Prop 8 Declared Unconstitutional

[Cookie Monster]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/calif-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-prop-8-ruled-unconstitutional/1

Let's hear some thoughts and please try not to offend anyone.

[Gloomy Mushroom]

This is where same sex marriages become controversial. I am a pro-homosexual person (even though I have a kid and a partner) I believe that every right a heterosexual has, a homosexual has. Love knows no boundaries, and this law is unconstitutional. It rapes homosexuals of their freedom of choice (Amendment Number #?) and suppresses them. It's bad enough we have stupid organisations like the KKK and God Hates Fags, let alone a politician coming involved. Of course, politicians love sticking their noses into that one book and declaring our ways should follow a book that has been edited throughout time to suit the Church. Because now, apparently, it is a sin to not recycle. Where did Jesus say that? Technically speaking it's not a sin to be a homosexual but to get involved in homosexual acts (yet it's ok for priests to molest young boys? Isn't that a homosexual act?)
I don't know about some states in America, but I do know that England legalises gay marriage, but Australia also condemns gay marriage and yet, a gay couple is recognised by Centrelink? (The social welfare office).
No one should be judged on their sexual orientation, as like nobody should be judged on their skin colour. I think most politicians have the Bible shoved up their ass way too far. /no offence.

[Hellions]

u-n9Zdf19-c

WOOOOOO

[Cookie Monster]

Thanks you, Alejandro. ;) I am very pro-homosexuality and find it appalling that there are still laws violating the rights of gays. Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. This is one very big step in the right direction.

[Jen]

I think this is wonderful news!

As a bisexual woman, with a large amount of gay and lesbian friends, I was seriously disappointed in my fellow Californians for ever voting this ridiculous amendment into being in the first place.

But that being said, the National Organization for Marriage can go fuck themselves. All their scare tactics and hate mongering to convince people that being gay is wrong is a fucking joke.

[Todd]

Wonderful news. Hopefully it will be legal in all 50 states soon.

Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up.

[Rather Red]

Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up.

Word.

Yeah Prop Hate was some obvious prejudiced bullshit.

[Ryo Hazuki]

I'm of the opinion that most of the world has the potential to love both genders and it's just social corruption/some religious views that keeps us from realizing it.

I won't ever consider myself one of the either and I call myself Bisexual for lack of a better term for it. I don't like labels in general. We love who we love, whichever gender.

In any case this is great news because that bias bull shit was pissing me off. Let's all hope for great things to come out of the other states too.

[Luke]

Wonderful news. Hopefully it will be legal in all 50 states soon.

Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up.

This.

[esaul17]

Wonderful news. Hopefully it will be legal in all 50 states soon.

Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up.

Agreed

[Cookie Monster]

I'd like to add a post here that Mark from LPL made.

I love my girlfriend and I'm not gay of course but you can't just all of a sudden screw someone's rights over like that. The good thing about the US law is that it applies equally to everyone. OR SHOULD. We're SLOWLY fixing that throughout history. Slavery, women's rights, all that got fixed...now the next thing is for homosexuals to be able to get married. Thankfully it's getting handled. I also see a huge problem with REVERSE affirmative action right now in this country but that's another issue itself. You can't just pick and choose who gets certain rights - that's stupid. So I fully support this overturn.

I wish the Bible wasn't so intertwined with the Government. If we could get it untangled then we wouldn't have such problems like this. Oh well. I know it says separation of church and state but I think no one takes that shit seriously. It's never been fully like that and I don't think it ever will be no matter how much I want it to be.

This is NOT a state issue. If people wouldn't vote to make it illegal then the government wouldn't have a problem. It should be legal, there's nothing else to say about it. It's plain and simple discrimination if it's illegal. It's SEX, let people fucking do it however they want. There's some crazy people out there, I really do NOT care. If it's not for you then don't do it, fuck your girlfriend instead! NO reason to discriminate.

Religion is a joke. People rely on a book to tell them exactly how to live their life. They spend hours in a church praying for what they want to happen to them after they die, lol WTF. Just live your life. Obviously other people feel differently but I really don't care what happens to me after I die. I really think you just go to the ground. People that are Christians or say they are have SO many double standards just like Jen said. They'll say gay people are going to hell but they had premarital sex in the back of their car at age 18 without protection on birth control and say they're perfect under the eyes of God. Are you fucking kidding me?

