9th Circus Court to rule on Calif Prop 8 - changing defn of marriage to include same-sex (statistics, Kennedy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The high court generally takes a dim view to courts overturning the will of the people. The constitutional arguments are weak and require one to not only liberally interpret the Constitution (I mean really does anyone think that a bunch of 19th century white men would condone an amendment that allowed two men or women to marry?) but to throw away 6000 years of how marriage has been defined in Western Civilization.
It'll be overturned by SCOTUS and even the liberal judges will vote to do so.
I remember the thread when the original ruling came out. It was very long and nasty. Now the opposition is basically reduced to a single, self-professed Flame Angel.
Demographics are changing. More than 50 percent of the country accepts gay marriage. The issue no longer attracts the attention it once did. DADT has been repealed. Gay marriage is legal in New York and will probably be legalized in Washington State in a few days.
Civilization has not collapsed. I think more people wonder what all the fuss was about in the first place.
You can assert all day long - can you present an actual reasoned argument?
Shouldn't the purpose of society be to further the interests of the individual, rather than the other way around? I mean, the entire ideology of having the individual submit his will to the the interests of The Collective has been tried and found rather wanting.
And we have another volunteer for the Scientology indoctrination camp! You might not WANT to, but you'll be treated exactly the same.
I have already presented a reasoned argument. When will you provide one?
Second, the purpose of society is to survive and provide a framework for the members to live, prosper and grow. Allowing a small group of them, check that, a tiny fraction of them, to force a change in the rules of society that will damage said society, is not in the best interest of the people of said society.
I have articulated why marriage is an important building block that should, absent extraordinary evidence showing that change will benefit the institution that benefits society that benefits ALL the people, survive unscathed. In short, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
You are potentially sacrificing, or at least weakening a critical institution in our society, and seem to do so glibly.
As far as your "remark" re Scientology, I'll ignore it as the gibberish it is.
Your argument relied on personal experience, i.e., the couples you have met. That's anecdote, not logic. How is your personal experience (or lack thereof) with same-sex couples relevant to whether they should be allowed to marry?
My statement, as I recall, spoke to how common marriages other than one man, one woman were. It was not, and was not intended to be logic, just an assertions that a previous assertion on how common such marriages were.
Family Group Vows: We will Defend Marriage and Proposition 8
Sacramento, CA--The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Proposition
8, the 2008 ballot initiative that codified the traditional definition of marriage,
is invalid and unconstitutional.
"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained
Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute
and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California
voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant
judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition
8.
"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition
of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of
the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families
depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize
marriages' critical role in society and protect it."
"It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."
I believe the US Supreme Court will rule that the California law does not violate that part of the constitution. If the law said that only homosexuals were forbidden from marrying the same gender and that heterosexuals could marry the same gender then it would be a violation. However, it bars EVERYONE from marrying the same gender and, thus, applies equally to everyone.
Beware America, your vote no longer matters. What liberals want they will get. If they can't get a law passed they will force it through the courts. Kudos to Washington for doing this the right, democratic way and passing it through the legislature. Surely California could do the same. This is a slippery slope we are headed down.
oh come on.....for gods sake.
These are being overturn by judges around the country because the judges are doing their job. If you have a problem with that then rewrite the constitution. I like how many people are blaming the judges on this, and not stopping to think that maybe the judges are doing exactly what they should be doing. Religion and "that's just the way it's been done in the past" aside, what are the specific reasons why we should NOT have gay marriage. The fact is when you look at it, it's a group of people who are being singled out and not allowed the freedoms of other people. Then when people can't think of a RATIONAL reason why it should be illegal, they run to the hilarious "well what if people start marrying dogs or little children" crap that has nothing to do with this situation.
Just because judges are, one after another, not going your way, doesn't mean that they have to be wrong and you are right. Everyone isn't an activist judge. Hell, if you look at it, a lot of these judges put in place who are voting on these issues were put there by Bush, Regan and other republicans. They aren't activist judges. They're judges doing what judges do.
Should we go back and look at slavery, inter-ratial marriage, women's rights among 100 other things and just go with how the masses vote.
It's all silly anyway, in 15 years gay marriage will be legal just based on the fact younger people today who are more open minded and accepting to gay people are going to be in power or gaining power. Everyone will look back on this exactly how people who railed against civil rights in the 60's are today.
Can anyone whatsoever provide a citation from the USC, as amended, that speaks in any way shape or manner to same-sex marriage?
Ditto, any of the writings or spoken words of the Founders that would indicate that they felt the rights preserved under the USC, as amended?
I've just started reading the thread so maybe this has been answered. But it seems to me you are asking how is this justified by the US Constitution.
And the answer is States are prevented from making laws that target particular groups of people: Its the equal protection clause added via amendment.
CA (according to the courts so far) violated that clause when the banned marriage for a particular class of people. Prior to Prop 8 all couples were treated equally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
