Prop 8 Overturned

#55
#55
volfanjustin said:
For all of you who are ok with gay marriage, are you also ok with relatives marrying if they are over the age of 18?

Ultimately, I'm fine with relatives entering into a contractual relationship as a couple. Calling it marriage may be iffy but I'm not really bugged by that either although I don't see why the government should be the one to apply the label "married". Historically, there has been a prohibition because there is a real, physical chance that very close relatives mating can produce disabled offspring. That is not relevant to gay couples so I don't agree with the analogy.


I am personally against gay marriage but this should be a state issue, the people of Cal have stated they do not want gay marriage in their state and for some liberal court to keep over turning their wishes is absurd.
Click to expand...

Probably should be a state issue but I see no reason that a state has to take it to the level of constitutional amendment and see no reason any state should not have civil unions - the rights discrimination (if it exists) resides here; not in the term (marriage) that is applied.
 
#56
#56
volinbham said:
Probably should be a state issue but I see no reason that a state has to take it to the level of constitutional amendment and see no reason any state should not have civil unions - the rights discrimination (if it exists) resides here; not in the term (marriage) that is applied.
Click to expand...

On this issue, I think it should be 100% state issue either way. If a state wants to allow civil unions or full marriage or if they want to ban all of it. Either way would be fine with me as long as it's the states deciding.
 
#57
#57
volinbham said:
Probably should be a state issue but I see no reason that a state has to take it to the level of constitutional amendment and see no reason any state should not have civil unions - the rights discrimination (if it exists) resides here; not in the term (marriage) that is applied.
Click to expand...

I think this is the case. The term 'marriage' appears to be the major sticking point here. Let's go the civil union route, update federal vernacular and leave marriage to religious institutions.

I know many in lgbt community really want 'marriage', and I can understand why - I think many folks just grow up dreaming about finding love and getting married. It sticks with them and they feel as though they cannot have what many perceive as a great life event. I get it, but for me the term and event are not really that important to me; it is all about the same benefits/protections.
 
#58
#58
gcbvol said:
I think this is the case. The term 'marriage' appears to be the major sticking point here. Let's go the civil union route, update federal vernacular and leave marriage to religious institutions.

I know many in lgbt community really want 'marriage', and I can understand why - I think many folks just grow up dreaming about finding love and getting married. It sticks with them and they feel as though they cannot have what many perceive as a great life event. I get it, but for me the term and event are not really that important to me; it is all about the same benefits/protections.
Click to expand...

I've heard Andrew Sullivan make the second point and am sympathetic to it. I've just always viewed the meaning of the word being imbued by society. I think it's hard to argue that the meaning is really embedded in 2 people/man and woman. That is changing and I'm sure the meaning will evolve to mean 2 people (maybe 3 someday?). Agree completely on the legal side though - no reason to deny the benefits/protections (the part that comes through government) to any couple.
 
#59
#59
I just still find the idea of keeping the 'right to discriminate' fascinating. I totally understand the reasons behind it...it just comes across a little backwards imo. Take govt' out of the equation here and think about what it is that's important.
 
#60
#60
volfanjustin said:
On this issue, I think it should be 100% state issue either way. If a state wants to allow civil unions or full marriage or if they want to ban all of it. Either way would be fine with me as long as it's the states deciding.
Click to expand...

I think the SCOTUS may look at this case as a state issue and not hear the case.

It has be argued for some time that marriage is a state issue. The people of the State of California voted on this issue. If the SCOTUS hears this case, it may be opening a can of worms.

If the SCOTUS does hear this case, will that not be making marriage a federal issue instead of a state issue?
 
#61
#61
volfanjustin said:
For all of you who are ok with gay marriage, are you also ok with relatives marrying if they are over the age of 18?

I am personally against gay marriage but this should be a state issue, the people of Cal have stated they do not want gay marriage in their state and for some liberal court to keep over turning their wishes is absurd.
Click to expand...

Yes
 
#62
#62
FAYI: The current difference between recognition of civil unions and marriages by the state is that marriages will be allowed federal benefits if/when the Defense Of Marriage Act is overturned, civil unions will not.
 
#63
#63
Gramps said:
I think the SCOTUS may look at this case as a state issue and not hear the case.

It has be argued for some time that marriage is a state issue. The people of the State of California voted on this issue. If the SCOTUS hears this case, it may be opening a can of worms.

If the SCOTUS does hear this case, will that not be making marriage a federal issue instead of a state issue?
Click to expand...

Did the 9th decide using the California Constitution or the U.S. Constitution?
 
#67
#67
TennesseeOrange said:
Did the 9th decide using the California Constitution or the U.S. Constitution?
Click to expand...

Prop 8 Ruling: Five Things to Know About Same-Sex Marriage Decision




Two of the three judges on the Ninth Circuit who heard the case said Prop 8 -- a ballot measure passed in 2008 that amended California's constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples -- decided that a voter referendum that revoked the marriage rights of gays and lesbians was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause.
 
#68
#68
Gramps said:
Prop 8 Ruling: Five Things to Know About Same-Sex Marriage Decision




Two of the three judges on the Ninth Circuit who heard the case said Prop 8 -- a ballot measure passed in 2008 that amended California's constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples -- decided that a voter referendum that revoked the marriage rights of gays and lesbians was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured. So you think the Supreme Court will decline to hear a case where a Federal Circuit interpreted the Federal Constitution because marriage is a state issue?
 
#69
#69
I don't care that Prop 8 has been overturned, but it's getting really frustrating how broadly the equal protection clause is being applied to issues that have nothing to do with the US Constitution.
 
#71
#71
MG1968 said:
I don't care that Prop 8 has been overturned, but it's getting really frustrating how broadly the equal protection clause is being applied to issues that have nothing to do with the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

So discrimination by the government has nothing to do with Equal Protection or the constitution?
 
#73
#73
"the ruling never actually said gays and lesbians had a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex, only that it is unconstitutional to take that right away once granted.

The court rejected Prop 8 supporters' arguments that child-rearing, parental rights and religious freedom justified taking those rights for gays and lesbians away."
 
#74
#74
again, I don't mind that Prop 8 was overturned

I'm just frustrated that the equal protection clause is being applied to things that it was never intended
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top