Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

"Basically" huh?...lol..hoping Mac won't look deeper?..lol..

And all that you just said is null and void according to the US Constitution which says that no state may be treated either favorably or punitively outside the other 49. And the Court just said in DOMA last week that the fed must abide by each state's right to choose yes, or no, on gay marriage, polygamy marriage and minor marriage, among others.

Legally that means gay, polygamy and minor marriage is not a civil right. Unless Shiva, you can direct me to the language in the Ruling last week that says "gay marriage is now legally mandated in all 50 states" or words to that effect. But you can't, can you?

So, in the interest of equal treatment of the states, as constitutionally guaranteed, California's Prop 8 is fully constitutional, and therefore the Law of the Land. Hispanics need to bring a suit to force that into the public's mind. And to force their tyrannical government public servants back into line.

 

It's only tyranny of the majority because a 5 lawyer minority says it is.

The unelected lib judges see things in the Constitution that a hundred million Americans do not see.

 

The people did not have the right to create the law they created, because the law itself was unconstitutional. The people did not have the power to create the law they did. It's not that they had the power and then it was taken, it's that they never had it to begin with. People do not have the power to make whatever laws sound good to them. There are rules and standards that everyone must follow, otherwise all you have is tyranny and anarchy.

- - - Updated - - -

That's probably because they've studied the Constitution quite a bit more than those 100 million Americans.

 

Only because a handful of lib judges say it is unconstitutional.

In fact homosexual men have the same right to marry a woman that normal men have.

Both are already treated the same under the law.

 

The House Republicans? HA HA HA HA! Those silly, naive, childish little fools. Here they go again, trying to make another amendment to a constitution that doesn't even belong to them anymore.

It's laughable. Obama's Democrats are laughing -- they'll shoot down the proposal in about five minutes, just like they do all the others. Republicans surely know that, so why do they do it?

All they do is give Obama and Michelle something to laugh about.

 

The Supreme Court just said that the People DID have the right in California to exclude gay, polygamy and minor marriage. The 300 million Americans who know the rudiments of the Constitution, know that any federal mandate may not single out for favoritism or punishment, any one of the 50 states. To defy that mandate would create tyranny and anarchy like you've never seen...

That rule aint' gonna change. Not even for the gay mafia. And so, because the Court just Ruled last week that the fed has to abide by what each state chooses, yes, or no, on gay, polygamy and minor marriage, among others, Prop 8 is not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court just interpreted the Constitution and said California gets to choose. And they chose already. Twice.

 

And will continue to be so, just without the superficial limitations imposed by people like you for completely ugly arbitrary reasons.

Your tears, so delicious.

- - - Updated - - -

The federal government does not have to abide by a state law that is unconstitutional, which was what the district court ruling on prop 8 itself was.

 

True.

But it is a new law created by five unelected dictators on the court instead of one enacted by the people.

 

No, it's not a new law. There was no new law created. There was only the removal of an invalid one.

 

The tyranny of government is based upon the law and the actions of government exclusively.

The striking down of any law or action of government as unconstitutional never creates government tyranny but it can eliminate government tyranny.

 

That includes a law protecting each state's right to choose yes or no on gay marriage, polygamy and minor marriage, among others. Did you see The High Court say gay marriage is legal now in all 50 states? No, you didn't. You saw instead a decision on DOMA saying each state gets to decide yes or no on gay marriage. According to the equal protection clause with respect to states being singled out for punishment or favoritism, California's Prop 8 is legal and the public servants there don't have the luxury of overrule over the Supreme Court.

For now, until the voter disenfranchisement case brought by the catholic hispanic faction of California who voted to narrow marriage to "between a man and a woman" chime in to force their public servants to abide by duly enacted Law. Convincing the Supreme Court that California's officials have to abide by law given the recent Declaration by that same Court that each state gets to choose on gay marriage, is, legally speaking, a cake walk.

 

The voters of California knew in advance that a prohibition against same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause because of the California State Supreme Court decision on Prop 22 (there is no difference between the State Constitution equal protection clause and the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment).

Why would the citizens of a state vote for a State Constitutional Amendment that they knew in advance was unconstitutional?

The US Congress, the State Legislatures, and the Citizens of the United States do not have any Right to impose unconstitutional law and the citizens of California knew that Prop 8 was an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause before they ever voted on it.

Why would any American vote for a law when they already know its unconstitutional based upon a decision by the highest court in their state before they vote for it is the question I have. Are Californians really idiots? They knew Prop 8 was unconstitutional before they ever voted for it.

