Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

The same is true of anti-abortion laws where Republicans want to have the government make a decision related to the Constitutionally protected Right of the Woman to make her own decisions about her own body.

 

Anyone who believes marriage has been the same for 2000 years (why they use that number is beyond me) and that is why we must preserve it is either being dishonest or they are ignorant.
Want to protect the sanctity of marriage, close drive-thru wedding chapels.

 

The 2000 years is a reference to Christianity and Biblical theocratic beliefs related to marriage. The fact that the laws of the United States cannot be based upon "religious opinion" (Reynolds v US 1878 ) is ignored by Christians that want to impose their discriminatory religious beliefs on ALL Americans related to marriage. Evangelical Christians hate the First Amendment's provisions that our government is prohibited from establishing religion under the law in the United States. They oppose Freedom of Religion in the United States.

 

4 by court order - California, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont.
3 by popular vote - Washington, Maine and Maryland
6 by legislature - Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Hampshire, Minnesota and New York.

3 of the 4 court ordered states would be able to pass it in their legislatures had it not been required by the Supreme Courts in those states.

 

Same-sex marriages are simply 'marriage' in the law. There isn't a separate legal institution... except for civil unions/domestic partnerships.

 

Gotta throw red meat to their homophobic base.

 

This will never happen unless the conversatives can manage to get a majority of Tea Party fruitcakes into Congress. The Republicans can read the writing on the wall, and they will not pass this, especially as we approach the 2014 midterms.

 

We can also note that in California that 52% of the people that voted for Prop 8 already knew that it was unconstitutional before they voted for it. The State Supreme Court had already ruled that denial of same-sex marriage was a violation of equal protection under the law based upon Prop 22.

Why would people vote for something that they already know violates the equal protection clause?

 

Because 5 million people have a better understanding of right and wrong than 9 do?

 

I suspect that it has about as much chance of passing as the Equal Rights Amendment had when introduced. back in the '70's

 

In Washington after two years those that formed civil unions, which existed before we removed the prohibition against same-sex marriage under the law, will automatically be "married" under the law. They have two years to change their status if they want to.

 

The bigger question is, why would the US Supreme Court [the Supreme Law of the Land] vote to uphold states' rights to choose yes or no on gay marriage when at the same time you're claiming that the Supreme Court declared that excluding gay marriage is "unconstitutional"? If it's unconstitutional, states can't choose. Yet the Supreme Court just upheld that they can. You are citing the lower court's declaration that its "unconstitutional". But the lower court's determination in that regard is null and void. Only the lower court's determination that the original suit was not presented well [standing] is upheld. Not the constitutionality of whether or not a state may choose "no" on gay marriage. How absurd? One state not allowed what the other 49 are...lol.. A kindergartener could try that case before the High Court and win.

So, actually, choosing "no" on gay marraige is constitutional . The Supreme Court just said so. And so, Prop 8 is, in fact, constitutional. Californian's cannot be one exception to the other 49 states allowed to choose.

The ruling that said proponents of Prop 8 lacked standing didn't mean Prop 8 isn't constitutional. It meant that using "gay hurts straight marriage" wasn't a premise to launch from. The gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend at the time of the Ruling said that the witnesses for Prop 8, of the few that showed up after his active witness suppression campaign, failed to show how gay marriage in California hurts straight marriage.

What can be shown is how gay marriage hurts the initiative process. It disenfranchises the governed from their right to set the rules of the fabric of their society that their public servants [note: not dictators] are sworn to uphold. THAT is real, profound and dangerous harm. That is the case with standing. Prop 8 is completely constitutional.

Now we know the Supreme Court is playing politics with this thing. That's undeniable. And shameful. However, with all the dancing around courting the hispanic vote, I'd imagine if some hispanic catholic voters in California sued for the right for their vote to count on Prop 8, the Supreme Court would be less likely to yank them around. After all, polygamy [the close first cousin of gay marriage] cannot be a mandate from the High Court. Nor can minors marrying. All three are excluded from marriage in Prop 8. Will a mormon or muslim judge who wants to take another wife sitting on the polygamists' appeal to the high courts in CA tell Californians they have "no choice" on polygamy also?

There's the danger. There's the harm. California cannot be the one singular exception to the other 49 getting to choose what marriage means in their state. Officials in California cannot operate in violation of the Law there.

 

Because those 5 million people all live in this country which is operated under certain standards. That means they don't just get to vote whatever laws they come up with into being. There are rules. California voters who passed Prop 8 decided that rules did not apply to them.

They were wrong.

 

Because the 5 million are ruled over by 5 autocrats.

In our fu*ked up judicial system the constitution means whatever 5 people on the Supreme Court says it means.

And the lib majority chose to side with the homosexuals instead of the rest of America.

 

No it doesn't. The Highest Law in the Land [The Supreme Court] just upheld Californian voters' rights to choose. Please read my last post. This isn't over yet...

California voters cannot be the one exception to the "states' right to choose on gay marriage" Ruling just handed down last week. Article 6 [I think it's that one] of the Constitution forbids singling out any one state for special or punitive treatment. The Supreme Court Ruled that a state, any state, denying gay marriage is fully within their constitutional rights. Do you recall them saying "gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states as mandated federally"? No, no you didn't. You saw them say that the fed has to abide by what each state decides...yes....or no.... In so Saying, they said that so-called gay marriage is not a constitutional right.

