California Proposition 8 Overturned!

[BelizeIt]

Well California will certainly become an even more popular place to live.

 

First we allow same-sex marriages, and then come the November ballot we could legalize pot. (Up to one once for personal use) Though Federal law will trump state law on the pot issue.

 

Should still be interesting to see how both of these issues play out.

[Dailey Enterprizes]

^ Legalizing pot isn't the same as legalizing other drugs like heroin. Also, I am sure there's going to be some order applied to pot smoking like alcohol. I doubt they're going to allow it in places where small children are present and the, "no smoking in restaurants law" will probably be applied to this as well.

[Foxy Roxy]

Now, don't get mad at me. But this is probably the most ridiculous argument I've heard more than one person use. "Because so many liberals are for it, it would actually take us a step towards communism". THAT WOULD BE TRUE but the law restricted rights and granted nothing, so it actually pushed us a step forward towards communism. By granting more freedoms and rights, it takes us a step away from communism. Just sayin'.

[Hercules]

Now, don't get mad at me. But this is probably the most ridiculous argument I've heard more than one person use. "Because so many liberals are for it, it would actually take us a step towards communism". THAT WOULD BE TRUE but the law restricted rights and granted nothing, so it actually pushed us a step forward towards communism. By granting more freedoms and rights, it takes us a step away from communism. Just sayin'.

 

Wow. I haven't heard that one. That is hilarious, yet really sad at the same time that someone would actually use that argument.

[cooksta77]

Well California will certainly become an even more popular place to live.

 

First we allow same-sex marriages, and then come the November ballot we could legalize pot. (Up to one once for personal use) Though Federal law will trump state law on the pot issue.

 

Should still be interesting to see how both of these issues play out.

Damn we're trying to get more people out of the state. First the Arizona immigration law now this.

[RCFreak]

I'm so happy this was overturned, I mean if you completely take religion out of it, there's no valid reason to deny these rights. Most of the people for Prop 8, I'm more then sure, would support the civil unions that allow homosexuals the same benefits if it wasn't for there religious views on marriage (which I'm more then ok with, you don't have to agree with my lifestyle or even like it, just don't tell me it's not allowed because of your own personal beliefs between two consenting adults)

 

As the gay judge said, "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Amen good Sir. Amen.

[spaceace12]

I am going to jump in now...

 

Here is where I stand. I support Prop 8. And this is mainly on my religious feelings. But where I probably am different from a bunch of people, the only reason I am against it is because it has the word marriage. I (me, myself, the person posting this) don't have a problem with civil unions. My issue is when the word marriage comes into play because I believe that marriage should be with man and woman only. It really isn't my place to judge your lifestyle. That is all I am going to say on this subject.

[MayTheGForceBeWithYou]

I can promise you that there is going to be an appeal. In fact I would guess that they started thinking about the appeal before the decision even came down. We should hear something in the next 30-90 days regarding a notice of appeal.

 

My point exactly...some people won't just give up.

[AllenA07]

I can promise you that there is going to be an appeal. In fact I would guess that they started thinking about the appeal before the decision even came down. We should hear something in the next 30-90 days regarding a notice of appeal.

 

My point exactly...some people won't just give up.

 

It's not really about giving up. This is an exceptionally important case. Frankly I'd be disappointed if this isn't at least appealed to the Supreme Court.

[let1gre]

I am not gay, nor are my parents homophobes, and one at least one occasion they have told me they are glad that I'm not gay. Not because they dislike gays and/or think homosexuality is wrong, but because they are glad I don't have to face the prosecution and hate faced by many gays in this world. Hopefully the repeal of Prop 8 will start the move to take the nation a step away from that.

[Sir Clinksalot]

I am going to jump in now...

 

Here is where I stand. I support Prop 8. And this is mainly on my religious feelings. But where I probably am different from a bunch of people, the only reason I am against it is because it has the word marriage. I (me, myself, the person posting this) don't have a problem with civil unions. My issue is when the word marriage comes into play because I believe that marriage should be with man and woman only. It really isn't my place to judge your lifestyle. That is all I am going to say on this subject.

 

I don't want to get into a debate ... but sometimes it just can't be helped ... and please take this in the meaning that it's meant, not trying to start a flame war ... that being said ...

 

Marriage, at least in this country is NOT a religious pact, it's a legal proceeding. Period. People who are atheists can get married. People can get married by a judge. Even when you get married by a priest or a pastor you still have to go to the state and get a marriage license. Letting two men or two women get married has NOTHING to do with your church or your religion. If you don't want gay people getting married in your church, then don't let them get married in your church. There are PLENTY of other places they can have it done.

 

My wife and I didn't get married in a church nor did we have a religious ceremony. Are you going to tell me my marriage is void because it had nothing to do with religion?

[christianscoasters]

^Very well put!

[ParkTrips]

eh, for a religious person (and in the eyes of the church, which is of course a secular body), marriage is a religious bond first, and the legal side of it is just that: a legal formality. Those are his beliefs, and many people share them (including, apparently, a majority of Californians). If we're going to let gays marry, we should let the religious folks hold their beliefs too, whatever they may be, and no matter how wrong they may (or may not) be.

 

We, as a society, would be better if we all just butt out of people's personal lives and beliefs... so long as no one is getting hurt.

[ebl]

"Marriage, at least in this country is NOT a religious pact, it's a legal proceeding." (Sir Clinksalot)

 

In this country, that is correct. Most marriage ceremonies, however, do have religious overtones from having been performed in a church by a minister. My brother paid a fee and was given the position of "minister" in "The Church of..." something or other. I can't remember the actual name. Anyway, he can legally perform marriage ceremonies for anyone who wants one.

