Discussion: Gay Rights IX

[Schlosser85]

New thread time!

 

[wiegeabo]

The appeals court in San Francisco has declared that Prop 8 violates the US constitution.

 

[Xeno]

The appeals court in San Francisco has declared that Prop 8 violates the US constitution.

Yes!

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

 

[danoyse]

Awesome news.

 

[kane9321]

Yes!

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

I was walking past the courthouse and i was wondering what was going on!

 

[Marx]

This is a great, great day!

 

[moraldeficiency]

Hopefully this sticks, it should I can see no reasonable argument for it not to.

 

[wiegeabo]

Hopefully this sticks, it should I can see no reasonable argument for it not to.

There's your problem

 

[Matt]

I'd like to be excited but I see this as a loss for the gay community. I mean, hopefully this sticks (in which case it is a huge win), but I have my doubts that it will. All this does is put Prop 8 on a collision course with SCOTUS. I cannot see the Roberts Court as it is right now, overturning any kind of voter referendum much less a state constitutional amendment. They are too big on state rights and I am guessing that the ruling will be something along the lines of, "Individual states have the right to create marriage laws, not the federal government therefore the appeals court ruling is overturned."

Being as it is a Constitutional amendment, the California State Supreme Court will not be able to overturn it (as they must interpret the Constitution of the state). All gay marriages performed in California will be abolished and they'll back to square one (and in need of another voter referendum to change the Constitution again). This of course, will be easy in California. But once the door is open that marriage is a state issue....so many conservative states are going to start adapting their constitution.

 

[The_Raganork]

I'd like to be excited but I see this as a loss for the gay community. I mean, hopefully this sticks (in which case it is a huge win), but I have my doubts that it will. All this does is put Prop 8 on a collision course with SCOTUS. I cannot see the Roberts Court as it is right now, overturning any kind of voter referendum much less a state constitutional amendment. They are too big on state rights and I am guessing that the ruling will be something along the lines of, "Individual states have the right to create marriage laws, not the federal government therefore the appeals court ruling is overturned."

Being as it is a Constitutional amendment, the California State Supreme Court will not be able to overturn it (as they must interpret the Constitution of the state). All gay marriages performed in California will be abolished and they'll back to square one (and in need of another voter referendum to change the Constitution again). This of course, will be easy in California. But once the door is open that marriage is a state issue....so many conservative states are going to start adapting their constitution.

Bingo.

 

[Marx]

Hopefully this sticks, it should I can see no reasonable argument for it not to.

There's your problem

Exactly Wieg.

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]369951[/split]

 

[Marx]

I have a very hard time believing the Supreme Court will override this decision.

 

[Marx]

It's a new thread which means another new poll! Given that Prop 8 has just been ruled unconstitutional, I thought the new poll should revolve around equal rights and public voting. Please be sure to cast your vote!

 

[Matt]

I have a very hard time believing the Supreme Court will override this decision.

That is wishful thinking, IMO. It is a conservative leaning Court and the conservative sect of the Court is filled with small government, state rights, originalists. When it comes down to it, gay marriage (and all marriage) is a matter of contract law. The Court will likely rule that states have the right to determine their own contract laws. It is a sad but very real possibility. It is not impossible that the Court rule against Prop 8....but being as marriage law is a state issue, I see them keeping it that way. In which case, all hell will break lose for the gay rights movement.

As for the poll question, despite being an incredibly biased question funny, I vote yes. Not because it is the optimal route or because I necessarily agree that the majority should rule here, but rather because I think it will be the quickest way to equal marriage laws.

 

[Marx]

It's not a biased question at all Matt. ( ) Some people believe equality should be left to public voting. Some people do not. In my opinion, the rights of the minority should NEVER be left in the hands of the majority.

 

[Matt]

But the way the poll is phrased, you've almost made it so you can't vote yes without coming off as a total bigot. For example, I voted yes. But anyone who doesn't read the first page and my explanation (I see it as the quickest way to optimal results) will see that as me just being a dick. I'm not really going to argue about it, just my two cents. It is a biased question.

 

[wiegeabo]

A sticking point for the Supreme Court will be that the Federal Government does tie itself into marriage. Through income tax, marriage benefits, and military marriages.

If the Federal government were to treat all marriages in a State as equal, then they could sidestep everything but military marriages. And the SC could say gay marriage belongs in the purview of the States, and the Federal Government will stay out of it (still ignoring military marriages, for the moment).

But the Feds do have various policies in place that treat straight and gay marriage differently. Now, what the SC might do is declare that the States have the right to define marriage as they see fit, and that the Federal Government must treat all marriages the same.

Now, whether that means the SC can declare that a State banning gay marriage must respect marriages performed in another State, I'm not sure. And there's still the military to deal with.

 

[moraldeficiency]

It is worded a bit strangely. And depends on the difference between the voting public or our elected officials. For example I wish the voting public determined hemp legalization because the majority support returning hemp to it's former legal status. So it's very situational. I can see what Matt is saying.

 

[Paradoxium]

It's not a biased question at all Matt. ( ) Some people believe equality should be left to public voting. Some people do not. In my opinion, the rights of the minority should NEVER be left in the hands of the majority.

People who pay higher taxes have a good laugh every time they hear that t:

 

[wiegeabo]

It is worded a bit strangely. And depends on the difference between the voting public or our elected officials. For example I wish the voting public determined hemp legalization because the majority support returning hemp to it's former legal status. So it's very situational. I can see what Matt is saying.

Didn't work in California.

 

[Paradoxium]

We should have a thread: Democracy? Yay or Nay

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I'd like to be excited but I see this as a loss for the gay community. I mean, hopefully this sticks (in which case it is a huge win), but I have my doubts that it will. All this does is put Prop 8 on a collision course with SCOTUS. I cannot see the Roberts Court as it is right now, overturning any kind of voter referendum much less a state constitutional amendment. They are too big on state rights and I am guessing that the ruling will be something along the lines of, "Individual states have the right to create marriage laws, not the federal government therefore the appeals court ruling is overturned."

Being as it is a Constitutional amendment, the California State Supreme Court will not be able to overturn it (as they must interpret the Constitution of the state). All gay marriages performed in California will be abolished and they'll back to square one (and in need of another voter referendum to change the Constitution again). This of course, will be easy in California. But once the door is open that marriage is a state issue....so many conservative states are going to start adapting their constitution.

or... it will be passed on to the US supreme court.. which in all honesty could lead to a nationwide ruling...

i also don't see how it's a set back at all... i mean.. surely the ruling of it being unconstitutional is better than it being ruled the opposite?

 

[wiegeabo]

or... it will be passed on to the US supreme court.. which in all honesty could lead to a nationwide ruling...

i also don't see how it's a set back at all... i mean.. surely the ruling of it being unconstitutional is better than it being ruled the opposite?

Not necessarily. This paves the way for the SC to make a ruling. A very divided SC, with whom experts are saying the decision could come down to a 5-4 ruling. And if the SC rules against, that's it. Game over.

 

[Matt]

or... it will be passed on to the US supreme court.. which in all honesty could lead to a nationwide ruling...

i also don't see how it's a set back at all... i mean.. surely the ruling of it being unconstitutional is better than it being ruled the opposite?

But what I am saying is that SCOTUS will rule it constitutional for a state to make it's own marriage laws. Then the whole movement will be set back 30 years (it isn't easy to overturn a Supreme Court precedent).