's a complete loser.I don't know what it means regarding him either.

[101A]

State of Virginia, 1962:

"There's no discrimination in our law.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a black man marrying a black woman, or a white man marrying a white woman."

Stop.

Just let me be the Devil's advocate.

[Winehole23]

Based on a quick skim, Reinhardt decided that the Supreme Court wasn’t ready yet to embrace a full right to same-sex marriage, and that it was wiser to offer AMK a narrow rationale based on Romer rather than a broad rationale based on Lawrence or Loving. So Reinhardt’s reasoning seems to be California-specific: He argues that Prop 8 took away rights provided by the California Supreme Court’s Marriage Cases, and that those who voted for Prop 8 acted out of animus towards or disapproval of gays, making Prop 8 unconstitutional under a Romer rationale regardless of whether same-sex marriage is constitutional in the general case. I assume Reinhardt is figuring that this either will work or at the worst might buy some time: If the Supreme Court grants cert and reverses on the merits, on remand the case presumably goes back to the same panel. On remand, Reinhardt can then strike down Prop 8 again, but this time under a broader theory along the lines of Judge Walker’s opinion below. That would take a few years, though, keeping the issue alive in the meantime — giving the social attitudes more time to develop, more states time to change their laws, and possibly more time for a change in personnel at the Court.http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-prop-8-case/

[boutons_deux]

Well there is that whole: ". . . that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

men wrote that mythical claptrap, not God.


Then again, there is the whole "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

"Consent of the governed", another myth Americans live by.

The 1%, Corporate-Americans, have fully disenfranchised Human-Americans, irreversibly.

The UCA and 1% "consents" to how the Fed govt operates, and the operating directives are primarily to protect and enrich the UCA and the 1%.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm all for polygamy. Let the rich men have as many waives as they can take care of. Let the loser men go without a woman.

:stirpot:

says the lonely cyber-stalker

[ElNono]

I don't see the connection between polygamy and same-sex marriage, tbh...

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see the connection between polygamy and same-sex marriage, tbh...
They aren't connected, but they are both different than the traditional recognized marriage of one man and one woman.

[ElNono]

Under the law, I believe only one of those is strictly prohibited.

[Wild Cobra]

Under the law, I believe only one of those is strictly prohibited.
Why isn't polygamy any different than same sex marriage for equal protection reasons?

[ElNono]

Why isn't polygamy any different than same sex marriage for equal protection reasons?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html


Anti-polygamy statutes draw the line at the number of spouses, not their characteristics or status. There is long-settled precedent that limiting the number of spouses does not violate any constitutional guarantee, nor should it.

[Wild Cobra]

Still doesn't fly. Similar and equal reasons apply to not wanting same sex marriage.

[ElNono]

^ You seem well versed in the equal protection clause, law and precedent in general. You should sue and see how that goes...

[Winehole23]

I don't see the connection between polygamy and same-sex marriage, tbh...Repugnance to society, putatively.

[ChumpDumper]

Still doesn't fly. Similar and equal reasons apply to not wanting same sex marriage.And biracial marriage.

[Wild Cobra]

^ You seem well versed in the equal protection clause, law and precedent in general. You should sue and see how that goes...
I don't have legal cause to sue. I don't wish to marry. Been there, done that with one woman already. Divorced and plan to stay single.

As for the legal decisions, any activist judge can find reason to rule as they desire on these areas of law that have become muddied over the years.

You already know my stance. We have had too many threads in the past on this issue, and being tired of it, I'm not going out of my way. I will say this however.

It does not violate equal protection to say marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Nothing keeps a gay man from marrying a strait or lesbian, etc.

Reasons in your link about polygamy included the fear that children will be married off. Is promoting "fear" of something that can happen outside those parameters a reasonable reason to stop that one particular challenge?

Personally, I don't advocate polygamy. However, at least we have historical precedent, and it is established religion. I fail to see how legally enacted state constitutional changes can be struck down, when they have 10th amendment rights, and then also make laws preventing 1st amendment rights as well. You and others can rationalize these all you want. I simply will never understand how you can rationalize stepping on the constitution.

[FromWayDowntown]

I fail to see how legally enacted state constitutional changes can be struck down, when they have 10th amendment rights, and then also make laws preventing 1st amendment rights as well. You and others can rationalize these all you want. I simply will never understand how you can rationalize stepping on the constitution.

So, do you just ignore the 14th Amendment?

Or do you think that Equal Protection only extends as far as the majority will permit?

[boutons_deux]

InSaneTorum said marriage equality would lead to bestiality.

Some people, Catholic bishops?, want InSaneTorum to be President.

[ElNono]

I don't have legal cause to sue.

I would think you would have standing to sue, seeing that you live in this country and the anti-poligamy laws are allegedly denying you a constitutional right.


I fail to see how legally enacted state constitutional changes can be struck down, when they have 10th amendment rights, and then also make laws preventing 1st amendment rights as well. You and others can rationalize these all you want. I simply will never understand how you can rationalize stepping on the constitution.

Under your premise States could amend their constitutions to deny women the right to vote. It doesn't work like that. The US Constitution is the law of the land.

[Wild Cobra]

So, do you just ignore the 14th Amendment?

Or do you think that Equal Protection only extends as far as the majority will permit?
The Equal protection Clause isn't violated by defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The 1st amendment is, but not the 14th.

[Wild Cobra]

Under your premise States could amend their constitutions to deny women the right to vote. It doesn't work like that. The US Constitution is the law of the land.
No, because state constitution cannot trump federal constitution. The state can claim federal laws violate their 10th amendment rights, but that probably about it.

[ElNono]

I would think removing certain rights based strictly on sex goes squarely against the 14th amendment. I'm sure the resident legal scholars can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Winehole23]

be interesting to see what the SC sez

[ElNono]

No, because state constitution cannot trump federal constitution.

Exactly. Now you see how a state law can be knocked down on unconstitutional grounds.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Equal protection Clause isn't violated by defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The 1st amendment is, but not the 14th.

But your argument is that States, under the 10th Amendment, have the right to enact laws like these. If you concede that this violates the First Amendment (a dubious proposition, but we'll go with it), are you saying that the 10th Amendment gives states the right to enact laws that limit First Amendment rights?

\

[Wild Cobra]

I would think removing certain rights based strictly on sex goes squarely against the 14th amendment. I'm sure the resident legal scholars can correct me if I'm wrong.
It's not removing right. marriage is a tradition that government should have no say in anyway. A gay man still has the right to marry a woman. A lesbian still has the right to marry a man. I fail to see how making a tradition definition of marriage, legally enforceable, as violating equal protection.

Just call it a civil union. Make those legal if people want the same legal rights and responsibilities marriage provides. Still, as a bottom line... I wish government just stopped considering marriage for taxes, etc. Call it a civil union for all couples, and let the churches continue with their marriage ceremonies.

[ElNono]

be interesting to see what the SC sez

No doubt. I'm pretty sure that's ultimately the intent here. See if they can get a definitive ruling from the SCOTUS.

[ElNono]

It's not removing right. marriage is a tradition that government should have no say in anyway.

But they do, and currently it entails a contract between two people that grants very specific rights not granted under other denominations, be it civil-unions, domestic partnership, etc.

Now, if the government is going to call that legal contract "marriage", there's no reason to call it something else strictly on sex grounds, IMO.

I personally don't really care about tradition. Nobody is taking away the religious-marriage tradition anyways.

[Spurminator]

Traditionally, divorced women shouldn't be allowed to remarry.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone know the details?

How can a properly approved constitutional change be unconstitutional?

Time for SCOTUS to weigh in.

:lmao x 204824098204820948209482094

[CuckingFunt]

So a State full of liberals voted to re affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman…

California has never been a state full of liberals.

[CuckingFunt]

There's no discrimination.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a gay guy marrying a lesbian.

Except, of course, the gay guy and the lesbian.

[Winehole23]

-zing!-

[JoeChalupa]

SCOTUS it will be.

[baseline bum]

5-4 for sure

[Jacob1983]

Why can't people just admit that marriage is a joke? It's not a right. It's a benefit. When you are married, you get special benefits and tax breaks that single people don't.

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't people just admit that marriage is a joke? It's not a right. It's a benefit. When you are married, you get special benefits and tax breaks that single people don't.That's pretty much the whole point.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Less people are getting married these days and if gays want to get married let them.

[Sportcamper]

California has never been a state full of liberals.
Doooode….You cant be serious…Liberals have controlled the state legislature, the courts, the teachers union, for decades…

[101A]

-zing!-

Yep, lowered my jaw, stepped into that one.

[JoeChalupa]

http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/modernfamily-full-480x640.jpg