 

That was not what the US Supreme Court ruled in either the Windsor case or the Prop 8 case.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Windsor that "marriage is marriage" and that the federal government could not impose a discriminatory federal definition of marriage because that violated the equal protection clause.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Prop 8 that the "Defendant" did not have standing so there was nothing for the US Supreme Court to decide.

The US Supreme Court did not rule on any State marriage laws at all because no case of State marriage law was being addressed once Prop 8 was thrown out of court due to a lack of standing by the defendants.

Actually paying attention to US Supreme Court rulings goes a long ways in avoiding making false statements.

 

The standing issue was Decided on whether or not traditional marriage people could demonstrate that gay marriage caused "harm" to them. Remember that little detail? The case of "harm" is denying California [hispanic catholic] voters the right to set the rules for their social standards as the singular exception to the other 49 states that are allowed to do so.

You know that isn't going to fly...lol.. Like I said, a kindergartener could bring that case before the High Court and win with both hands tied behind his back.

The Highest Law in the Land [The Supreme Court] just upheld Californian voters' rights to choose. This isn't over yet...

California voters cannot be the one exception to the "states' right to choose on gay marriage" Ruling just handed down last week. Article 6 [I think it's that one] of the Constitution forbids singling out any one state for special or punitive treatment. The Supreme Court Ruled that a state, any state, denying gay marriage is fully within their constitutional rights. Do you recall them saying "gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states as mandated federally"? No, no you didn't. You saw them say that the fed has to abide by what each state decides...yes....or no.... In so Saying, they said that so-called gay marriage is not a constitutional right.

 

As I understand it the Ninth Circuit of unelected autocrats overruled the will of the voters in California and and 5 unelected autocrats on the Supreme Court refused to overrule the lib judges in California.

Either way America is no longer ruled by the people but by a star chamber of unelected dictators in the judiciary.

 

The US Supreme Court did not rule on Prop 8. It merely tossed the case out of court without any decision because the "defendant' did not have standing in the case. Tossing a case out of court is not the same as making a decision on a case. There was no decision on Prop 8 by the US Supreme Court because no one was representing Prop 8. There actually has to be a "conflict" before the Supreme Court will intervene with a decision but there was no conflict related to Prop 8 because the "defendant" had no standing. It basically established a default judgment for the Plaintiff because there was no opposition to the Plaintiff's complaint.

 

No mac7, you understand it wrong...lol... And this is the thing that both the Supreme Court's liberal Justices and gay activist WANT you to believe: that California can be singled out while the other 49 states get to say "no" to gay marriage.

You are mistaken. Your understanding is wrong. Furthermore, all it will take is hispanic voters in California to sue their state for voter disenfranchisement. The standing in the original proponents for prop 8 was ruled against, because they came at the case from a completely wrong angle. They tried to show how gay marriage "harmed" straight marriage. And naturally, the gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend at the time of the trial, declared like a tyrant from the bench that they had no standing [after he badgered some half dozen witnesses out of showing up on the prop 8 side of the bar].

The original abusive case decided by gay judge Walker and voter disenfranchisement from the California intiative system to declare polygamy, gay and minor marriage illegal is HUGE. It's a grave and dangerous harm to the very bedrock of our democracy. This cannot stand. Even for reasons outside gay, polygamy and minor marriage. This is bigger than that now....

 

This isn't accurate. In fact because the defenders of Prop 8 didn't have standing there was no opposition to the Plaintiff's complaint that Prop 8 violated the equal protection clause.

While both the 9th District Court and the 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals both listened to the arguments by the Defendant and ruled that Prop 8 violated the equal protection clause when the Supreme Court ruled the "defendant" did not have standing the case became a default judgment for the Plaintiff's. Basically all of the arguments that Prop 8 might be Constitutional were tossed out and the only decision the Court could make would be that the Plaintiff's claim that Prop 8 violated the equal protection clause was correct and that the court was required to strike down Prop 8 as relief to the Plaintiff's based upon the equal protection clause.

Think of it this way. If a person files a lawsuit for money and the defendant doesn't show up in court the only option for the court is to award the monetary damages to the plaintiff based upon the Plaintiff's complaint. There are no other options for the court and the case is decided based upon the plaintiffs complaint.

In the Prop 8 case there wasn't a "defendant" because the US Supreme court ruled the defendant didn't have standing.

 

Polling data shows the "rest of America" is more in favor than opposed to same-sex marriage.

If you don't like that the supreme court is the final arbiter of legal issues, talk to the founders. They designed it that way.

 

You are engaged in legal hair splitting.

The voters of California represented themselves when they voted to ban gay marriage.

Only 9 or 5 unelected judges substituted their will for the wisdom of the people.

 

Tyranny of the majority is exactly what the founders designed our Constitution and judiciary system to prevent, but you're apparently a big fan of it.....at least when it mirrors your personal prejudices against other people.

 

The Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 didn't have standing to defend Prop 8 in court. Legally only the State of California had standing to oppose the lawsuit of the Plaintiffs and the Stated decided against doing that.

Just because someone proposes a law doesn't mean that they have standing to defend the law in court. What part of that do some not understand?

BTW there has never been any evidence that same-sex marriage harms opposite-sex marriage in any court of law.