That's why the State of California refused to defend Prop 8 because the AG and Governor knew that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. They didn't need a federal court to tell them that because the California State Supreme Court had already told them that in it's Prop 22 decision.

 

It is unconstitutional only in the minds of five liberal judges on the court.

People who are unelected, serve for life and have absolute and unchallenged power over 320 million Americans.

 

That is not what the Supreme Court decided. The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government could not discriminate against legally married couples under Federal Law and struck down DOMA Section 3. The Supreme Court made no determinations on marriage except to establish that "marriage = marriage" under federal law and that the Congress could not discriminate based upon invidious criteria established by Congress that violated the equal protection clause. The DOMA decision had nothing whatsoever to do with State laws. It dealt with federal law exclusively.

 

Legally married couples means according to the laws of each state. The public servants of California are sworn to uphold duly enacted laws via the voters' initiative process. The only standing they have to not do so is if those laws violate the US constitution. Since the Supreme Court did not say "gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states" but instead said "the fed must abide by all legally married couples of the various states", that means that "legally married" in California is through the voter initiative process.
Saying no to gay marriage is not unconstitutional!

Checks and balances was just at work Mac. How difficult is it for you to understand that according to the High Court last week, gay marriage is not a constitutional right? And that California may not be singled out according to their Decision on DOMA as "the only state that can't say no to gay marriage"? All it will take is one puny court case walked back to the High Court.

"Juan Doe v The State of California" Standing and real harm done to Juan? "Voter disenfranchisement and tyranny of public servants".

 

I said NOTHING about the law

 

The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Divorce court should be abolished. And marriage should be handled by religious institution. It's not the job of government who is married and what is a legitimate relationship.

 

I don't give a rat's nether regions WHAT they call it,it's NOT being 'married',that is a man and a woman,period.
,despite the 'law'

Not to say they shouldn't enjoy the same benefits that Married couples do,however.

But don't call it something it can't be.

 

If libs are demanding equal treatment for everyone then do away with all special treatment for married people.

And no special treatment for Obama voters who have children that single people without children do not get.

No more food stamps or Section 8 housing for single unwed mothers but not for working girls who do not have children.

Or single men without children.

 

The US Supreme Court did not rule on Prop 8. It dismissed the case based upon a lack of standing by the defendants.

Perhaps doing a little research on court proceedings is in order if legitimate arguments are to be presented.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Standing

The defendants of Prop 8, in the opinion of the US Supreme Court, did not have the legal standing therefore no controversy existed related to Prop 8. There was nothing for the Supreme Court to address because no controversy existed.

No Controversy = No Decision

 

I'm a Libertarian that has long advocated the abolition of all marriage laws and treating "marriage" as a matter of contract law related to financial partnerships. Contract law is non-discriminatory.

How does that sound?

 

Much less. The ERA got pretty close.

 

Everyone is obviously entitled to their personal opinions as to what they consider to be marriage and ending a prohibition against same-sex marriage won't change anyone's opinions or beliefs. Same-sex marriage has absolutely no impact on opposite-sex marriage or those that choose to believe that opposite-sex marriage is the only marriage that they personally recognize.

It's all about equal protection under the law and has always been about equal protection under the law. As noted in the quoted stated above same-sex couple should enjoy the same benefits as their opposite-sex counterparts and almost all Americans agree with that.

The issue is pragmatic though because either we change all of the law that uses "marriage" as a criteria (over 1,100 federal laws alone use this criteria) or we allow same-sex marriage, or we abolish the legal institution of marriage and recognize marriage based upon contract law related to partnerships. From a strictly pragmatic perspective simply allowing same-sex couples to marry resolves all of the "equal protection under the law" issues related to the privileges, protections, and benefits afforded based upon the word "marriage" under the law.

Always remember that "same-sex" marriage doesn't violate anyone's Rights nor does the State have any compelling interest to prohibit same-sex marriage which is why it's the most pragmatic solution to the problem.

Personally I support abolishing all of the marriage laws and treating "marriage as a partnership between consenting adults based upon contract (verbal or written) but that's not as easy as eliminating the prohibitions against same-sex marriage. I prefer this solution because it removes any discriminatory criteria related to marriage.

 

and of course back here in reality, prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional and same sex couples are once again getting married there.

 

I believe politicians claiming morals from public venues need to take a morals test instead of a drug test.