If there is a God I highly doubt he gives a flying fuck what sex you had sex with. There's so much more to life than just that. Christians are telling me someone can be like a relief worker and help people out their entire lives, always putting others first, but because they are homosexual they're going to hell. What the fuck. That is the most fucked up thing I've ever heard. I have a huge problem with religion.

[Todd]

I will never understand the right wing's obsession with what other people do in their private bedrooms. It wasn't until 2003 that it was even legal in Texas for two men to engage in sex (see Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)). WHY? Why does it matter to anyone else if 2 guys fuck each other in the privacy of their own home? If they're both consenting adults, why should anyone else give a damn? I will never, ever understand the fascination these people have with what others do in their own life.

And the hypocrisy of them is endless. Take Newt Gingrich for example. Today he released a statement talking about how marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and this will ruin the sanctity of marriage, blah blah blah. Don't know Newt's marital history? Well, let me share that with you. He's currently on his third wife. His third wife was his mistress he was fucking while married to his second wife. So what's more sacred? Being married 3 times, including cheating on one of your wives? Or two men or women who love each other getting married and staying faithful to them for the rest of their lives? And I think what sickens me more is that besides Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who are just preaching to the choir, why aren't any of the incompetent assholes in the mainstream media calling them out on their hypocrisy? Newt doesn't miss a chance to get his fat ass in front of a camera, why won't anyone call him out on it? The right wing are a bunch of hypocrites and the media is worthless.

[Ryo Hazuki]

Mark has some great points.

Mark and Todd are spot on. I whole-heartedly agree with them both.

[Dean]

I'd like to add a post here that Mark from LPL made.

I love my girlfriend and I'm not gay of course but you can't just all of a sudden screw someone's rights over like that. The good thing about the US law is that it applies equally to everyone. OR SHOULD. We're SLOWLY fixing that throughout history. Slavery, women's rights, all that got fixed...now the next thing is for homosexuals to be able to get married. Thankfully it's getting handled. I also see a huge problem with REVERSE affirmative action right now in this country but that's another issue itself. You can't just pick and choose who gets certain rights - that's stupid. So I fully support this overturn.

I wish the Bible wasn't so intertwined with the Government. If we could get it untangled then we wouldn't have such problems like this. Oh well. I know it says separation of church and state but I think no one takes that shit seriously. It's never been fully like that and I don't think it ever will be no matter how much I want it to be.

This is NOT a state issue. If people wouldn't vote to make it illegal then the government wouldn't have a problem. It should be legal, there's nothing else to say about it. It's plain and simple discrimination if it's illegal. It's SEX, let people fucking do it however they want. There's some crazy people out there, I really do NOT care. If it's not for you then don't do it, fuck your girlfriend instead! NO reason to discriminate.

Religion is a joke. People rely on a book to tell them exactly how to live their life. They spend hours in a church praying for what they want to happen to them after they die, lol WTF. Just live your life. Obviously other people feel differently but I really don't care what happens to me after I die. I really think you just go to the ground. People that are Christians or say they are have SO many double standards just like Jen said. They'll say gay people are going to hell but they had premarital sex in the back of their car at age 18 without protection on birth control and say they're perfect under the eyes of God. Are you fucking kidding me?

If there is a God I highly doubt he gives a flying fuck what sex you had sex with. There's so much more to life than just that. Christians are telling me someone can be like a relief worker and help people out their entire lives, always putting others first, but because they are homosexual they're going to hell. What the fuck. That is the most fucked up thing I've ever heard. I have a huge problem with religion.
I thought that was pretty smart for three paragraphs or so, then it sort of turned into an immature rant.

In any case, I'm happy for the peope who were against it.

[F-ck Casey]

C'mon, let's get someone in this thread that was for Prop 8. I've always been curious as to how a caveman's brain works.

[Jeff]

BUT HAVENT YOU GUIZE HEARD FROM AHNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER?


