main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

9th Circuit Appeals Court affirms holding that CA gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Archive: Your Jedi Council Community' started by KnightWriter, Aug 4, 2010.

  1. Vengance1003

    Vengance1003 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Seriously, why is it so hard for people to go look at the 14th amendment and realize that gay marriage is constitutional?
     
  2. -polymath-

    -polymath- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host star 4 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2007
    His comments about "moral disapproval" are spot on, imho.
     
  3. Jozy_Oguchi

    Jozy_Oguchi Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Jun 14, 2010
    [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]For the record, brah[/link]
     
  4. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Seems like a pretty accurate description of this judge and this decision. When in doubt, how about we leave the politics in the political arena? I also like how the judge portends to read the minds of 7 million voters.

    Thanks to Roe, you get millions of social conservatives consistently voting for Republicans for 30 years against their economic interests. What makes you think this won't do the same thing?
     
  5. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Gay marriage is not constitutional. Don't be absurd.

    Banning gay marriage, esp. on the grounds that marriage is only between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.
     
  6. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Because that would be inconvenient to their religious views.
     
  7. -polymath-

    -polymath- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host star 4 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2007
    =D=
     
  8. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Seems like a pretty accurate description of this judge and this decision. When in doubt, how about we leave the politics in the political arena?

    So you favor allowing people to vote for segregation, racist laws and any number of things that have existed in our history and been struck down?

    This isn't politics. This is about civil rights, and civil rights are not up to the voters to decide.
     
  9. Vengance1003

    Vengance1003 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Oops, that's what I meant. [face_blush]
     
  10. -polymath-

    -polymath- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host star 4 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2007
    I'll just point this out again but the fact that the Prop 8 supporters could not even find a sustainable "rational basis" for the law is just astounding. Just goes to show how blatantly discriminatory and frivolous the law really is.

    I'll be interested in seeing whether the appellants take the religious freedom angle in their briefing. That was a hotly argued point in the religious circles I move in.
     
  11. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Marriage has been a civil right under the U.S. Constitution. The case here simply said that 14th Ammendment concerns prevent gender from being a factor states can consider when recognizing a marriage.
     
  12. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    The judge was also appointed by a Republican: President George H.W. Bush. So, y'know, perhaps we might argue that it's bipartisan, or even apolitical?
     
  13. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Well, as I was just reading, the three major strikedowns of anti-gay marriage laws in the past year have been authored by Republican-appointed judges.
     
  14. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    The 10th amendment? Seriously? I think you meant to link to the 14th because "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Seems to me to say that because we didn't mention gay marriage, and that it isn't a "protection," it is a privilege with a definition set long before the founding of this nation, that it is up to the states to decide. If we followed the 10th Amendment, then each individual state would decide through its own Constitution what a marriage is. I never supported making it unconstitutional to have gay marriage, because I believe gay marriage falls squarely within this amendment you've been so kind to post, each state gets to decide.

    But judges are now just extensions of our political process, so that when you don't get the answer you like one way, you have another. Which is why I believe we need elected judges, because it is about time we abandoned the fiction that they aren't political actors.
     
  15. -polymath-

    -polymath- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host star 4 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2007
    You could see this coming ever since the Loving v. Virginia decision. The only difference is that race is a suspect class under Equal Protection whereas sexual orientation has not been granted that esteemed status. Assuming that sexual orientation gets even quasi-suspect class status, you'll see all gay marriage bans fall like a house of cars.
     
  16. Jozy_Oguchi

    Jozy_Oguchi Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Jun 14, 2010
     
  17. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Which is a pretty convenient place to put all the issues you lose at when you put them on a ballot.

    When you place things like this that aren't civil rights into the civil rights category, you weaken support for all civil rights protections. You continue down this path of arbitrarily making up civil rights, and you will only create more Rand Pauls. You think you are doing a good thing by expanding the definition of civil rights, but the more you include the weaker the idea becomes.
     
  18. DarthLassic007

    DarthLassic007 Jedi Master star 6

    Registered:
    Nov 25, 2002
    And yet the Dems have been complaining about the Senate's filibuster procedure. :p



    Lawyers for the ban could also ask the 9th circuit for a stay before the case gets to it.
     
  19. Katana_Geldar

    Katana_Geldar Jedi Grand Master star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Backwords, seperation of powers, much? And I know that is in the US constitution.
     
  20. Jozy_Oguchi

    Jozy_Oguchi Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Jun 14, 2010
    But...the more civil rights you include, the more rights there are for, uh, civilians. Which would seem like a positive.
     
  21. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Lassic, the only question about the 9th Circuit Court is how strongly they will agree with Walker's decision.
     
  22. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Well, how about that. I wish more of the news stories could emphasize that. Who appointed the other two judges?
     
  23. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    The unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on how they would rule) thing is that the U.S. Supreme Court will probably chicken out and decline to review the case once it gets past the 9th circuit.
     
  24. -polymath-

    -polymath- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host star 4 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Jun 7, 2007
    I don't know about that. This could be Scalia's opportunity to do some real damage to the fabric of American society. I could see the Court taking the case just for that purpose. But the only person that matters on this issue right now is Justice Kennedy. How he goes...so goes the Court.
     
  25. Quixotic-Sith

    Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 22, 2001
    Yes, it is a good thing, because the "tyranny of the majority" and "voice of the people" have done some pretty terrible things in the past, showing that "all the issues lost when put on the ballot" have a reason for additional review - people don't always know what the right thing to do is. Time and again we've seen terrible abuses passed (either passed via popular vote, or adopted as social practice without formal enshrining in law) that required judicial intervention to stop.

    So, by all means, tell me why states should be allowed to decide the following issues by popular vote:

    1. The ability of two people of different races to marry (since race was not always a protected class).
    2. The ability of a person to be able to have children (we forcibly sterilized over 60,000 people in the early 20th century, and our eugenics program was one of the models for the Nazi's eugenics program).
    3. The ability to refuse to hire women, ethnic minorities, or people of different religious or national backgrounds.

    I could go on, but I'm really curious to know why you feel some states should allow racism and forced sterilization? What is the compelling state interest involved? Is it wrong that I can't put the forced sterilization of all Mormons on a state ballot for popular consideration? Don't you trust your gonads and their future to your fellow Americans?

    Seriously, explain it to me like I was a two-year old, because this is the recorded history of people advocating the "will of the people/not in the Constitution" crowd.