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This topic has been archived.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

#25 tight lines

tight lines

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 631
  • Reputation: 88
HUDDLER

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:20 PM

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.

#26 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,571
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:30 PM

brown rush? sounds like something that falls under southcak's jurisdiction.


A very huge, massive brown rush.

#27 Jangler

Jangler

    oddly perched

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 49,826
  • Reputation: 10,348
HUDDLER

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:30 PM

booooooooox2

#28 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,571
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 04 August 2010 - 06:32 PM

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.


Believe me, if I ever get married again, the gov will not be involved.

#29 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,030
  • Reputation: 443
HUDDLER

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:21 PM

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.


taxes.

#30 ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

ItsNotGonnaBeAlright

    Insane Racist Moron

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,569
  • Reputation: 2,254
HUDDLER

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:34 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.

#31 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • Joined: 22-January 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,247
  • Reputation: 4,032
HUDDLER

Posted 04 August 2010 - 07:36 PM

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

#32 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,030
  • Reputation: 443
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,192
  • Reputation: 1,566
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,192
  • Reputation: 1,566
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,926
  • Reputation: 3,141
HUDDLER

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

    oddly perched

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 49,826
  • Reputation: 10,348
HUDDLER

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.