Gay Marriage should be between a man and a woman :lol:

But in all seriousness, even though I am part of a Mormon church (sorta), it doesn't really matter to me whether gay people do get married. It is their choice. People may have their thoughts on it, but all in all, there is nothing from stopping homosexuality occurring anywhere in the world. If they want to be married, then more power to them. It's not keeping me from going to sleep at night, or eating my cornflakes in the morning. The Prop. 8 thing is a definite issue on keeping church away from state, and Prop. 8 seems to violate the very first amendment of the bill of rights. For those who aren't American who are reading this, the first amendment to the Bill of Rights is -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. and last time I checked, saying I Do is free speech, no matter what sexual orientation you are and Prop.8 seemed to try to violate this, by preventing gays and lesbians to say I Do at the altar.

[Hellions]

I thought that was pretty smart for three paragraphs or so, then it sort of turned into an immature rant.

In any case, I'm happy for the peope who were against it.

"Mark from LPL"

"Immature rant"

*Regarding homosexuals


I wouldn't have even had to read the post. :lol:

[minuteforce]

I cheered loudly on the inside when I read about this earlier today. :)

[Harlz]

Saweet. Need the same here.

[Timothy]

The sad thing is, the public voted Prop 8 into effect. In California. California!

We have a long way to go.

[Jen]

"Mark from LPL"

"Immature rant"

*Regarding homosexuals


I wouldn't have even had to read the post. :lol:

I actually have to contradict you on this, and tell you that he supports the overturning of Prop 8. I love you Adam, but for christ's sake, get over it.

[Louis]

This is definitely a step in the right direction. I am very glad that this was overturned, because I believe that everyone should have equal rights regardless of their sexual orientation. If two men or two women want to spend the rest of their lives together married, then who are we to stop them? They are people too.

Now, here's where things get controversial, and I just want to bring this point up because I think it's interesting.

I think the biggest reason why people don't believe gays or lesbians should marry is because the institution of marriage, for a *long* time, was solely a religious institution. Think about it. It wasn't really until the past century where marriage became not only religious, but civil. Dictionaries now do the right thing in defining marriage in both senses. Via dictionary.com:


1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.


3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

However, the argument amongst most conservatives is that (and obviously so) marriage is purely a religious institution. And being a purely religious institution, marriage is truly between a man and a woman (keep in mind that I don't believe that before anyone starts hating on me :lol:). So, the debate, I don't think, should be around whether or not gays are allowed to marry, but more so to define what marriage is. Is it a legal union, or a religious one? It's up to you guys to discuss that.

Personally, I believe it's both. If you're truly a religious person, then fine, good thing that most (if not all) religions are pretty much together on that whole straight-marriage only thing. You should have no problem (unless you're gay, in which case you can rely on the legal aspect and not give a fuck about what your holy scripture says). If you're not religious, then that shouldn't matter as well. You can get married to pretty much whoever you want.

I guess it's just that most right-wings tend to be fairly religious, but right-wings also tend to stick to the Constitution as it is. And wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who once wrote in a letter that the 1st amendment creates a wall of separation between church and state? So, I would think it makes sense that if you're a politically active conservative, you would acknowledge this. But, that doesn't happen. It seems as though a lot of conservatives tend to implement their religious beliefs into their actions politically, which violates the very essence of the separation of church and state. And I don't really know if many of those people know their history, but there's a good reason why governing institutions stopped being religious and became civil. By doing so, you eliminate the persecution and discrimination (however unintentional) against others who don't follow the same religion as the Church. A civil, political government is intended to give everyone equal rights and practice whichever religion they please, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Many people seem to forget about that infringement part.

That's just my two cents. I suppose the rest is up to you discuss. Like Todd says, I hope that all 50 states follow and allow for gay marriage, because they are people too and should not be deprived of such an important right that many Americans and people around the world value today.

[Todd]

The simple solution is to get the government out of the marriage business. They should do civil unions for everybody, gay or straight. The civil union has all the benefits of marriage (tax, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, etc) but it's not called marriage. Strike any mention of the word "marriage" from the law. Then, if you want to get married, which is purely a symbolic, religious thing, then you go do that. But make them two completely separate things.

That way, it's equal for everybody, and no one can bitch that the government is ruining traditional marriage because the government has nothing to do with marriage.

[Louis]

The simple solution is to get the government out of the marriage business. They should do civil unions for everybody, gay or straight. The civil union has all the benefits of marriage (tax, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, etc) but it's not called marriage. Strike any mention of the word "marriage" from the law. Then, if you want to get married, which is purely a symbolic, religious thing, then you go do that. But make them two completely separate things.

