Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[overthebow]

Is she available?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTjrHg-HcyijuGtRnvT5bnTOSNUZSLbVDngKI0UiMJOWJwKOE&t=1&usg=__WGJUHV_4lJeNKEfxtK9mZkVY9IM=

 

[statsultan]

Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy disagree with your conjecture. Ginsburg is on record as saying the crux of the argument hinges on whether something is a choice (conduct) or not. If homosexuality is NOT a choice (legally), then "protected class" status applies.

Ginsburg's argument is on determining whether homosexuality is a class deserving of some heightened form of scrutiny to laws that discriminate against them as a class.

Both today's case, and last month's federal court case overruling portions of DOMA state that there is no legitimate governmental interest in discriminating against a group as is done in barring marriage from homosexuals. The argument made by both decisions is that you don't even have to make homosexuals a suspect class to overturn these laws, i.e. Ginsburg's argument doesn't even apply. It will be very interesting to see if her thinking is changed by these decisions.

 

[Douchemoron]

but what were you wearing? I bet you were asking for it.

No means no, mister.

But yeah, I can see your point, I was looking pretty hot today.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It doesn't mean what you think it does or rich people wouldn't have to pay higher taxes than you do. Get real. We are talking about a California Constitutional Amendment here.

If you had any credibility, you would have lost it with this post.

You've now completely flip flopped on every political position you've ever held. If the people of any city had passed a law regarding guns, and a court overturned it, you'd be saying it was the right thing to do. And you have done exactly that in the past 2 months.

But when the exact same thing happens with a policy you don't like (and you have no logical reason not to like it, and all of your other political positions insist that you should like it) you cry like a baby.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Do you think it's a great idea to have a single judge overthrow the will of the majority of voters? We're talking about an election here to amend the state Constitution, not a technicality of law. BTW, you have no credibility, so don't bother.

A judge did not overthrow the will of the majority. The judge upheld the will of the majority.

The people of California have included an equality clause in their constitution. The judge has upheld it. It's really not that complicated.

If this was about guns or immigration you'd be championing it. You're a bigot & a hypocrite.

 

[coastal-boy]

The people of California have included an equality clause in their constitution.

They only want equality as long as it doesn't apply to same sex couples.

Really, this is an open and shut case...it is unconstitutional as written.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

The people of California have included an equality clause in their constitution. The judge has upheld it. It's really not that complicated.

The people of California have included this in their Constitution:

Article 1, Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

 

[Sean Renaud]

They argued, sucessfully I might add, that the 14th Amendment supercedes the California Constitution. You're not allowed to discriminate and it's discrimination.

The real question here is do you really want judges who listen to the people not the law? There is a fucking reason they are appointed and not elected, because the Founding Fathers didn't want the judges listening to the masses.

Don't like it? Write an amendment to the US Constitution. All sane people would already like to adjust birthright citizen ship so tack something on, see if you can make it stick.

 

[Byron In Exile]

They argued, sucessfully I might add, that the 14th Amendment supercedes the California Constitution.

That's not what was argued.

There is no question that the US Constitution supersedes any State Constitution.

 

[unregistered]

 

[HB1965]

What part of the 14th Amendment concerns sex or gay marriage? What part of the Constitution did the court find Roe v Wade in? The truth is these judges made political decisions not legal decisions, who were they listening to then?

14th Amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.b No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They made a law that infringed upon the liberties of a section of the population who have just as much right to live in this country as you do.

I'm sorry, vette, but if California passed a low outlawing YOUR ability to marry the person you wanted to you'd be against that too.

Just because you personally disagree with Homosexuality doesn't give you or anyone else in California who disagrees with it the right to limit the liberties of people that are homosexual just as the people of California don't have the right to limit who you can marry.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Equal rights=Equal rights. You cannot discriminate on sex or race. That's simple.

I'll grant you I've NO idea how the fuck they covered abortion in it. I'd have to buy a book on just that to even figure out what the logic was. However they are two separate cases.

 

[RobDownSouth]

What part of the 14th Amendment concerns sex or gay marriage? What part of the Constitution did the court find Roe v Wade in? The truth is these judges made political decisions not legal decisions, who were they listening to then?

Thomas More had it right:

“If you take away laws and leave everything free to the judges . . . they will rule as their own nature leads and order whatever pleases them, in which case the people will in no wise be more free but worse off and in a condition of slavery, since instead of settled and certain laws they will have to submit to uncertain whims changing from day to day.”

The 14th amendment deals with the concept of "protected class", and since the Supreme Court is holding that homosexuals are a "protected class" (i.e. something you have no control over, such as race and natural origin) rather than simply a conduct (i.e."choice"), the Constitution trumps state law.

 

[mercury14]

53% of those who voted, some 7 million, voted in favor of Prop 8. This is a democracy, majority is supposed to rule, but not with the liberal minority coalition who scoff at the democratic process and advance their agenda legislating from the bench by fiat. BTW it's twice been the will of the people.

No, the popular majority does not rule in a Constitutional republic, you illiterate moron.

America protects its citizens from jackass bigots such as yourself, no matter how many of you scurry out to the polls to destroy the rights of gays, Muslims, or African Americans.

 

[browneyedbeauty003]

August 4th was a great day. I celebrated with rainbow sherbet ice cream and a trip to all the gay bars in West Hollywood. Awesome night

 

[mercury14]

Do you think it's a great idea to have a single judge overthrow the will of the majority of voters? We're talking about an election here to amend the state Constitution, not a technicality of law. BTW, you have no credibility, so don't bother.

Why the fuck do you think judges should rule according to opinion polls instead of law?

Why the fuck do you care if some gay people who love each other get married? It injures you as much as heterosexual marraige.

 

[Sean]

LMAO. Now the righties are screaming about democracy. I thought the US was a republic not a democracy?

 

[Peregrinator]

Why the fuck do you think judges should rule according to opinion polls instead of law?

Why the fuck do you care if some gay people who love each other get married? It injures you as much as heterosexual marraige.

These are the two questions that really address the whole issue. You won't get any answers to them.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why the fuck do you care if some gay people who love each other get married? It injures you as much as heterosexual marraige.

The Vettebigot answered that question just last week...

To be clear, I do think homosexual behavior is disgusting, unhealthy, aberrant, abnormal behavior, and I don't wish to subscribe to it, promote it, or subsidize it in any way. I will oppose it in any manner. Is that clear enough for you?

If that makes me a bigot in your mind, than make the most of it.

The extreme irony, of course, is a scat affecionado like Vettebigot lecturing anyone on what is "disgusting", "unhealthy" "aberrant" and/or "abnormal" behavior.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

A little tidbit from William Blackstone:

"And law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law; which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind."

I suggest you lobby congress to throw out stare decisis then. Because just about every legal system in the civilised world is based on it.

 

[overthebow]

You are wrong about me. If the people in California voted in such massive numbers in favor of gay marriage I would abide by their decision. I would feel exactly the same about a single federal judge, without any legal precedent, without any historical support, coming in and over throwing the wishes of 7 million people engaged in a constitutionally protected amendment process.

Notwithstanding your misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment, the judge made a political decision. The 14th Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with sex, marriage, or gay rights.

Judge Walker is gay. He was first nominated to the bench by Reagan. His appointment was opposed by Nancy Pelosi, among others.

You can read the case here. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

The statement the judge made a political decision is just flat wrong. Read the case.