Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[Lorilei]

Jesus H Christ, how can you people run a country with fifty different sets of laws based on which side of an arbitrary imaginary line on the ground you happen to live on?

It's not as much fun as it sounds.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

It's obvious that this decision is going to end up in the Supreme Court. I, for one, hope they reverse the decision.

This is a decision that should properly be decided by the people of a state or the legislative assembly of the state, not by judicial fiat. This decision is highly divisive and will remain so just as Roe v Wade has if allowed to stand. Some years ago California passed a similar ballot initiative by 62%, the most recent vote passed by only 52%. It's clear to see which way sentiment is trending.

The argument before the bench, and indeed the ruling itself, is filled with a considerable amount of emotional appeal and invective towards those who oppose this ruling. The judgement specifically addressed those who voted for the proposition. This is a new element in the debate.

The argument that, "loving, caring, couples of the same sex should be allowed to marry is certainly compelling on an emotional level. But if the threshold is, 'loving, and caring', then why should marriage be restricted to any particular combination? Why not sons and mothers, or fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, polygamy and polyandry? It would be difficult for anyone to argue that those relationships are not 'loving and caring.' I suppose that it's safe to say that human-animal unions would be off the table in that if might be difficult to get an animal to affirm the depth of its 'love and caring.'

If the federal courts remove from the states the ability to define what constitutes a legal union then the court has opened the door for petitions for any of the above possible unions and the people and legislatures be damned. Afterall to outlaw any of the other possibilities would come across as 'hateful and capricious' on the part of the state or its people. And if the 'right' to marriage is indeed a human 'right' then how can any body of people, their representatives, or the courts deny any of the above possible relationships?

This is a Pandoras box that need not, and should not, be opened by the federal courts.

Ishmael

Hell, why not let basic civil rights protections be state laws then? That way, the majority in Mississippi can keep blacks in the tiny, filthy black bathrooms and they can be forced into black schools.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hell, why not let basic civil rights protections be state laws then? That way, the majority in Mississippi can keep blacks in the tiny, filthy black bathrooms and they can be forced into black schools.

Ishmael, Miles and the Vettebigot all had their childhoods shaped by Jim Crow.

 

[Sean]

I do so love the homosexuality=bestiality argument.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Jesus H Christ, how can you people run a country with fifty different sets of laws based on which side of an arbitrary imaginary line on the ground you happen to live on?

California is 164,000 square miles of territory. The UK is 94,000.

 

[swordandsandle]

Well if your sexual orientation was incest, bigamy, polygamy, or bestiality, would it be protected? I don't see how it protects any sexuality. If everyone's proclivities are equally protected under the law, why are some things against the law? The 14th Amendment was about the abolition of slavery. I think it's safe to say the equal protection clause had nothing whatsoever to do with sexual preference, but if it does why are rich Americans discriminated against by our tax laws? Are they not equally protected under the law?

... HAHAHAHAHAHA

Look at basic tax laws sir, and you will see that the rich are favored by them.

As for incest, bigamy, and polygamy, I don't care so long as they concent. Beastiality IS impossable becuse animals can not prove concent. The 14th amendment may have origonally been about slavery, but then again the 2nd ammendment was origonally about flintlock pisotols and single-shot rifles. The Constition was written so that it could be intermrited to apply to the current age.

 

[Sean]

California is 164,000 square miles of territory. The UK is 94,000.

And Australia is 2.9 million square miles. You have a point?

 

[pointless]

now do germany.

ooohhhh!!! and the planet mars!

 

[HB1965]

The Constition was written so that it could be intermrited to apply to the current age.

Vette doesn't believe in interpretation. He belongs to the word-for-word understanding of the constitution crowd that most conservatives do.

 

[Ishmael]

California is 164,000 square miles of territory. The UK is 94,000.

Or perhaps you might try to explain that it NEVER was intended for the federal government to 'run' the country.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[HB1965]

So why under the law are the top 1% of earners required to pay 40% of the tax burden in America? What happened to equal protection under the law?

Because they have the money to own more things that can be taxed.

 

[swordandsandle]

So why under the law are the top 1% of earners required to pay 40% of the tax burden in America? What happened to equal protection under the law?

Becuse they own 40% of the wealth, get it?

If you make ten times more then I do, you pay ten times the taxs and still get the same percentage of your income as I do.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

So why under the law are the top 1% of earners required to pay 40% of the tax burden in America? What happened to equal protection under the law?

Number 2.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Or perhaps you might try to explain that it NEVER was intended for the federal government to 'run' the country.

Ishmael

Explain how a federal law banning discrimination against gays counts as "running the country".

 

[swordandsandle]

The Constitution was written to be read literately and amended when change is needed.

Amending the Constitution from the bench to accomplish what cannot be accomplished through the Constitutional process of government was never intended, nor should it be.

So, you mean to tell me that "arms" in the 2nd amendment was ment only to apply to flintlock pistols and single-shot rifles? That was what "arms" ment when the constitution was written

 

[HB1965]

The Constitution was written to be read literately and amended when change is needed.

Amending the Constitution from the bench to accomplish what cannot be accomplished through the Constitutional process of government was never intended, nor should it be.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional Framer

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

Because they have the money to own more things that can be taxed.

And because they make their money because of poor people. Without an underclass, the rich wouldn't have their wealth.

 

[Ishmael]

Explain how a federal law banning discrimination against gays counts as "running the country".

Idiot.

Ishmael

 

[mercury14]

So why under the law are the top 1% of earners required to pay 40% of the tax burden in America? What happened to equal protection under the law?

Because they have most of the income, and most of the wealth?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The Constitution was written to be read literately and amended when change is needed.

Amending the Constitution from the bench to accomplish what cannot be accomplished through the Constitutional process of government was never intended, nor should it be.

It's the job given to the courts to interpret the laws, the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) is no exception.

There was no legislation from the bench. Prop 8 was found to violate the U.S. Constitution equal protection clause by the judge that heard the case. This was not a surprise to anyone except the most blindered of ideologues (that would be you). No doubt the homophobes and bigots will pursue this to the next higher court and the next, until they reach the SCOTUS and lose there as well.