That way, it's equal for everybody, and no one can bitch that the government is ruining traditional marriage because the government has nothing to do with marriage.

I dig. Simple.

[Ryo Hazuki]

Edit. Instead of that pie chart I'll post this quote.





Here are the relevant facts Walker finds:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages."

Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come

Seriously, people should be allowed to marry any gender. Transsexual, Male, Female, whatever. it's not really anyone's choice to deny that freedom.

[Benjamin]

Wonderful news. Hopefully it will be legal in all 50 states soon.

Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up.

Exactly! I'm a guy that does think it's somewhat weird but I'm still for people that want to marry the same sex. It's their right! Why do so many people give a fuck?

[adam.posey]

Thanks you, Alejandro. ;) I am very pro-homosexuality and find it appalling that there are still laws violating the rights of gays. Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. This is one very big step in the right direction.

This is a step in the best direction, but this is not the change we should hope for and work towards. The erosion and eventual dismissal of bigotry and prejudice in our collective psyche is a slow, energy intensive, process and it cannot be doled out, nor created by, the court system in our country.

Change begins from the bottom up, and we should keep that in mind as we consider decisions such as these.

[Hellions]

The sad thing is, the public voted Prop 8 into effect. In California. California!

We have a long way to go.

Yeah, the problem, and the disturbing thing is that this was put into law in the first place. I can *almost* understand not choosing to "legalize" or honor gay marriage, but completely dropping the coy shit and outright actively seeking to BAN it? I can't find the words. I was blown away then and absolutely shocked when it passed.

[Gloomy Mushroom]

Just because you want to get married doesn't always mean you want to procreate though. Marriage is defined as a love so extreme between two people that they legally show their love. No one said about what sexual orientation you had to be to get married.

[Louis]

It's funny, because supporters of Prop 8 say that the law was supposed to encourage procreation.

Which is absolute bullshit, because heterosexual marriage was never threatened, and people can fuck and make babies whenever they want to. It's as if the supporters are saying, "Because we passed this law, people will think, "Oh good, gays can't marry, let's fuck and have a kid!" and do so." It's amazing how stupid some people are.

[Hellions]

It's great to see that now that this has been overturned, those who voted for it in the first place feel that THEIR rights are violated and their votes mean nothing. Not to mention the politicians and groups claiming they're throwing out what "The American people" want. Whether you're left, right, democrat or republican, statements like "What the American people want" or "America is tired of" or any use of the American people as a whole to make a point should be stricken from use. It's purely a statement to throw in regardless of the percentage it actually represents (52% being in favor of Prop 8 in California. Not exactly "The American People" if you ask me.) to make your cause sound relevant and right. They're complaining about a system of checks and balances, making sure laws are just and don't step on people's rights, as it's SUPPOSED to be done according to our constitution. Conservatives are always throwing out talk about "our forefathers" and what "our forefathers" would have wanted, but when it comes to the homo sex getting married, fuck that shit, right? The law violates rights, and that's plain and simple fact. Fact, as determined by a judge who certainly would know a lot more about the constitution than the shit kicking bible-thumpers who claim it's being thrown out the window. Debating it is completely pathetic. Then again, they've never allowed themselves to be held back by things like "facts" amirite?

If you want to be full-on high school level basic about it, you can think back to the principle of "Tyranny of the majority". It's the concept that just because a majority vote is made in favor of something, it doesn't have to be validated if it violates the rights of the minority or is otherwise inhumane. These are simple concepts that are being thrown out the window by ignorant, stubborn, manipulative people.

[Vriska]

Hells yeah I'm so glad that California is making progress. The appeals process has me worried though. Who thinks this is gonna make it to the Supreme Court?


Also, WTH is it with the conservatives getting all "The people's voice have been ignored!" and crap. 52% is technically bigger than 48%, but it's only two measly percent over evenly tied. Its not even statistically a majority. Why the heck is it so easy to modify the California Constitution to start with? And why do these people not understand what checks and balances is?

[Hellions]

Hells yeah I'm so glad that California is making progress. The appeals process has me worried though. Who thinks this is gonna make it to the Supreme Court?


