Prop 8 upheld by CA Supreme Court 6-1 - Page 9 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #81 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 05:01 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
jdc1244's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2003
Vehicle: 1991 300 SE
Location: Lakeland, Florida
Posts: 18,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
<sigh>

The ruling upheld the constitutional merits of the proposition, not its content – the same court upheld the right of gays to marry.

Quote:
the pickle is that 18000 gays have the right and all of a sudden, millions more do not.. this won't stand for long. it can't.
Correct – this is heading to the SCOTUS; with its new Latina justice.

Quote:
in any event, I applaud the court for respecting the most powerful voice of the people - the ballot. The people have spoken. The majority disagree with the minority. The end.
As FTL alluded to: there’s little point of a Constitution protecting the rights of the citizens of California (or the United States, for that matter) if one’s rights can be overturned by a simple majority vote. Would one support the First Amendment being revoked by a simple majority? Should the right of a given newspaper to publish be revoked by a simple majority?

My thanks to Budd and Stu, btw – well done.
jdc1244 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #82 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 05:03 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mzsmbs's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1972 Mercedes 250 (/8) W114/M130
Location: on a high bank of a creek
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs210 View Post
Curious...until the US Sct. decides that homosexuality is a suspect class that is entitled to constitutional protection, the determination of any state supreme court as to what its constitution says (or does not say) is not subject to further review.

I said I was surprised by the ruling, to me the largest surprise was that it was 6-1.
well, the supremes can definitely rule on this too...

to tell you the truth, the numbers aren't really that surprising. the court did what it's supposed to but this creates a pickle i spoke of earlier. this is not over by any means.



in political asylum
mzsmbs is offline  
post #83 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 05:05 PM
BenzWorld Newbie
 
Date registered: May 2009
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As far as I can tell, all our rights are equal. Any man, gay or straight, has the right to marry any woman, gay or straight. If a man really likes his Mercedes, he still can't marry it, because it's not a marriage.
As far as fiscal rights and so forth, domestic partners laws guarantee equality.

Am I missing something?
lohogan is offline  
post #84 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 05:19 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Check Codes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Posts: 31,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc1244 View Post
<sigh>

The ruling upheld the constitutional merits of the proposition, not its content – the same court upheld the right of gays to marry.



Correct – this is heading to the SCOTUS; with its new Latina justice.


As FTL alluded to: there’s little point of a Constitution protecting the rights of the citizens of California (or the United States, for that matter) if one’s rights can be overturned by a simple majority vote. Would one support the First Amendment being revoked by a simple majority? Should the right of a given newspaper to publish be revoked by a simple majority?

My thanks to Budd and Stu, btw – well done.
People keep raising this appeal argument, but it's the CA sct interpreting the CA constitution. Anyone care to explain the FEDERAL constitutional claim here, since there is no broader (federal) right that the ruling has restricted? Even in its more liberal constructs the USSct has not shown a habit of reviewing state constitutional claims that have no basis in the federal constitution. Until and unless the federal constitution is interpreted to include the right to gay marriage, there is nothing for the US Sct to review. That's a moot argument.

Beyond that red herring, though, it seems there is a balance that has to be struck -- somewhere. One can't simply claim "this is a right and I'm a citizen so I get it." What's the standard then? That fourteen people can claim it and control the majority? And if we're going to decide that the standard isn't one of each gender, how do we logically limit it to one of either gender? If marriage is a "right" that must be extended to all citizens simply because a self-defined group claims it, then it may be on the way to becoming a meaningless "right".

Last edited by Check Codes; 05-26-2009 at 05:24 PM.
Check Codes is offline  
post #85 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 05:23 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Check Codes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Posts: 31,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzsmbs View Post
well, the supremes can definitely rule on this too...

to tell you the truth, the numbers aren't really that surprising. the court did what it's supposed to but this creates a pickle i spoke of earlier. this is not over by any means.
I agree it's a pickle, but it was a decision destined to make a lot of people unhappy however they ruled.

