*** Marriage Ruling in Federal Court

[noon]

Did anyone read the Court's Findings and Conclusions in Perry v. Shwarzenegger? Excellently written.



https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

 

[puckjim]

Another important milestone attained in the struggle to end legislated discrimination.

 

[bri]

Hun, for those of us that don't speak boring and have no attention span, could you like condense the important points.



Are they able to get married or not? I thought I saw on TV that it was gong to a higher court. I just don't get the big deal. They couldn't possibly make a bigger mockery out of marriage than some heterosexuals do.

 

[winos5]

[quote name="bri"]Hun, for those of us that don't speak boring and have no attention span, could you like condense the important points.



Are they able to get married or not? I thought I saw on TV that it was gong to a higher court. I just don't get the big deal. They couldn't possibly make a bigger mockery out of marriage than some heterosexuals do.[/quote]





Prop 8 violates the constitutional rights of those seeking marriage by discriminating based on gender and sexual oreintation. Can't say I disagree.

 

[IceHogsFan]

What is important to understand is that the people of the State of California were asked and they voted. We probably all agree that this case is going to end up in

the Supreme Court and I would put money on it that they are going to decide that

it is up to each state to decide. This is not and should not be a federal issue. If each

state wants to decide via their constituents then so be it.



Bri, everything is on hold during the appeal process so for the time being there are no

marriages allowed in the State of California.

 

[bri]

Am I the only person on here that isn't a lawyer?

 

[noon]

[quote name="IceHogsFan"]What is important to understand is that the people of the State of California were asked and they voted. We probably all agree that this case is going to end up in

the Supreme Court and I would put money on it that they are going to decide that

it is up to each state to decide. This is not and should not be a federal issue. If each

state wants to decide via their constituents then so be it.



Bri, everything is on hold during the appeal process so for the time being there are no

marriages allowed in the State of California.[/quote]



Should the courts have gotten involved in the people of certain states voting to making interracial marriages illegal? Or how about the people of Chicago choosing to ban handguns? Is the judicial branch still part of the tripartite system of checks and balances established by the constitution?

 

[E Runs]

[quote name="IceHogsFan"]What is important to understand is that the people of the State of California were asked and they voted. We probably all agree that this case is going to end up in

the Supreme Court and I would put money on it that they are going to decide that

it is up to each state to decide. This is not and should not be a federal issue. If each

state wants to decide via their constituents then so be it.



Bri, everything is on hold during the appeal process so for the time being there are no

marriages allowed in the State of California.[/quote]

So it would be ok if say, Alabama voters were asked and decided that blacks couldn't get married?

 

[IceHogsFan]

[quote name="noon"]



Should the courts have gotten involved in the people of certain states voting to making interracial marriages illegal? Or how about the people of Chicago choosing to ban handguns? Is the judicial branch still part of the tripartite system of checks and balances established by the constitution?[/quote]



In other words you think this is a federal issue? If you do then we would have to disagree on the matter. When the people of a certain state have spoken through voting on a particular issue (in this case, for or against homosexual marriage) then they should have that right to do so. I can see the Supreme Court stating such in their decision making process. Stay tuned kids, this is bound to take a few years yet to decide.

 

[puckjim]

Noon and Eruns took the words oot of my mouth. The people of California are fucked, and it was up to the courts to legislate the hatred out of their control.



This is exactly why the Constitution needs interpretation.

 

[IceHogsFan]

[quote name="E Runs"]

So it would be ok if say, Alabama voters were asked and decided that blacks couldn't get married?[/quote]



So now it is the what if scenario?

 

[IceHogsFan]

[quote name="puckjim"]Noon and Eruns took the words oot of my mouth. The people of California are fucked, and it was up to the courts to legislate the hatred out of their control.



This is exactly why the Constitution needs interpretation.[/quote]



Wow...... you can check me out of the rest of this thread if this is were it is going.

 

[puckjim]

[quote name="IceHogsFan"]



In other words you think this is a federal issue? If you do then we would have to disagree on the matter. When the people of a certain state have spoken through voting on a particular issue (in this case, for or against homosexual marriage) then they should have that right to do so. I can see the Supreme Court stating such in their decision making process. Stay tuned kids, this is bound to take a few years yet to decide.[/quote]



No. The people of any state deserve to lose their right to vote if the result of that vote is at the expense of the human rights of others.



This is no more a state's rights issue than slavery is.

 

[noon]

[quote name="IceHogsFan"]



In other words you think this is a federal issue? If you do then we would have to disagree on the matter. When the people of a certain state have spoken through voting on a particular issue (in this case, for or against homosexual marriage) then they should have that right to do so. I can see the Supreme Court stating such in their decision making process. Stay tuned kids, this is bound to take a few years yet to decide.[/quote]



So you think Loving v. Virginia, which overruled the will of the voters of the state of Virginia (and similarly situated states) who voted to make interracial marriages illegal, was wrongly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court? Yes, I guess we would have to disagree then.

 

[winos5]

Either you believe in the constitution as written or you don't.



It is absolutely a federal government issue when state laws violate the constitution and bill of rights..



Marriage as a fundamental right in the pursuit of happiness is well established as a constitutional right.



Discriminating against those rights based on race, religion, gender, sexual oreintation is unconstitutional, which is again well established.



This is where the conservative right gets to fall on their own sword of strict constitutional interpretation.



The argument of tradition and morality does not hold water.

 

[E Runs]

[quote name="IceHogsFan"]



So now it is the what if scenario?[/quote]

Not really because what I stated above can't happen because it would be denying their civil rights. Which is what the judge said in the Prop 8 case didn't he?



Just because a majority voted doesn't mean they are correct in the eyes of the law.

 

[LordKOTL]

I see this as less of a will of the people and more of a violation of the 5th & 14th amendments. Regardless of what the will of the people state, No person shall be deprived the right to life, liberty, or property without due process, and everyone gets equal protection under law.



One could argue that marriage is a liberty. Thus, Gays/lesbians getting married, much like any racial minority or interracial couple getting married, should have equal protection under law as any other marriage.



Those amendments are there for when the will of the people fail. And in this case, IMHO, they have.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

I dont care which side you sit on, the left or the right, It is flat out stupid to stop two people from getting married, I dont care if they are straight or rump rangers, everyone has the right to be just as miserable as everyone else. Fucks sake, in the simplest of context a marriage is just a contract between two people. We, the human animal or human society depending on which way you want to say it, are the ones that added the whole "in the eyes of god" crap to it, as a way to turn the ceremony into a celebration.

 

[E Runs]

[quote name="winos5"]

The argument of tradition and moralality does not hold water.[/quote]

This sums it up quite nicely.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="puckjim"]Noon and Eruns took the words oot of my mouth. The people of California are fucked, and it was up to the courts to legislate the hatred out of their control.



This is exactly why the Constitution needs interpretation.[/quote]





The Constitution has NOTHING to do with Marriage. Not one thing. It does not nor did it ever cover it.



Marriage is up to the States to decide. In Eruns Scenario now you bring in CIVIL LIBERTIES, which IS in fact covered by Civil Rights Act.