| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Proposition 8 ruled "unconstitutional"; ...sets up Supreme Court battle | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 7 2012, 10:09 AM (2,429 Views) | |
| The 89th Key | Feb 7 2012, 10:09 AM Post #1 |
|
The voter-approved California amendment that defined marriage as between a man and woman was ruled "unconstitutional" by the 9th circuit court a few minutes ago. Looks like it's going to the Supreme Court next year!
|
![]() |
|
| kenny | Feb 7 2012, 01:29 PM Post #2 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck. indeed!
|
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Feb 7 2012, 02:53 PM Post #3 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So much for Federalism ... it was a good try. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Feb 7 2012, 04:18 PM Post #4 |
|
MAMIL
|
Apparently Newt Gingrich is very upset about this. He's concerned that this lackadaisical attitude on the part of the legal system may undermine the sanctity of his marriages. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Feb 7 2012, 04:47 PM Post #5 |
|
Shortstop
|
That's the important thing. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Feb 7 2012, 05:07 PM Post #6 |
|
Cheers
|
Maybe, I might even say probably. But not definitely. The ruling is very narrow, probably intentionally so to prevent it from being 'the gay marriage case' before the court. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Feb 7 2012, 05:32 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
It's goin' to SCOTUS. Bring it on... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Feb 8 2012, 07:08 AM Post #8 |
|
I know it's an old argument at this point, but if the main reasoning of declaring the voter-approved amendment is that it breaks the "Equal Protection Clause" because it denies the right to marry to a group of people (in this case, two unrelated adult people of the same sex), is it not logical for such a decision to be used as a precedent if other groups of people (related, not-related, 3 or more people, etc) want to marry and when they can't, will bring their case to court? Speaking as objectively as possible, it seems this is setting up a precedent that future court decisions can't ignore, thus opening up the "slippery slope" for all types of couples or groups of people who might want to marry. |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Feb 8 2012, 07:16 AM Post #9 |
|
Cheers
|
Haven't read the decision, but I believe the argument is more specific than that, namely focused on the invalidation of the marriages that had been legal prior to prop 8. That's why it is conceivable that Scotus doesn't pick it up, since its very specific to CA and can't realistically be used as a precedent for other states. Even if Scotus is chomping at the bit for a big gay marriage case, this wouldn't fit the bill very well. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Feb 8 2012, 08:15 AM Post #10 |
|
Well that's geigh. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Feb 8 2012, 08:21 AM Post #11 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Teh Gheyz |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Friday | Feb 8 2012, 08:24 AM Post #12 |
|
Senior Carp
|
I always thought that 89th's arguments about a slippery slope were out there. To be honest, I sort of chuckled whenever he brought it up. But now...I can sort of see it happening. Multiples, animals, and what not. Yeah, I could see it. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Feb 8 2012, 08:59 AM Post #13 |
|
Well to be clear, unlike an average Saturday night at the John D'Oh house of love, I don't think animals will ever be involved. But polygamous or incestuous marriages are as valid as homosexual marriages based on the logic the court is using. (I'm not equating those various relationships in terms of personal morality, that's a different discussion) |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Feb 8 2012, 09:33 AM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree that it's is a slippery slope leading to animals and such. But only stoopid folks would slide down and fortunately judges and even politicians ain't that stoopid, so no worries. Allowing whites to marry blacks (also shocking before its time) was a slippery slope too, but I think only 2 or 3 posters here think that was a mistake. If some folks try to drag us down that slope that's when we say/vote, "Marriage with animals is not what we will tolerate as a society." When the "animal lovers" complain, we say, "Tough Sh!t", just as we said to gays before. Homo humans marrying is okay but human/animals, not. Why? Because we made it up and agree with it. That's all the justification/logic we need. Don't need no higher power to hand down what's groovy and not. Right and wrong are just made up and agreed with. It's all arbitrary and that's just fine because (if we wait long enough) we can trust what we a free democratic society comes up with. No danger. No worries. |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Feb 8 2012, 09:42 AM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I would think animals will forever be out - they can't consent. As for the rest, Kenny is right. But, sometimes courts decide that what's made up and agreed with is not allowed, and stuff that is not agreed with by the overall population becomes law. Again, I'd like to have the gov't give everyone, including polygamist and incestuous couples/groups, Civil Unions. Have gov't get out of the marriage business. Let religious and other atheist institutions dole out certificates of "marriage" based on their own criteria. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Feb 8 2012, 09:54 AM Post #16 |
|
Mishka the husky would disagree with you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXo3NFqkaRM |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Feb 8 2012, 09:59 AM Post #17 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
like I'm going to click that link. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Feb 8 2012, 10:16 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Here's the decision. And here are some choice bits. The court was kind enough to put them at the top so not a lot of reading is required:
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Feb 8 2012, 10:24 AM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
How did they obtain the ability to marry in the first place? Was that from a judge's decision? |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Feb 8 2012, 10:31 AM Post #20 |
|
Cheers
|
I don't remember. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Feb 8 2012, 11:15 AM Post #21 |
|
MAMIL
|
They bloody can too - you just ask them 'yay or neigh?' |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Feb 8 2012, 11:50 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Yes. Here's the first paragraph of the decision:
|
| |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Feb 8 2012, 12:04 PM Post #23 |
|
This is misleading. I just searched the CA constitution and it doesn't specifically mention the right to marry anywhere. It reiterates (in Article 1, Section 7) that a person has the right to equal treatment under the law (life, liberty, pursuit, etc...) and references the 14th amendment, but I wouldn't say it guarantees "the right to marry" to homosexuals anymore than it does heterosexuals. I guess the implication is there, though, which the court is responding to. Still, that means the yes, gay couples had the right to marry before Prop 8, and so did any other type of couple (polygamy, incest, etc), which reinforces the idea that if the court says the restricting marriage to heterosexual couples unnecessarily removes the rights from a group of people, then that would apply across the spectrum of folks who want to marry, no? |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Feb 8 2012, 12:06 PM Post #24 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You'd be amazed how many Constitutions don't say anything about marriage for anyone. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Feb 8 2012, 12:08 PM Post #25 |
|
I agree, so once again I think this court decision is setting a precedent (at least in California) that without a definition of marriage, it leaves the door wide open. |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck. 



12:53 AM Jul 11