feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Prop 8 Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

(24 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by Valerie ring
  • Latest reply from NoParty

  1. Even though California voters approved a statewide ban on same sex marriages, a court has ruled that the action is unconstitutional. Let the appeals begin!

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 11:04 AM #
  2. Broadway

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,473

    Of the people...strike that...of the federal appeals court---
    so much for every vote counting...

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:04 PM #
  3. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,141

    There is a process for overturning that which is deemed unconstitutional.

    A ballot measure doesn't cut it.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:06 PM #
  4. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 14,306

    YES!!!

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:10 PM #
  5. The citizens don't want marriage redefined but the judges do.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 12:29 PM #
  6. Uncle Mort

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,276

    Spare us the handwringing over the people's choice. If the "people" should get good and mad next year over the latest scandal and vote to prohibit the Catholic Church for example, well F&B is in luck because the Second Amendment US Constitution is the law of the land. nobody can just write up a proposition to overturn it. And the same goes for Equal Protection under the Fourteenth. Note that Judge Walker is a Republican but well, uh, gay. But not married yet. If that's reason to recuse then maybe so is being straight.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 01:03 PM #
  7. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,015

    So if the majority of citizens decided to outlaw Catholicism you'd be okay with that, F&B? Basic constitutional rights are non-negotiable.

    BTW you need to read the decision, it responded to the overreach of Prop. 8, but stopped short of legalizing gay marriage.

    edit add: great minds think alike Mort - or at least, they form similar analogies.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 01:03 PM #
  8. Hopefully the Supreme Court has some common sense and will see that two men joined together or two women joined together cannot produce children and cannot make a "marriage," and that to allow for same-sex "marriage" would be to entirely change the meaning of what marriage and family is.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 01:08 PM #
  9. Uncle Mort

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,276

    I'm kinda with you on this one F&B. I prefer a compromise: a 'civil union' confers enough economic benefits, but gay marriage lacks for historical precedent and proponents tend to disdain deeprooted custom and sensitivities.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 01:29 PM #
  10. f&b>"Hopefully the Supreme Court has some common sense..."

    It's not about what you might think is common sense... it's about our Constitution. The rights of a particular group of people should NEVER be up for vote.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 01:55 PM #
  11. ...Open the floodgates..

    I heard on the news at noon...More from Polygamist marriages...and thier constitutional rights ...and how this is relative to gay marriages being legalized in more and more states..whereby if Gay marriage is allowed , so should marriages which include more than two partners...legally recognized with all the rights and privledges etc etc...

    So I would assume this might open up the notion of allowing multiple spousal and dependent children on Insurance Policy contracts. Then we could include this relative to more than 2 partner Gay Marriages too with all the legal rights and privledges etc ...

    Where does it stop ?

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 02:18 PM #
  12. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,463

    You forgot all the stuff about people wanting to marry their pets, their cars, their robot mistresses, etc., etc. If you're going to the "slippery slope" card, make sure you get it ALL in there.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 02:24 PM #
  13. I think we can adroitly limit this discussion to "Human to Human" relationships.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 02:31 PM #
  14. PianoMan

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 509

    Since the Supreme Court won't rule on this for at least another year, there's a reasonable chance that Obama will be able to replace one of the right-wing justices before then. If not, and the court does uphold Prop 8 (a 50-50 proposition at best even with the current lineup), California voters are likely to repeal it anyway in 2014 or so. Outside the churches, the same-sex marriage battle is essentially over. From here on out it's a wedge issue for Democrats, as even the Republican presidential candidates (Santorum excepted) have acknowledged by their relative silence.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 02:47 PM #
  15. warner

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,349

    So, F&B, by your "definition" of marriage, being apparently only for the purpose of having children, if a man and woman are married, but have no children, and don't intend to ever have any, and in fact are both unable to, are they then married?

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 02:53 PM #
  16. Brianl

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,098

    I give that federal court a big fat +1.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 04:13 PM #
  17. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,393

    Of the people...strike that...of the federal appeals court---
    so much for every vote counting...

    But you would be all for Roe vs Wade to be overturned by the Supreme Court right???

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 04:53 PM #
  18. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,463

    "Of the people...strike that...of the federal appeals court---
    so much for every vote counting..."

    "The people" pass unconstitutional laws all of the time. That is the Constitutional role of the Judicial branch, to assure that our laws are, in fact, in adherence with that "bedrock" of our country. I find it strange how a significant portion of our population seems to ignore that part of the Constitution. It's much like how they ignore significant portions of the Bible.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 05:21 PM #
  19. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,015

    F&B, and others:

    Read Ted Olson's article titled "The conservative case for gay marriage" and tell me if and why you still stand against it.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

    An excerpt:

    The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?

    This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 05:35 PM #
  20. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,463

    +1 to edselelhr

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 05:56 PM #
  21. "Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/opinion/oe-blankenhorn19 "

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 08:50 PM #
  22. Broadway

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,473

    >>But you would be all for Roe vs Wade to be overturned by the Supreme Court right???
    What is good for the goose is good for the gander---

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 08:53 PM #
  23. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,463

    ""Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!"

    Absolutely and totally 100% wrong. I have a niece that got pregnant when she was 17. With wisdom beyond her years, she put the child up for adoption, and he was awarded to a gay couple in Seattle. It's an open adoption, and she visits with the child and his parents on a regular basis. The child lives in a loving household, knows his birth mother, and by all accounts, is flourishing wonderfully. Your argument is invalid.

    Posted on February 7, 2012 - 09:37 PM #
  24. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,393

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander---

    Then STFU about this!

    Posted on February 8, 2012 - 10:38 AM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.