Also, WTH is it with the conservatives getting all "The people's voice have been ignored!" and crap. 52% is technically bigger than 48%, but it's only two measly percent over evenly tied. Its not even statistically a majority. Why the heck is it so easy to modify the California Constitution to start with? And why do these people not understand what checks and balances is?

As I said, claiming something is what "the people" want is purely strategic deception.

And if this makes it to the supreme court and is reversed, and the law is put back in place, I've officially given up. Mark these words.

[Louis]

Hells yeah I'm so glad that California is making progress. The appeals process has me worried though. Who thinks this is gonna make it to the Supreme Court?


Also, WTH is it with the conservatives getting all "The people's voice have been ignored!" and crap. 52% is technically bigger than 48%, but it's only two measly percent over evenly tied. Its not even statistically a majority. Why the heck is it so easy to modify the California Constitution to start with? And why do these people not understand what checks and balances is?

Of course it'll make it to the Supreme Court. It's going to get appealed now, of course, and go on to the 9th Circuit. No matter what the result, there is no doubt that it will be appealed again, and the Supreme Court will most likely take this ruling considering it's so controversial. If the Supreme Court knows what it's doing, it will do as the judge in California and declare shit like Prop 8 unconstitutional across the United States. If not, I will have lost faith in the Supreme Court. My faith has already been shaken considering the shit they pulled with the Citizens United case. That was fucking bullshit.

[Ryo Hazuki]

There's a good chance that the Supreme Court will rule that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional via Kennedy and a 5-4ths majority decision in it's favor.

This is basically what you have..

4 Conservatives
4 Liberals (or Democrats)
1. Swinger

Kennedy is the swing vote but it's very doubtful that he will vote in favor of a ban due to his past on this subject.

I don't really see how the court could get away with approving of a ban really..

[Louis]

Well, if the court got away with that Citizens United case, I wouldn't be surprised if they got away with declaring a ban on gay marriage constitutional!

[Ryo Hazuki]

No, I wouldn't be surprised either.

I'm just giving the facts and trying to be logical about it all..

It's just that statistically there is more of a chance that a ban is declared unconstitutional..

though we all know that sometimes statistics and facts seem not to matter...

eh, it's very depressing.

[Todd]

There's a good chance that the Supreme Court will rule that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional via Kennedy and a 5-4ths majority decision in it's favor.

This is basically what you have..

4 Conservatives
4 Liberals (or Democrats)
1. Swinger

Kennedy is the swing vote but it's very doubtful that he will vote in favor of a ban due to his past on this subject.

I don't really see how the court could get away with approving of a ban really..

The problem is when it gets to the Supreme Court. It might take a few years to get there. There's no guarantee Obama will be re-elected in 2012, and the variable is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She's a 77 year old cancer survivor. She says she's not going to retire anytime soon, but given her age and health, who knows how long she'll be around for. If a Republican has to replace her, then we're back to the conservative majority on the court. I hope Ginsburg will change her mind and retire sometime in 2011 or early 2012 to give Obama a chance to appoint her replacement, especially knowing Prop 8 is going to get up to the SC.

[Theazninvasion68]

Watch: Overturned (current), Appealed (soon to happen), Overturned.. etc.


:lol: I can't wait to see what happens, as I'm looking forward to the appeal.

[Saoberlinwaves]

Completely agree that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, GOP has got it wrong here, but the method used to legalize it is just as unconstitutional as the Proposition itself... Complete disregard for the Rule of Law, the legislative process... Some backbencher judge overturned a Law that was voted on by the people of the State, and whether or not you agree with the Law this particular judge did not have the right to overturn this ruling. Sets a horrible precedent, we can't let these activist judges destroy the legislative process. They're doing the same thing with the EPA, trying to slip in these regulations behind our backs because they know we'd never allow our elected officials to get them through

[Hellions]

Completely agree that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, GOP has got it wrong here, but the method used to legalize it is just as unconstitutional as the Proposition itself... Complete disregard for the Rule of Law, the legislative process... Some backbencher judge overturned a Law that was voted on by the people of the State, and whether or not you agree with the Law this particular judge did not have the right to overturn this ruling. Sets a horrible precedent, we can't let these activist judges destroy the legislative process. They're doing the same thing with the EPA, trying to slip in these regulations behind our backs because they know we'd never allow our elected officials to get them through

Balance of powers, tyranny of the majority, etc. simple concepts.