And the USSCT can't really rule on gay marriage, at least in this context, because that question would not properly come before them if cert were sought. Their charter (if you will) is to rule on "cases and controversies" and the case/controversy here seems to be (I've not read the full ruling yet, not having any insomnia problems lately) whether the amendment process in CA is legitimate.
Check Codes is offline  
post #86 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 05:50 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
jdc1244's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2003
Vehicle: 1991 300 SE
Location: Lakeland, Florida
Posts: 18,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
People keep raising this appeal argument, but it's the CA sct interpreting the CA constitution. Anyone care to explain the FEDERAL constitutional claim here, since there is no broader (federal) right that the ruling has restricted? Even in its more liberal constructs the USSct has not shown a habit of reviewing state constitutional claims that have no basis in the federal constitution. Until and unless the federal constitution is interpreted to include the right to gay marriage, there is nothing for the US Sct to review. That's a moot argument.
A lawsuit has already been filed in U.S. District Court arguing that the decision to uphold Prop 8 while at the same time allowing the 18,000 marriages to stand violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process. These rulings very often end up before the SCOTUS.

Quote:
Beyond that red herring, though, it seems there is a balance that has to be struck -- somewhere. One can't simply claim "this is a right and I'm a citizen so I get it." What's the standard then? That fourteen people can claim it and control the majority? And if we're going to decide that the standard isn't one of each gender, how do we logically limit it to one of either gender? If marriage is a "right" that must be extended to all citizens simply because a self-defined group claims it, then it may be on the way to becoming a meaningless "right".
Marriage is not a ‘right,’ equal protection and due process are – gays can be denied a marriage license because they don’t meet an age requirement, for example; but not because they’re gay.
jdc1244 is offline  
post #87 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 06:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Why is the gov involved in marriage? I think it is because of it's origin as a religiously sanctioned estate that results in contractually commingled assets.

Wouldn't it be better to separate contracts between individuals from religious ceremony?

There could be a boilerplate statement of responsibilities and privileges and so forth. The contract needn't be limited to two people nor to any particular sex role. Just a contract concerning assets and liabilities and agreed-upon responsibilities.

We're already partly there, just change the name of the contract from marriage to something innocuous so that we don't get all wrapped-up in a useless, pointless, and ridiculous fight over who controls the cultural taboos.

Marriage could then be defined by the shaman of your choice according to the wishes of your favorite deities.

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #88 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 06:10 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Why is the gov involved in marriage? I think it is because of it's origin as a religiously sanctioned estate that results in contractually commingled assets.

Wouldn't it be better to separate contracts between individuals from religious ceremony?

There could be a boilerplate statement of responsibilities and privileges and so forth. The contract needn't be limited to two people nor to any particular sex role. Just a contract concerning assets and liabilities and agreed-upon responsibilities.

We're already partly there, just change the name of the contract from marriage to something innocuous so that we don't get all wrapped-up in a useless, pointless, and ridiculous fight over who controls the cultural taboos.

Marriage could then be defined by the shaman of your choice according to the wishes of your favorite deities.
BINGO! I was just fixin' to post up that same point
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #89 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 06:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
BINGO! I was just fixin' to post up that same point
One of us is going to have to change our position. We cannot have this confluence. Why don't you be the bad guy for a change?

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #90 of 267 (permalink) Old 05-26-2009, 06:30 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
jdc1244's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2003
Vehicle: 1991 300 SE
Location: Lakeland, Florida
Posts: 18,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
By the powers vested in me by the State of Florida: I pronounce you Husband and Wife. You many now screw the bride.

Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to separate contracts between individuals from religious ceremony?
It can also be argued it violates Separation doctrine. For those of us who have been though a divorce we indeed know it’s a contract; one would wonder why gays would want part of that…but I digress.

It is semantics – but it’s not feasible to have two identical laws/contracts with different names. And civil unions and marriage must be identical to ensure equal protection and full faith and credit. I was married by a JP – I was just as married as someone married by the preacher – believe me.

The simple fact is ‘defense of marriage’ has no basis in logic or law. Gays will indeed overcome, someday.
jdc1244 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    You be the Supreme Court and decided, Yea or Nay....... Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 3 04-21-2009 09:39 AM
    2nd Amendment upheld by the Supreme Court! Bruce R. Off-Topic 112 07-01-2008 06:06 AM
    Proof of ID to vote upheld by Supreme Court 430 Off-Topic 20 04-28-2008 09:54 PM
    Mann Coulter doesn't like new Supreme Court nominee, so he must be OK FeelTheLove Off-Topic 9 07-20-2005 07:13 PM
    Very significant ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court GeeS Off-Topic 11 02-02-2005 10:24 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome