Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: California Supreme Court Holds Up Prop 8.

  1. #1

    Default California Supreme Court Holds Up Prop 8.

    Just a few mins ago the California Supreme Court decided that Prop 8's passing is and was valid. However the 18,000 or so gay couples that got married before the prop was passed are still valid.

    California High Court Rules Against Gay Marriage, Except Those Already Done - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

    I think it's a bit odd that the ones that got married before the law was passed still stand, it's sort of like a double standard. Anyway's I am personally glad that for now the voters did their part, they voted and the way the majority voted has been upheld. I have no idea how long that is going to last however, I am fearing that this cycle will keep playing itself out every 2-4 years.

  2. #2

    Default

    It's not surprising that it was upheld, though disappointing nonetheless. However, I'm glad that the thousands of marriages that were performed were still declared valid- it would have been a huge slap in the face if those who had gotten married were then told their marriage was no longer legitimate.

    Ultimately, though, this is just a delay in the inevitable. Support for same-sex marriage in the States is strong among youth and young adults, so eventually it is going to be legalized across the country. It's really just a matter of time.

  3. #3

    Default

    This is an unfortunate decision, but to be sure the issue is not going anywhere. Why exactly it was an issue to begin with is kind of odd.

    The reason that the marriages that have already taken place can stand is that nullifying them would violate the ex post facto (after the fact) clause of the Constitution. What that clause does is make it unconstitutional to retroactively apply laws. In other words, it keeps you from legally doing Y on Monday, the legislature passing a law against Y on Tuesday, and you being charged with with violating the no Y law on Wednesday. The marriages were legal when they took place, so they stand.

    I think the greater threat to society is the use of constitutional amendments to legalize unconstituional laws. If the Constitutions, federal and state, are going to have any power to protect us from the fickleness anf fascetiousness of government and majorites, numerical or de facto, then the Constitution has to be more inviable than this.

    The current system is tantamount to acourt saying, as they all have everytime an anti-gay marriage statute has come before them, "That's illegal. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment." And a de facto majority sayin, "Hold on. Anyone have a pen. We can change the Constitution in a way that doesn't technically violate the Fourteenth Amendment, though it does in spirit, by writing this illegal law into the Constitution. It's to protect American values, though not the rule of law, checks and balances or an aversion to majoritarian tyranny."

    Removing something from judicial review because the judiciary is upholding the law! Allowing such blatent invasion of society into private lives! Circumventing our own laws and democratic values! We need this to be part of the debate. As important as the issue of homosexual rights is, every one of us stands to lose some of what we value most.

  4. #4
    Darkfinn

    Default

    It's called a grandfather clause. Much like cars made before the 70's aren't required to have seat belts because they didn't come with them from the factory. Just like the proposed assault rifle ban... if it passes people who have assault rifles won't have to turn them in.

  5. #5

    Default

    @ Darkfinn - true.

    @Harris, yes, and full faith and credit comes into this: which means if you are married by a Buddhist priest in Japan, Israel acknowleges your state of marriagehood; and vice versa. Same state-to-state in America, where if you are married in Maine, Alaska recognizes that. It starts to get complicated when some states recognize gay marriage and others don't, or when such things are reversed within a state.

    Me, I think the whole issue is more to do with money: spousal benefits, alimony, palimony, divorce settlements, than morality: that is just a distraction.

    As to constitutions and their amendments, Canada had a referendum on Quebec packing up and leaving; Texas is soooo jealous.

  6. #6

    Default

    I'm not too worried. This isn't exactly the biggest human rights violation of the modern world. It doesn't concern me too much, and we all know it's just a matter of time. Nice to know the people who were married beforehand are still legit though.




    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    I think it's a bit odd that the ones that got married before the law was passed still stand, it's sort of like a double standard.
    you wanna talk about double standards? hehe

  7. #7

    Default



    Harris, yes, and full faith and credit comes into this: which means if you are married by a Buddhist priest in Japan, Israel acknowleges your state of marriagehood; and vice versa. Same state-to-state in America, where if you are married in Maine, Alaska recognizes that. It starts to get complicated when some states recognize gay marriage and others don't, or when such things are reversed within a state.
    Until 1996. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA and codified as 1 U.S.C. 7 and 28 U.S.C. 1738C was passed by the republican-controlled congress and signed by president Clinton. It stipulates that

    (1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state;

    (2) The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

    So far DOMA has withstood court challenges, but I'm not familiar with the cases. A lawsuit was filed in March questioning the legality of the second provision, but that has a long way to go.

    I have no problem with amendments per se, but they need to be used responsibly and with an eye toward the future, not as end runs around the courts and the Constitution as written.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Chillhouse View Post
    you wanna talk about double standards? hehe
    Gay people can get all the same rights as married couples gay or not if they wish to pursue it. However most of them don't want to go down that path since most people are too stubborn today. The only thing prop 8 prevents is getting their relationships defined as marriage, which again is only a word.

    I am fully in support of removing marriage as whole from government or at least have it remain "Civil Unions" I talked about it before here so I am not explaining it again.

  9. #9
    Mako

    Default

    It's not about being stubborn, its about equality. Your setting a double standard here because as you acknowledge, marriage is just a word. Call it what ever you want, but it's a word. People need to grow up and stop playing semantics.

    And gay couples should not have to do any extra work then straight couples for the same benefits. They shouldn't have to "pursue" anything.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Mako View Post
    And gay couples should not have to do any extra work then straight couples for the same benefits. They shouldn't have to "pursue" anything.
    It's either that or thing's stay exactly the same. This is like don't expect anyone to do shit for you, if you want something you have to go out there and get it yourself."

    I am not saying either side is right, I am just not sure about it anymore. But I would just prefer a system where everything is called a civil union for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Then we can get marriage back into the place where it seems most people think it belongs, religion.

    At least then both heterosexuals and gay people can be pissed off about not being able to use a eight letter word in a legal sense and it's actually starting to become funny how the world reacts towards words in general.

    I'd love to spew off a long list of words right here that shouldn't mean SHIT, but like I said people in general love to get pissed off about nothing. Even I have.

Similar Threads

  1. kendall Lille Supreme Fit
    By dillan221 in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-May-2009, 14:48
  2. Greetings From N. California
    By lookinforbaby in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-Feb-2009, 18:57
  3. California Residents (Or anyone): Prop 8?
    By Ryan_d in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: 19-Nov-2008, 23:46
  4. Court overturns air passenger rights law.
    By Darkfinn in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26-Mar-2008, 05:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.