[Jen]

Completely agree that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, GOP has got it wrong here, but the method used to legalize it is just as unconstitutional as the Proposition itself... Complete disregard for the Rule of Law, the legislative process... Some backbencher judge overturned a Law that was voted on by the people of the State, and whether or not you agree with the Law this particular judge did not have the right to overturn this ruling. Sets a horrible precedent, we can't let these activist judges destroy the legislative process. They're doing the same thing with the EPA, trying to slip in these regulations behind our backs because they know we'd never allow our elected officials to get them through


That's not entirely true. The Constitution is the ultimate law of our country, and it trumps anything at a state level. The fact that Prop 8 was voted into law violates that rule. You can argue all you want that it violates the will of the people and what not, but in the end it still violates Federal law.

[Saoberlinwaves]

That's not entirely true. The Constitution is the ultimate law of our country, and it trumps anything at a state level. The fact that Prop 8 was voted into law violates that rule. You can argue all you want that it violates the will of the people and what not, but in the end it still violates Federal law.

Article 1 of the Constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

Congress makes the laws. Not the judiciary. Activist judges don't have the right to determine federal laws and impose them on the states. Congress, however, does.

[Jen]

Article 1 of the Constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

Congress makes the laws. Not the judiciary. Activist judges don't have the right to determine federal laws and impose them on the states. Congress, however, does.

Congress makes the laws, true, but its the Judicial system that upholds and determines how they are implemented. That's basic High School Government course material. Judge Walker is a Federally appointed Judge.

[Todd]

Article 1 of the Constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

Congress makes the laws. Not the judiciary. Activist judges don't have the right to determine federal laws and impose them on the states. Congress, however, does.

So by that logic, prop 8 is unconstitutional, because the California voters, who voted for it, are not Congress. The judiciary is not making laws in this instance, they are getting rid of a law that is clearly unconstitutional. That is the entire point of having 3 branches of government - checks and balances.

[Hellions]

Article 1 of the Constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"

Congress makes the laws. Not the judiciary. Activist judges don't have the right to determine federal laws and impose them on the states. Congress, however, does.

Judiciary branch isn't making or determining any law. They're cancelling out one which has been deemed unconstitutional, which is why they're there.

[Derek The Infamous]

What we need to stop doing is letting a single, solitary religion influence the entire rule of law here in the United States. If people actually exercised the constitution (i.e. separation of church and state), homosexuals would've been allowed to marry in this country years ago. And anyone with a brain can agree this is true.

[lpboarder]

The simple solution is to get the government out of the marriage business. They should do civil unions for everybody, gay or straight. The civil union has all the benefits of marriage (tax, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, etc) but it's not called marriage. Strike any mention of the word "marriage" from the law. Then, if you want to get married, which is purely a symbolic, religious thing, then you go do that. But make them two completely separate things.

That way, it's equal for everybody, and no one can bitch that the government is ruining traditional marriage because the government has nothing to do with marriage.

I actually like this better than listening and defining what is or is not marriage. Marriage is a failed commodity in this country anyway so trying to protect it seems like a ludicrous effort on anyone's part. It's a shame it takes these kinds of issues to get people off their lazy asses and vote.

[Cookie Monster]

Didn't think it was necessary to create an entirely new thread, so here's some similar news. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been declared unconstitutional as well.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-judge-military-gay-ban,0,5136326.story

[Benjamin]

Didn't think it was necessary to create an entirely new thread, so here's some similar news. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been declared unconstitutional as well.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-judge-military-gay-ban,0,5136326.story

And rightfully so.

[Jeff]

Didn't think it was necessary to create an entirely new thread, so here's some similar news. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been declared unconstitutional as well.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-judge-military-gay-ban,0,5136326.story

It took them HOW MANY YEARS TO FIGURE THAT OUT?

[Louis]

Judiciary branch isn't making or determining any law. They're cancelling out one which has been deemed unconstitutional, which is why they're there.

And in fact, they're not even canceling a law. The judiciary branch is only there to interpret the Constitution and say what is unconstitutional or unconstitutional. The legislative / executive can react to that as they wish.