Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

Irrelevant to Constitutionality.

Juxtaposed to the expressed opinions of the founders of America that opposed "democracy" which is based upon a "majority" vote.

I'm unsure of what Article IV Section 4 have to do with the discussion but Article IV Section 1 and Section 2 is certainly relevant if we address DOMA Section 2.

While Congress, under Article IV Section 1 can determine how State records are to be documented (e.g. birth certificate information)under Section 2 a State cannot deny the recognition of a marriage authorized by the laws of another State as it would deny the "privileges" previously granted to the couple nor can Congress establish this denial of these privileges under the full faith and credit clause of Section 1 with federal law (e.g. DOMA Section 2).

The Supreme Court did not rule on Prop 8 per se as it merely established that there was no case to decide because the defendants of Prop 8 had no standing. That Supreme Court decision resulted in a default decision for the Plaintiff's as they case was unopposed.

The Supreme Court in it's DOMA decision established that the denial of recognition of same-sex marriage by the Federal government violated the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment. Whether "gays are a protected class" is irrelevant because as individuals their Rights were being violated. Remember that in Loving v Virginia that "blacks" were not a protected class either but the decision still prohibited denial of marriage based upon racial criteria.

Under the 10th Amendment the States or the People do have the "power" to determine what "marriage" is but their "power" is limited by the US Constitution. They don't have any "power" to violate the provisions of the US Constitution.

Neither the States or the People have the "power" to violated the US Constitution.

We should note that polygamy (bigamy) was made a federal criminal offence in 1862 under Republican President Lincoln and it was done exclusively for Christian religious reasons related to the opposition of Mormon religious beliefs and practices that endorsed plural marriages by men.

http://user.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/chron.htm

It is interesting that whenever "marriage" doesn't fit the traditional "Christian" definition of marriage it's the Republicans that oppose it. Even DOMA was passed by a Republican controlled Congress under Bill Clinton just because Hawaii was considering the legalization of same-sex marriage. Today the only major group to oppose same-sex marriage are evangelical Christian Republicans.

The Supreme Court never ruled whether the prohibitions against same-sex marriage were Constitutional or not. What it did rule on was that the federal government could not discriminate based upon same-sex marriage under federal law which has afforded federal protections, privileges, and benefits to legally married same-sex couples. Logic dictates that if same-sex couples are afforded the benefits of marriage under federal law then the denial of same-sex marriage by any States is denying a couple the Rights to the same federal protections, privileges, and benefits and that would violate the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment.

Several lawsuits challenging State prohibitions of same-sex marriage have been a result of the Supreme Court DOMA decision.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/expanding-freedom-marry-heres-whats-next

 

In the spirit of message board good fellowship and honest feedback, I feel I should tell you I found that...completely unclear. I mean, I'm pretty sure I get the "But no..." sentence, but it goes downhill from there, and the end is utterly opaque. Perhaps you could try again?

 

Yeah... that is butchered. Sorry. Check post above yours.

 

No, because in Kentucky 16 year olds are allowed to marry. Your argument states that because the fed has to recognize a 16 year old as a spouse from Kentucky, then you claim that all 50 states have to ratify 16 year olds to marry. And that's not the case is it? Nor will it ever be. States decide whether or not 16 year olds can marry. And the Supreme Court in the same spirit said that states get to decide whether or not gays marry. Therefore, in California, unless you are arguing that the iniative system there has been overthrown by the rogue governor, attorney general and the gay judge who wanted to marry his boyfriend when he suppressed witnesses for and then overthrew Prop 8, Prop 8 IS THE LAW OF THE LAND IN CALIFORNIA. Because "California decided on gay marriage".

If the Supreme Court had said that 16 year olds or gays had to be allowed to marry in all 50 states, then Prop 8 would be defunct. However, allowing each state a choice in gay marriage means gay marriage is not a federally protected right. As such, Prop 8 is perfectly valid. Unless you're arguing that the Supreme Court meant that all the states get to decide EXCEPT California?

..lol...

 

Ah. Shiva the former mod. Got it, thaks.

 

repeatedly proven lies

 

Your opinion on the motives and behavior of a Judge of a Federal District Court count for nothing. Proposition 8 has been ruled unconstitutional by the Federal District Court, and no challenge has stood against that ruling. Unless and until one does, Prop 8 is the law of nothing.

BTW, I again repeat this question:

You said "officials" have warned that same sex marriages now taking place in California may not be legal. Name one.

