9th Circuit Court of Appeals Successfully Petitioned to Re-hear Prop. 8 Ruling

Not superior to the U.S. Constitution, which is also an expression of the people's will and is indeed designated as "the supreme law of the land".

Voters can huff and puff all they like, but they don't get to override the U.S. Constitution via state referenda.

You can spare me the jibber-jabber about what the Constitution does or does not say. We all know perfectly well that it's subject to interpretation, which is part of why we have a judicial system to sort out legal conflicts, established by the Constitution itself.

You may not always like the outcome of our system of government. I certainly don't. But that doesn't mean we should become a direct democracy, undermining our republican system of government with public referenda that create instability in the law, with each side constantly trying to get the upper hand in the next election. It's not that referenda don't have a valid role in government; I'm merely saying that not every issue is best suited to be handled that way, and the issue of marriage is one that is not.

 

There is nothing in the US Constitution that allows for special exceptions to the rules of marriage, as established by the States, that everyone else must follow, to please one particular group.

The rules for marriage are the SAME FOR EVERYONE....

 

So you've chosen to ignore my caution about jibber-jabbering about what the Constitution does or does not say.

While the power to regulate marriage does indeed reside with the states, that doesn't mean states have the power to ignore the Constitution. It is not necessary for the Constitution to say anything explicitly about marriage or any other law regulated by the states. The states still have to provide equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection is not merely procedural. It's not sufficient to argue that men and women are equally disadvantaged by not being able to marry someone of the same sex. The issue is that the limitation of marriage according to the sex of the parties creates a classification for a suspect purpose - that of keeping gay couples from having their marriages legally recognized. There was nothing in the actual wording of Prop 8 that forwarded the goals claimed as its purpose. The campaign to pass it was significantly populated with animus toward gay people. The courts found that Prop 8 had no rational basis. They didn't even need to address the question of applying heightened scrutiny to the suspect classification the law created. The law had no legitimate purpose.

So huff and puff all you like about the voters. They aren't superior to the Constitution and the courts' interpretation of the law. Obviously the court should show great deference to voter-enacted referenda - but not to the point preserving laws that have no rational basis.

 

AS they did in 1950 for marriage. You could only marry within ones race..

IT WAS THE SAME FOR EVERYONE

 

The federal government didn't even recognize all legally married couples under State law when so many federal benefits are directly tied to "legally married" status of a couple. That is, of course, why DOMA was declared unconstitutional and why the US Attorney General's Office dropped the appeal of the Court's decision. DOMA clearly violated the 5th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution based upon actual evidence presented in the Federal District Court. House Republicans have appealed the DOMA decision but even the law firm representing them has dropped out after reviewing the case.

When the Federal DOMA law finally falls then so will the "mini-DOMA's" of the States (i.e. laws and State Constitutions that prohibit same-gender marriage).

All States will have to legally acknowledge same-gender marriages performed in States where it's legal under the "full faith and credit" clause in Article IV of the Constitution and will have to allow citizens of their state to marry when they recognize the legal status of same-gender marriage of others moving to the State under the "equal protection" clause in the 14th Amendment.

Denial of same-gender marriage is failing based upon the US Constitution and anyone with half-a-lick of sense knows that fact.

 

Its stunning how many times you can't respond to the arguments, so you have to troll

 

We should make a distinction here though between the court striking Section 3 of DOMA vs. the law in its entirety. I think it's far more likely that DOMA will be eliminated piecemeal, with Section 3 being the first to go. I expect it will take decades for us to get to a place where DOMA is repealed once and for all. I have no expectation that my state (Michigan) will repeal its mini-DOMA willingly. Michigan will have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

 

I note you forget to recall that BoBo, your Constitution scholar, has managed to lose almost every big case his administration has supported in the Supreme Court...They have lost two 9-0 since Christmas...

Put more clearly, why have I, most assuredly not a 'Constitutional' expert managed to call court decisions more accurately than has our scholar in chief?

To misquote Reagan 'It is not that our friend is ignorant of the Constitution. It is simply that he knows so very much that is simply not true'...

 

Calling a civil union 'marriage' also does not a marriage make.

 

maybe in your eyes, but its legally the same.

 

I don't have a problem with giving them the 1400 rights. It's the right to call homosexual relationships 'marriage' that I want to forbid.

 

The will of the people IS higher than the Constitution. That is because the will of the people, sufficiently organized, could vote in Amendments which could change any or all of the Constitution. That is what is called having higher authority than the Constitution.

Look up how to get Amendments passed. It doesn't have to have politicians involved. That is how the writers of the Constitution made sure that the Government could not take over the will of the people in an absolute way.

Why don't you know this? Are you not an American?

 

Separate is inherently unequal. And that is what a 'Civil Union' is.

 

The will of the people most certainly is not. If this were the case you would still see Jim Crow Laws in the south.

 

Yes, it's looking like gays will need an Amendment to the US Constitution in order to have just their select sexual compulsive fetish behavior considered for protection and priveleges alongside "race", "creed", "gender" and "ethnic origin". Allowing just a tiny subsection of sexual fetishes to call what they do "a race" is going to take some special wording and what is it..a 2/3 majority vote to ratify?

That's step #1. Without achieving that they place the Supreme Court in a first-time position of mandating that certain select behaviors = "race" without the authority to do so outside the Constitution.

 

We dont need to amend the 14th amendment.

 

Yes we do. Last time I looked there was no category for behaviors in the 14th besides "creed". So unless gays are applying for federal recognition as a religion [which they qualify for in spades], they're going to have to create a new category, "gay/lesbian...????" behaviors. "Gender or sex" as used in the 14th is a noun, not a verb. Sexual behaviors are different from "sex" [gender]. And if you include certain deviant [those that won't lead to reproduction ever] sexual behaviors, you cannot arbitrarily discriminate against other fetishes of same or similar description. The necessary Amendment/category would have to be very graphically comprehensive indeed.

 

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

By not allowing homosexual to marry, we are denying homosexuals equal protection of the laws.

'behavior' is nohting but a red herring.

 

It's amazing how anti gay folks try to complicate a simple issue with plenty of red herrings careening out of control down all manner of slippery slopes.....

 

It might be simpler if same sex (n.) couples contest the law which prohibits couples of the same sex (n.) from marrying.

 

Being denied the choice to marry the consenting adult of you choice by a law that allows other people to marry the consenting adult of their choice is not being treated the same

you can say logic over and over that doesn’t make you logical



You can treat convicted criminals like the innocent you can treat the innocent like criminals if you treat all people like the innocent or all people like their criminals you are treating every one the same way and it is still not fair because of the relevant differences between them

You need to stop ruining from it and accept that banning gay marriage and only giving homosexuals heterosexual marriage rights is not fair to them just like banning heterosexual marriage and only giving you homosexual marriage rights would not be fair to you if you want to marry into a heterosexual marriage

 

Equal inclusion is not an exception hetero sexuals can marry the consenting adult of their choice

Homosexuals can’t they will not be equal in marriage till they can

 

How is saying any marriage you would ever be in is not a marriage because I don’t want to call it that, fair or make any dam sense?

 

Wrong, constantly, per usual.

Heterosexuals can only marry another person according to the RULES THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE, regardless of who their "choice" is.

Same rules= equality.

You just cannot get your mind around what "equal" means...

 

And in 1950 you could only marry with in your own race. Those were RULES THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE.

Just becase a black man choose to fall in love wiith woman is meaningless because thoes were RULES THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE.

Same rules= equality.

You just cannot get your mind around what "equal" means...