 

Eric

[deguy123]

I was extremely happy that this was overturned (and even happier I was able to find out with my Boyfriend), it shows that it is going in the right direction. Marriage has nothing to do with religion unless you want it to be. Telling someone they can't get married when they pay taxes among other things just as equal as everyone else is calling them second class citizens. I'm hoping this is also overturned in Maine eventually too, as I got really involved in trying for them to not take away same sex marriages.

[Emiroo]

While not gay myself, I'm still 100% for gay marriage. Like Chris Rock said, "Gay people have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us..."

 

Video is NSFW.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP_AGLI2FBM

[generaleclectic]

Speaking from a purely legal stand point I agree that this likely is unconstitutional. My feeling is that there is a violation of the 14th amendment on the basis of equal protection and due process based on the courts ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Basically I base my opinion on the idea that the state did not have a rational basis for passing such law (which is the test to apply). Here the state had the burden of proof and simply failed to meet it. Now as to the question of whether or not this will lead to an appeal? I'm almost sure that it will, however I don't foresee this going all the way to the Supreme Court. Here's the thing, before a major issue like this goes to the court you need to make sure that you have a case that is ripe (and I don't mean ripe in a legal meaning here as much as I do as a matter of strategic timing) to be heard by the court. Right now I don't think there is a favorable court in place to take this further. I see this as mirroring in certain aspects the Brown v. Board case where they actually waited for years before they found the right case at the right time to take to the Supreme Court. I just don't think the time is right at the moment. If nothing else this should be interesting to watch for the next few years.

 

 

Allen,

 

You hit the nail right on the head!!

 

I was surprised to see this video... I was even more surprised that a thoughtful discussion on the subject took place on Fox Noise....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkU9n5GxCDk

[ginzo]

We, as a society, would be better if we all just butt out of people's personal lives and beliefs... so long as no one is getting hurt.

 

I agree, which is why Prop 8 was not good: It meddled unnecessarily into the lives of others. Even worse, it was apparently supported and funded by an out-of-state group.

[Hercules]

eh, for a religious person (and in the eyes of the church, which is of course a secular body), marriage is a religious bond first, and the legal side of it is just that: a legal formality. Those are his beliefs, and many people share them (including, apparently, a majority of Californians). If we're going to let gays marry, we should let the religious folks hold their beliefs too, whatever they may be, and no matter how wrong they may (or may not) be.

 

I agree that people should be able to hold their certain beliefs, however, the main thing that detracts me from organized religion is the fact that the majority of Catholics and Christians think their beliefs are the law. Thus, they try to push it on everyone else in seemingly a very inappropriate fashion. The fact that this proposition was overturned just shows that we are truly a society governed under rational, democratic law. I don't really think the mass population completely understand that, or even really understand the legal system in general. They think their beliefs hold holy baring over everything, and I think that is my biggest problem with religion in terms of gay marriage (as well as other topics such as abortion).

[ParkTrips]

^ I think the reason that Christians seem to think they can control the laws is the belief that we are a nation founded on "Christian values".

 

I saw this posted elsewhere:

The way I've come to terms with gay marriage for instance isn't by... thinking it's OK or right, it's by realizing the God, not the government should bless marriage.

if only more religious people felt this way... if they were truly devoted to God, a marriage outside the church shouldn't matter to them.

[MayTheGForceBeWithYou]

I can promise you that there is going to be an appeal. In fact I would guess that they started thinking about the appeal before the decision even came down. We should hear something in the next 30-90 days regarding a notice of appeal.

 

Here we go again...the pro-Prop 8 people are starting the process of appealing.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38671236/ns/us_news-life/

[spaceace12]

Good, and one reason is because the law passed by a vote of the people of the state. What does that say when you vote something in and then someone says your vote is not worth anything.

[AllenA07]

Good, and one reason is because the law passed by a vote of the people of the state. What does that say when you vote something in and then someone says your vote is not worth anything.

 

While I love when things get to the people for a vote (which is how the system should work) the fact is that you can't vote on unconstitutional laws.

[WFChris]

Well, the marriage light in Cali is green again. Looks like it turns yellow in 30-60 days?

 

This whole 'yes you can, no you cant, yes you can, no you cant' thing is a bit ridiculous. No other state dealt with that kind of weirdness. Just let us get married for good, it will raise income for the state with all the added divorce income

[christianscoasters]

Good, and one reason is because the law passed by a vote of the people of the state. What does that say when you vote something in and then someone says your vote is not worth anything.

 

Denying someone the right to marry is unconstitutional. Period. It should never have been voted on in the first place.

 

Let me ask you something.

 

Do you think this is okay? What about this? What they are doing is perfectly legal. Is it right? Absolutely not! Let's say that some state decides to make it illegal for this group to protest funerals, which would be unconstitutional. Would you vote "yes" on making this illegal? Think about what they're doing to the families in mourning.

 

I would love it if they stopped protesting. However, it is unconstitutional to deny them the right to protest. Protesting is a right that we can "enjoy."

 

Many people don't want gays to marry. However, it is unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. Marriage is a right that everyone can "enjoy."

 

Am I comparing gays to the Phelps cult? NO. I live in Kansas, I see them enough, I can't stand them. I'm also gay, but anyways... My point is, it doesn't matter if you like it or not or if anyone voted on it, DENYING MARRIAGE RIGHTS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.