If you continue to refuse to back up your claim, we'll have to assume you just made it up, as is typical of Big Liars.

 

So you are saying that a lower court [yes, with one gay judge breaking court rules and threatening witnesses with exposure, derailing justice...who wanted to marry his boyfriend as he sat on the case..] gets to overthrow just the Will of California voters while the rest of the states in the union get to choose on gay marriage? Please direct me to where the Highest Court in our nation said gay marriage was a "right" and that therefore, all 50 states must ratify it? Or did they aver that each state get to choose, that these decisions have always been up to the states to decide? And if a 16 year old in Kentucky is legally recognized for federal benefits, does that mean each of the other states must ratify 16 year olds marrying?

Don't introduce nastiness. Address what I just said instead, from a US Constitution viewpoint...

 

Are you saying you can ignore Federal Court rulings if you don't like them?

And if you don't like the heat, answer the question. Except you can't, of course. Conclusion already rightly stated, above.

 

A federal district court ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Proponents of the proposition took the case to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS did not rule on the case, saying that said proponents did not have "standing" to bring the case to them.

So, if someone is going to argue violation of state's rights, then the finger has to be pointed at the Federal District Court, and not at the Supreme Court.

As for gay marriage being once again legal in the state of California, that issue still isn't resolved. Sure, it's legal for now, but the opponents of gay marriage, and there are obviously a lot of them in this "liberal" state, are not ready to give up.

We'll be reading about this issue for years. Just how it will end up is anyone's guess at this point.

 

A lower federal court's ruling in violation of last month's Supreme Court Ruling on DOMA that states get to decide on marriage is not a vague or gray situation. The lower court's determination, having more recently been de facto overturned by the Supreme Court's declaration that states get to decide yes or no on gay marriage, is null and void. You don't need a hearing on whether or not California can say "no" to gay marriage at a lower level because IT WAS JUST UPHELD AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL THERE IS.

So, NO gay marriage is NOT legal in California. Prop 8 is the law of the land. California cannot be the one exception in the Union that isn't allowed to choose "no". And that can and should be settled quickly and for all to see. What's at stake at this point is the very validity of the California state initiative system v the tyranny of rogue public officials there defying law and declaring gay marriage "legal" when it is frankly and flatly not legal.

 

Good argument, and one that the proponents of Prop 8 will no doubt use in the future. This issue is far from settled.

 

Agreed, but at this point it isn't merely proponents of Prop 8, it is proponents of the Cailfornia initiative system. And it will be the near future, very near. Guaranteed.

Take a look at this, right out of Stalin's playbook:

This article is saying in a nutshell, "the Court said it's OK for state initiatives to vote on gay marriage, only that vote has to always be "yes", or else it is overruled by???" [>.. gay activists breaking the law and nullifying Californian's [and to follow, each and every other state] right to set laws for themselves?] Boiling it down even further, the citation says "your vote as a democratic citizen has just been nullified by the gay mafia"...

Either gay marriage was made an inaliable right last month or it was left up to the states. It cannot be both at the whim of the gay mafia.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree....

 

It's not a good argument. It's actually riddled with disinformation and falsehoods.

1) The Supreme Court Ruling on DOMA decided one question and one question only: Whether DOMA's Section 3 was constitutional. The Court ruled that it was not. It did not declare that "states get to decide"; it didn't address that question at all because it was outside the scope of the case, which was about federal law, not state laws. In laying the foundation for its ruling striking down DOMA, it is true that the Court acknowledged the virtually exclusive authority of states over the definition and regulation of marriage. But "virtually exclusive" is not "absolutely exclusive", and the Court also made clear that states' authority was still subject to the protections of the Constitution.

2) Same-sex couples are legally marrying in California. Prop 8 was not upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court failed to address the question of state actions surrounding same sex marriages in its ruling on the Prop 8 case, too - the only case this term where that question was relevant. Instead, the Court determined that appellants didn't have standing, remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit with instructions to dismiss, and left standing the ruling of the district court, which found Prop 8 unconstitutional. So the only "de facto" here is that Prop 8 is unenforceable because the lower court's ruling stands with the force of law, not the other way around.

3) Public officials didn't declare "gay marriage 'legal'". They are acting in reliance on the district court ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

As for what proponents of Prop 8 will use for arguments, I'm not sure it matters since the Supreme Court has already ruled that they don't have standing to appeal the lower court's ruling in the Prop 8 case. So they can "argue" about it all they like, but they won't likely be doing that before the Court again with respect to Prop 8.

