Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Prop 8 unconstitutional, overturned


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
241 replies to this topic

#31 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,247 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:36 PM

Gays should be able to ruin their lives like everyone else.

#32 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,001 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:40 PM

By the by, it's interesting that its been declared unconstitutional. So far as I can tell, there is no mention of marriage in the California state constitution except the provision in Prop 8 (7.5). Besides that, according to the state constitution, no entity of state government should recognize marriage in any way. Having not read the decision by the judge, how do you declare an elected clause of a state constitution unconstitutional when there is no contradicting clause in said state constitution?

Also, any involvement by the federal government in marriage is a violation of the constitution by way of the tenth ammendment as there is no mention of marriage in the constitution and therefore marriage should remain solely a power of the states.


wouldn't outlawing a type of marriage constitute "recognizing" marriage?

#33 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,297 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:38 PM

By the by, it's interesting that its been declared unconstitutional. So far as I can tell, there is no mention of marriage in the California state constitution except the provision in Prop 8 (7.5). Besides that, according to the state constitution, no entity of state government should recognize marriage in any way. Having not read the decision by the judge, how do you declare an elected clause of a state constitution unconstitutional when there is no contradicting clause in said state constitution?

Also, any involvement by the federal government in marriage is a violation of the constitution by way of the tenth ammendment as there is no mention of marriage in the constitution and therefore marriage should remain solely a power of the states.


Since it was a federal judge, I would imagine that he believed that singling out gays saying they can't get married is a violation of either the equal protection/priviledges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. The 10th amendment in effect gives the power of regulating marriage to the states, but the 14th says it has to be applied equally.

So it comes back to the same question. Is state recognized marriage a right or priviledge? And I still think the easiest way to fix the problem is to end state recognition of marriage and make it a purely religious thing.

#34 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,297 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:39 PM

wouldn't outlawing a type of marriage constitute "recognizing" marriage?


No, but it might constitute applying the laws unequally.

#35 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,419 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 08:51 PM

States vs Feds has ramped up quite a bit. A slippery slope is usually not recognized until you are rolling down the mountain.

#36 Jangler

Jangler

    that funky feeling to get you through

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,821 posts

Posted 04 August 2010 - 09:05 PM

Also, any involvement by the federal government in marriage is a violation of the constitution by way of the tenth ammendment as there is no mention of marriage in the constitution and therefore marriage should remain solely a power of the states.


Healthcare says The 10th amendment is now irrelevant, so it's all fair game. The Government can tell anybody anything on how to run their lives.

#37 Starscream

Starscream

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:17 AM

I still wonder why the us government is involved in a religious institution like marriage to begin with. This is something in my eyes that should fall under the separation of church and state.


Churches in California aren't going to be forced to hold gay marriages, just the churches who choose to do so can. As long as you go to the courthouse, pay a fee, fill out the paperwork, and get a license you can be married without going to a church. So until the gov't begins to force churches to perform gay marriages, it's not breaking the separation of church and state.

#38 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,297 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 05:54 AM

This is ironic :)

The ruling puts Walker, a Republican, at the forefront of the gay-marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.

He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay-rights activists



#39 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 06:02 AM

But, an openly gay Judge ruling prop 8 is unconstitutional....nope, no agenda there...


wow

#40 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,662 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 06:36 AM

Where's the opinion...I want to read the grounds of unconstitutionality.

#41 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,662 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 06:51 AM

You do realize this federal judge by this decision has dictated all states must allow gay marriages or be considered unconstitutional. Recognition of other states laws is an afterthought.

#42 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 24,141 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 06:58 AM

You do realize this federal judge by this decision has dictated all states must allow gay marriages or be considered unconstitutional. Recognition of other states laws is an afterthought.




OMGZ!!!! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

#43 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,001 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 07:02 AM

You do realize this federal judge by this decision has dictated all states must allow gay marriages or be considered unconstitutional. Recognition of other states laws is an afterthought.


they don't have to recognize it, but they can't ban it outright.

#44 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,662 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 07:05 AM

they don't have to recognize it, but they can't ban it outright.


If recognition involves anything that's beneficial to a married couple over an unrecognized "married" couple, it will be grounds for a suit. Regardless of that particular state's law.

#45 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,125 posts

Posted 05 August 2010 - 07:22 AM

If recognition involves anything that's beneficial to a married couple over an unrecognized "married" couple, it will be grounds for a suit. Regardless of that particular state's law.


good. it's the same thing that had to happen with interracial marriage.

but it will go to the SCOTUS and be overturned by the same 5 who just ruled that corporations have more human rights than you.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com