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 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2006
    star 5
    Seriously, why is it so hard for people to go look at the 14th amendment and realize that gay marriage is constitutional?
  2. -polymath- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2007
    star 4
    His comments about "moral disapproval" are spot on, imho.
  3. Jozy_Oguchi Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2010
    star 3
  4. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    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 Community and Lit moderator person

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    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 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    Because that would be inconvenient to their religious views.
  7. -polymath- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2007
    star 4
    =D=
  8. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    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 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2006
    star 5
    Oops, that's what I meant. [face_blush]
  10. -polymath- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2007
    star 4
    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 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    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 Community and Lit moderator person

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    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 Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    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 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    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- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2007
    star 4
    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 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2010
    star 3
  17. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    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 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2002
    star 6
    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 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2003
    star 8
    Backwords, seperation of powers, much? And I know that is in the US constitution.
  20. Jozy_Oguchi Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2010
    star 3
    But...the more civil rights you include, the more rights there are for, uh, civilians. Which would seem like a positive.
  21. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Lassic, the only question about the 9th Circuit Court is how strongly they will agree with Walker's decision.
  22. GrandAdmiralJello Community and Lit moderator person

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Well, how about that. I wish more of the news stories could emphasize that. Who appointed the other two judges?
  23. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    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- SFF:F/TV Trivia Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2007
    star 4
    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 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    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.