Ban On Gay Marriage Struck Down

Well true if you actually stick around you have to put up with that bs.


And very true we are all equals, so why doesnt the bible treat us so? Well wtf nvm its the bible...

So as equals i believe homosexuals deserve their rights just like the rest of us.

It's called the 14th Amendment. It says you cannot pass any law that denies legal designation and due process to a suspect class without rational basis:

'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."

The judge's ruling is that there is no rational basis to deny the legal designation of marriage to gay people. Thus, under the constitution, it is illegal.

we don't live in a democracy, we live in a "democratic republic"
IE: we elect these officials to make these decisions.
the bible predates the constitution, so within the context of the bible not everyone is created equal.
simple as that.

And, with that said California is a state. Therefore they have to abide by federal laws before state laws. As Jae said the 14th amendment to the Constitution states that what is being done infringes upon the rights of each citizen of that state.

Therefore, the government by law does have ground to stand on. Seeming peoples rights as American citizens are being infringed.

Also, listen to Vinvv he's a pretty wise man.

LMAO. That's pretty damn mean, lol.
(Sorry off-topic)

I don't know what else to say here except you are 100% COMPLETELY WRONG. The right to free speech, granted by the us constitution, the right to bear arms, the right to VOTE, the ending of slavery, life liberty and teh pursuit of happiness, all granted by the constitution.... Need i go on? All these rights were voted on and ratified by either a 2/3 or 3/4 majority of all the states (meaning the populations elected people to vote and ratify these rights into our way of life). Any right that isn't specifically expressed in the Bill of Rights is not granted by it, and is an issue left for governance by the states. Gay marriage is an issue that was left to the people of California and they have spoken.

I ask you, if people aren't good enough to write their own laws, they who do you think is better suited?

See my above post, Zandra. The right exists under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. It was ratified to prevent a majority of voters from denying equal protection of legal designation to a minority.

At the time, this was to prevent Southern states from passing popular state laws preventing blacks from owning a house, voting, attending school, etc. None of those are "rights" granted under the constitution either, but they are considered to be under the umbrella of "equal protection under the law."

Marriage is considered a legal designation and enjoys equal protection status. The constitution says you cannot deny someone membership in this equal protection status without rational basis -- not even by passing a law doing so:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge..."

The judge's decision in this case is that there is no rational basis for doing so. Thus it is illegal under the 14th Amendment.

The people they vote for, how do you keep on ignoring my points?

ok heres a few big ones then for you
Womens Sufferage
Segregation
Blacks being able to marry period along with interracial marriages.
Civil unions don't offer the same rights as a marriage does this is part of the problem.

I want the right to marry myself and get tax write offs damnit.

Minority rights should not be chosen by the majority. End of story.

Just curious if you actually followed what happened in that vote? First gay marriages where made legal, then prop 8 began its campaign. It was met with the a petition to remove the ballat on proper grounds. They denied the petition to remove without comment. Then a smear campaign that was funded by Religious institutions, which if you can't do community service at any kind of religious institution while on probation I don't know how that is even legal. Which swayed the vote of many voters being terrified that there gay sex was going to become mandatory in the sex education classes at public school, which its not but that's what the prop 8 groups said among other things as well. The vote was a mere 52.24% win which studies have been shown that the smear campaign and outright lies that where used by the prop 8 group most likely lead to the people that where undecided to vote for Prop 8. Not to mention Prop 8 didn't just go straight into the appeals court it had to be put there by the people. To get to the appeals court you have to prove a case on the grounds that either the citizens of the state are being denied constitutional rights, which it does by saying that another human being of sound mind, legally homosexuality is not a mental illness, as being substandard.

The argument you are using is almost the exact words that where used by people in 50-60s to justify non-whites as substandard and that if you aren't 100% white you a convicted felon if you had sex with someone who is.


Also, if you didn't know the Republicans are actually trying to make a law gay where if you are are the pastor, priest, ordained minister whatever no matter what your religion, and you preform a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples you are committing a felony. As are the same sex couple. Legal or not I'm having a wedding with the man I am meant to be with because to me its a statement of trust and commitment to him made in front of all our friends and family and declared to the public that we only want each other. I will gladly go to jail for that.

Situational is situational.

first part: i think a lot of this ***is a distraction anyway, i loosely know what happened but haven't intently studied about it.
second part: the arguement i am using was directed at a person who had said that we aren't a democracy anymore if this ruling goes through, I was just correcting them on the point that we are in fact not a democracy but a democratic republic, nothing more nothing less.
I think the whole "Republican-Democrat", party based politics is ***, so the point on what Republicans want to do doesn't really say much to me.
My standpoint is that we are a democratic republic, but it ends at that.
I think the government is corrupt as *** :/

i think you put too much thought into what i said lol.

Yeah I don't post much on the forums I didn't know how to edit your response out of it, That was meant to be more of a reply to zandra, but I'm doing this as I do a trial weapon so typing a little at a time also caused me to forget that I was suppose to type this part in there. I also don't know how to edit my post as I don't see an edit button.

register.

np man :D
i was getting confused there for a second lol

This is a matter of social equity, and these types of things aren't always best suited in the hands of a majority vote. There are a lot of things throughout history that were not put to a referendum vote for good reason. I'm sure some majority votes would have kept slavery alive, or something. (I'm not an expert on US history, but I'm sure you get the idea.)

I read that the Supreme Court hears precedent setting cases knowing in advance how they planned on voting. That they will select specific cases based on how they planned on voting.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think it's a matter of simply picking and choosing cases that will support their predetermined decision. It's not like a person with an agenda citing a few liberal pundits to get their point across and make it sound like they're "right." It's drawing from actual court rulings which are viable and upheld elsewhere.

Im glad I just turned straight....

I no have the gay no more! /dances! GOOD LUCK FIGHTING IT! :D

If your natural hair color is blonde, and you color it brown... You're still a natural blonde!

Hey, not if you colour it permanently! :D

Your permenant hair color would be brown...

But you're natural hair color would still be blonde.

I'd really hope you're joking lol >_> and if not enjoy living life on the "down low".

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) works differently than other courts. If you appeal a case to them, they don't have to accept it.

SCOTUS grants what's called a writ of certiorari ("cert" for short), which is what allows a case to actually be heard by the court. Every year, SCOTUS only grants cert to about 2-3% of the cases it receives.

A minimum of 4 of the 9 justices must vote to grant certiorari to a case. (One shy of a majority.) If you can't get four justices to agree to hear a case, then whatever decision the lower court made stands as law.

If they do grant cert and agree to hear a case, then majority opinion rules of course.

The 9th amendment:

"The enurmeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

That means just because its not in the bill of rights doesn't mean you don't have a right to it.

The 14th amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jursidiction thereof, are cistizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside. 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 the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

This effectively means that all rights in the bill of rights must be enforced by state governments. States can give individuals MORE freedom, but not LESS. While gay marriage may not have been enumurated in the constitution it can still be protected by the bill of rights, which means due to the 14th amendment it must be protected in all states. I'm only prelaw atm so I could be wrong, but that's how I interpret it.

Coming in late on this but this is pretty good news. I'm so used to reading headlines of people dying everywhere >________>


PS: Not gay, just a strong advocate for human rights.

What this guy said.

I wish people who claimed to be strict constitutionalists actually read the damn thing.

Then again, I might as well hope that the most passionately religious folks (of any denomination) actually read the scriptures they like to lecture about too. But that's another topic.