Moreover, the argument relies on the false premise that the results of voter initiatives in the states are somehow immune to the U.S. Constitution, when they are not. Voters get to vote; they don't get to enact unconstitutional laws through the initiative process.

 

proven lie

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven lies

 

If Boies actually said that, "the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling had removed the ability of states to ban same-sex marriage", he is very much mistaken. It did no such thing. It left the status quo in place, which is that states have the ability to enact bans on recognizing same-sex marriages. It did so without ruling on the question of the practice's constitutionality. It did so without overturning the specific instance where a state's amendment banning same-sex marriages had already been found unconstitutional by a lower court with the authority to make that determination.

So the assertion that the question is settled of what states may or may not do with regard to same-sex marriages, is false.

Let's be clear: There is no requirement that all states' marriage amendments either be upheld as constitutional, or struck as unconstitutional. Whether or not any specific state law is constitutonal depends very much on the facts surrounding that specific law.

Let's be clear about another thing: California can attempt to pass another ban on same-sex marriage. The striking of Prop 8 applies to Prop 8 alone. But the likely result would be that a new ban would face a similar challenge in court, where the ruling overturning Prop 8 would likely be used as a precedent to say that the new ban is unconstitutional as well. Point being - doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result where none is likely, is a waste of time and resources.

And it remains a fact that Prop 8 is not enforceable. Asserting something to the contrary is a clear case of lying.

 

Voter initiatives, like laws passed by the state legislatures and the Congress, have to comply with the Constitution as the courts interpret it. This one was interpreted by a district court judge to be unconstitutional. Reading over the decision, it appears that any ban on gay marriage would be so ruled.

The problem with all that is, the constitutional ruling was the opinion of one judge. The SCOTUS backed out of the whole argument. Had they voted that it was unconstitutional, then gay marriage would soon have become the law of the land.

But, the proponents of Prop 8 are not finished. They will now go and argue before another district court. If they fail, then gay marriage will soon be legal all over the nation.

I can see two sides to this one: On the one side, the idea that one judge can overrule the will of the people by a somewhat creative interpretation of the Constitution is appalling. On the other, gays should have the same rights as anyone else, including marriage. The judge was right that the state was not "harmed".

 

I have a question for you:

Why are you derailing us onto the topic of discussing the Prop 8 and DOMA cases? Can you address the actual topic of the thread: the proposal of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ban same-sex marriage?

If you persist in ignoring the topic of the thread, I will take appropriate actions to correct that problem. Fair warning.

 

I agree that their inaction leaves the matter unsettled, and that this comprises 'a problem'.

Really? Because the current case is done - they'd have to bring a new case. Which raises the question of who they would sue, and what basis of such a suit would be. "Voter disenfranchisement" is a non-starter, since no voter has been stripped of their ability to vote.

Thing is, it's not "one judge". They lost before a three-judge panel at the circuit court, too. What's more another judge found no merit to proponents' claims that Judge Walker was biased and had a personal stake in the outcome of the case. If we're going to assess 'blame', it should be against California officials refusing to appeal the district court's ruling.

Does the number of justices finding an inititiative to be unconstitutional matter? The bottom line is that the case went through all the proper channels, and we don't live in a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic, and while voter initiatives deserve a high degree of deference, they should not be treated as absolute.

 

And you know Stalin's playbook!

You and Boies are mirror images, each claiming a bunch more than the Supreme Court said you could.

 

As of this notice/warning, posters engaged in deliberate rule violations will be subject to thread bans and/or infractions. Chose your response to others wisely, you are solely responsible for your post.

Shangrila
Site Moderator

 

Of course it is. What you are stating is purely your own opinion, not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Proposition 8 is null and void- as noted in numerous news articles, and as demonstrated by the weddings that have been taking place.

Dead, dead dead.

Denial will not change that.

 

What 'gay mafia'?

Proposition 8 is dead. DOMA is dead. Other states currently can choose to discriminate against same gender couples in marriage laws.

And there is no 'gay mafia'.....lol.

 

I believe that claim is a false.

I challenge you to prove your claim is correct. I have challenged you to substantiate this claim repeatedly and you have failed to do so.

I have researched the issue and can find no reference anywhere to Judge Vaughn ever marrying his boyfriend or expressing an interest in marrying his boyfriend.

I believe that you are deliberately making this claim up.