Prop 8 overturned

Status
Not open for further replies.
The basic question that it will come down to is state's rights vs federal rights.

Remember that the US is a republic - it is a nation formed of individual states.

In the past marriage has always been a state issue, and the states have had to work out their own definitions and agreements.

If any of this makes it to the supreme court the question will hardly be, "Is gay marriage ok" it will instead be, "Do states have the autonomy to continue to define marriage."

It is unlikely that the states will cede even more power to the federal government, even if someone, somehow can prove conclusively to the 9 that the US constitution guarantees this as a "right", which certainly isn't nearly as cut and dried a case as many here seem to think.

The funny thing, though, is that the California issue is a microcosm of the US - it's a catch-22 for gay rights supporters. Right now no one is seriously considering an amendment to the US constitution to ban gay marriage because that decision belongs to the states.

If the supreme court rules that the federal government is now in charge of the definition of marriage, and takes that right from the state, then the opposition has a much simpler job:

Rather than amending each state constitution to ban gay marriage, they can do it once for the US constitution.

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US. It'll be so much easier to amend the US constitution with a gay marriage ban than it was to amend the california constitution.

Rather than taking it to the courts, the activists should have simply rallied the public behind them, and struck the amendment out. I really think they're shooting themselves in the foot by taking to the courts rather than the voters.
 
J

JONJONAUG

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US. It'll be so much easier to amend the US constitution with a gay marriage ban than it was to amend the california constitution.
Huh?

Amending the California constitution requires a simple majority vote. Amending the US Constitution is extremely difficult to do in comparison.
 
Which I'm pretty sure George Dubya already tried to do, and it was shot down pretty quickly.
I wouldn't say quickly. Thankfully you can't get 2/3 of Congress to agree on anything, much less a hateful amendment to the Constitution that would serve only to deprive a minority group of their equal rights.
 
California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US.
This is a media myth.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I thought it was split down the middle?[/QUOTE]

Most cities are more liberal (with the notable exceptions of Fresno and San Diego). This is especially true for LA and the SF Bay Area. The Central Valley, which is HUGE, is just as conservative as the Bible Belt. The mountain and desert areas are split.

That's roughly how it breaks down.
 
Ugh, the Central Valley is DEFINITELY more conservative than the rest of the state. Let me put it this way: the town I graduated high school in use to be the location for the annual California KKK rally.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Ok, that may be a generalization, but I think its pretty well established that california is more douchey.
 
C

crono1224

Ok, that may be a generalization, but I think its pretty well established that california is more douchey.
A generalization? No, of course not. Perish the thought.

What, pray tell, makes us more "douchey?"[/QUOTE]

You know.... you're state is on the coast.... and has hollywood people.... also wine.... don't argue with the man he has sound reason why the most populous state is all douches.
 
Ok, that may be a generalization, but I think its pretty well established that california is more douchey.
A generalization? No, of course not. Perish the thought.

What, pray tell, makes us more "douchey?"[/QUOTE]

You know.... you're state is on the coast.... and has hollywood people.... also wine.... don't argue with the man he has sound reason why the most populous state is all douches.[/QUOTE]

Well... he's right. We are kinda douchey. I just wanted to see what he would say.
 
C

Chazwozel

California is much more socially liberal than the rest of the US.
This is a media myth.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I thought it was split down the middle?[/QUOTE]

Most cities are more liberal (with the notable exceptions of Fresno and San Diego). This is especially true for LA and the SF Bay Area. The Central Valley, which is HUGE, is just as conservative as the Bible Belt. The mountain and desert areas are split.

That's roughly how it breaks down.[/QUOTE]

Isn't Northern California, particularly Sacramento area, extremely conservative?
 
Well I didn't think by "split down the middle" it would be every other person. I was pretty sure that in the lower cities it was generally liberal in nature while the less populous areas were strongly conservative.
 
I hear its all rainbows and gay sex and the foundations of society are literally tearing themselves apart.

Or not.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Which I'm pretty sure George Dubya already tried to do, and it was shot down pretty quickly.
I wouldn't say quickly. Thankfully you can't get 2/3 of Congress to agree on anything, much less a hateful amendment to the Constitution that would serve only to deprive a minority group of their equal rights.[/QUOTE]

Like I said earlier, you don't want to make this an argument about "equal" rights because the law is already equal, and that could just shoot this entire deal in the foot if you get the wrong judge.

Marriage in most places is currently defined as a union between a man and a woman. That does need to change. But as things stand, homo- and heterosexuals currently have the same marriage rights - the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. No mention of "whoever they love." You could perfectly legally marry a woman you have absolutely no attraction to whatsoever (heck, or even despise), no matter be you straight or gay.

If progress is to be made here, it has to be for what it is, not for an inaccurate claim that becomes a potential weakness.
 
Heterosexuals can marry anyone they love over the age of 18. Homosexuals are not legally allowed to marry people they love. That is unequal.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Heterosexuals can marry anyone they love over the age of 18. Homosexuals are not legally allowed to marry people they love. That is unequal.
Love is not a legal term. Nor should it be.

Heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite gender, whether they love them or not. Homosexuals can do the same. That is equal. But not right.
 
Heterosexuals can marry anyone they love over the age of 18. Homosexuals are not legally allowed to marry people they love. That is unequal.
Love is not a legal term. Nor should it be.

Heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite gender, whether they love them or not. Homosexuals can do the same. That is equal. But not right.[/QUOTE]

I see your point. Still, judges in the past have made a distinction between the wording of a law and its equality, compared to the application of a law and its inequality. I think that may happen again.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Heterosexuals can marry anyone they love over the age of 18. Homosexuals are not legally allowed to marry people they love. That is unequal.
Love is not a legal term. Nor should it be.

Heterosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite gender, whether they love them or not. Homosexuals can do the same. That is equal. But not right.[/QUOTE]

I see your point. Still, judges in the past have made a distinction between the wording of a law and its equality, compared to the application of a law and its inequality. I think that may happen again.[/QUOTE]

Some judges have. Some other judges have also clung to the letter of the law regardless of all other concerns. I don't have the confidence to trust the outcome to ride on the case landing in the lap of a sympathetic judge. I think it'd be better for us to plainly and succinctly state what is needed: The definition of marriage to be a union between any two people (no gender descriptions at all).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top