Home Arts & Entertainment Culture & Lifestyle Economy Food Health News & Politics Offbeat People Products Science & Technology Sports Travel

News & Politics

Rant

Unconstitutional Gay Marriage

Posted 21 months ago|6 comments|532 views

TAGS

Gay Marriage , Unconstitutional , Ban gay marriage , Inequality , Judge Walker

Written by

Terryeo

California's voters, by public vote at the ballot box, declared there would be no gay marriage in California. On Tuesday November 4th, 2008 California voters voted "yes" on Proposition 8. The vote amended the California state constitution to specifically define marriage as between a man and woman. The Proposition became law and banned gay couples from getting married in California. Proposition 8

On August 4, 2010, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker Declared that ban to be unconstitutional, thus overturning Proposition 8. Judge Walker's declare

People have created some organization in order to live in geopolitical areas. It is necessary because without organization people could not have reliable power and water, telephone and sewers. We have to agree to drive on the right side of the road (which is the left side of the road in England), or we would have confusion. In short, we need organization to live as we do.

So we have law, and law is agreement among people. We agree to drive on the right side of the road so things will go along safely and smoothly. But sometimes a majority of people want or don't want something. The ballot box is where people's will traditionally manifests. Our say at the ballot box becomes law, public agreement that we create is then the agreement we and our children live with until it is again changed at the ballot box.

In the instance of proposition 8, the will of the people of California said: No gay marriage. The Supreme Court of California heard the case and issued opinion, upholding proposition 8 as valid. California Supreme Court on 8 The California's Supreme Court has said the will of the people at the ballot box is valid and does not conflict with the Constitution of California.

But a single federal judge rendered California's Supreme Court ruling invalid striking down the will of millions of California's voters with a penstroke.

Proposition 8, according to Federal Judge Walker, conflicts with the Constitution of California. Judge Walker hasn't said the law conflicts with the USA's Constitution, but that it conflicts with California's Constitution. The situation is stalled for a while as it stands before the court at this time.

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST

To:

From:

COMMENTS

6 comments|ADD A COMMENT|JUMP TO MOST RECENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

21 months ago: Good Post Terryeo

Prop. 8 not only conflicts with the California constitution but I also think with the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

This case when validated by the Supreme court will invalidate other gay marriage bans throughout the nation.

I really do expect all of those on the right to applaud this decision because they are always telling me that this country is not a Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic in which the Constitution protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

markbyrn

Moderator

21 months ago: ...Proposition 8, according to Federal Judge Walker, conflicts with the Constitution of California. Judge Walker hasn't said the law conflicts with the USA's Constitution, but that it conflicts with California's Constitution...

Where did you get this notion from? As quoted from the ruling itself, "Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement."

That Due Process and Equal Protection clause would be from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and to quote the relevant portion:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

...But a single federal judge rendered California's Supreme Court ruling invalid striking down the will of millions of California's voters with a penstroke...

Wouldn't be the first time a federal judge has overturned the will of the majority of a state and it's leadership. For example, Alabama, Segregation, and George Wallace comes to mind.

You ever take a class on American Government and learn about three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) Perhaps you've heard of the separation of powers with it's associated checks and balances? And the job of judicial branch is to do exactly what this Judge did - which was to rule whether the law was constitutional or not.

Now some might disagree with the Judge as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies in this case and I imagine this controversy will be heading to the Supreme Court. However, your proposition that a ballot box decision by a state must inherently overrule anything else (inc. the US Constitution) is of course preposterous. Is that what the CoS taught you?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL

21 months ago: As Al and Mark have pointed out, prop 8 violates the Federal Constitution, and therefore was overturned. Even if it was perfectly legal (and I'm not sure it was) according to California's constitution no state can pass laws that violate Federal Constitutional law.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

jandar
Cape Neddick, ME

21 months ago: Scientology are Bigots ask Paul Haggis

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Altruist
Eugene, OR

21 months ago: I suspect this opinion will be withheld in all appeals and in the Supreme Court, because the Republican Judge Vaughn Walker was aware that it would be appealed and was therefore very diligent in exploring every aspect of the law and wrote a very careful opinion based upon findings of facts, that the Constitutional Rights of the plaintiffs were abused for no rational reasons.

The people defending the law embarrassed themselves and did more harm than good. The people challenging the law systematically proved that the bill was passed because of an intense propaganda push that relied on lies and untruths. They proved that traditional marriage was not harmed, that the children of gay marriage were just as healthy as the children of hetro marriages, and that the rights of the plaintiffs were being denied in many ways.

All polls have consistently shown that 52% of the people in California approve of gay marriage, even though the right and the churches were able to fire up their people to pass the unconstitutional law with a 52% majority.

The right claimed that traditional marriage would be harmed and that children would suffer if Gays were allowed to marry, but the 18,000 Californians who were allowed to marry before this ban,, and those in the 7 states where it is legal, proved that there were no negative consequences of Gay Marriage.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

THE RONBOT HUNTER

21 months ago: As any Sovereign would say, in the new Republics, gays can marry anyone that they want. NO RESTRICTIONS!!

The freedom in a Sovereign Republic is equal to all.

No one can tell a GAY OR LESBIAN what to do or not do, when America is restored as a Constitutional Republic.

I tell it like it is, I pull no punches, tell no lies, and I am as I am

http://movielocker.com/5232 -- installs the viewer

http://www.powercrossing.com/ plays the video on "What happened to the constitution?"

FLAG THIS COMMENT