quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Our forefathers were just down right geniuses. They knew they had to figure a way for the minority to be protected from the majority..and they did with the Supreme Court. In this court the issue will be decided despite the prop 8's of this country.

The Supreme Court will leave this one alone.  They do not have jurisdiction over matters of state law and governance.

quote:


Governor Swchwarzenegger said on Meet the press this morning that it would... it was already proved unconstitutional in the California courts and he thought it would go to the Supreme Court...Human rights transcend state law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:


Governor Swchwarzenegger said on Meet the press this morning that it would... it was already proved unconstitutional in the California courts and he thought it would go to the Supreme Court...Human rights transcend state law.

Prop 8 makes it constitutional.  That's what constitutional amendments do.

There is no foundation for arguing marriage as a human right.

quote:

That is the California constitution... no state constitution will take president over a Supreme Court decision...just as the various anti-abortion state amendments have been struck down. This may be as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

That is the California constitution... no state constitution will take president over a Supreme Court decision...just as the various anti-abortion state amendments have been struck down. This may be as well.

A state constitution cannot invalidate a prior Supreme Court ruling--which is the case in the anti-abortion amendments to which you refer.

There is no Supreme Court precedent against which Prop 8 can be challenged.  There is no federal law which would bring the "equal protection of the laws" principle into the fray.

The Supreme Court does not rule on state issues and this is--and should remain--a state issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

it is un-nerving that a right is taken away from a people... it might explain why we still have the patriot act. What did the right think would happen? if a group is denoted as being animals not worthy of decent treatment, then if an animal back last happens- then why is that surprisiing.

What right was taken away?

quote:

Before the Supreme Court ruling on abortion there were the same kind of conflicting laws in various states...that is why they took it up...and that is why sooner or later they will be forced to straighten out the conflicting laws in same sex marriage. Despite what you arbitrarily claim it is a right. Or at least it will be claimed that way and will be up to the court to decide if it is or not.

quote:

Equal protection under law for starters. Arguable free association and the right to privacy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Before the Supreme Court ruling on abortion there were the same kind of conflicting laws in various states...that is why they took it up...and that is why sooner or later they will be forced to straighten out the conflicting laws in same sex marriage. Despite what you arbitrarily claim it is a right. Or at least it will be claimed that way and will be up to the court to decide if it is or not.

30 of the 50 states have written definitions of marriage as being between man and woman into their constitutions.  The only two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) that have legal recognition for same-sex marriage had that evolution imposed on them by the courts, not through legislative process.

Where is the "conflicting law"? It doesn't exist.

In fact, there is broad consensus across the U.S. on this point, and it is in favor of prohibiting same sex marriage.

The arbitrary claim, btw, is that marriage is a human right.

quote:

As for as the majority...I stated in my first post they are not always right...That is what the Supreme Court is about...They will determine not what the majority thinks...but if their thinking is constitutional.

Where would we be in race relations as an example if the majority’s laws were irrevocable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

As for as the majority...I stated in my first post they are not always right...That is what the Supreme Court is about...They will determine not what the majority thinks...but if their thinking is constitutional.

Where would we be in race relations as an example if the majority’s laws were irrevocable?

You have not established that the definition of marriage is in fact a constitutional question justiciable by the Supreme Court.

The majority's laws are not irrevocable--but, as you pointed out above, the standard before the Supreme Court is not what is the majority opinion, but what, if any, is the Constitutional principle to be applied.  If there is no Constitutional principle (meaning U.S. Constitution), there is no Supreme Court case.

quote:

There have been many majority laws and amendments struck down over the years. I hope this is one..but we will just have to wait and see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: noonnap

i know this is a little off track and i apologize. what is so wrong about gay people being married to one another? um i really cant think why government would care but maybe i am missing something?

quote:

ORIGINAL: noonnap

so then its a religious thing?
im not trying to knock opions here i am really just trying to understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

There have been many majority laws and amendments struck down over the years. I hope this is one..but we will just have to wait and see.

One more time:  What is the Constitutional principle that makes same-sex marriage justiciable by the Supreme Court?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

There have been many majority laws and amendments struck down over the years. I hope this is one..but we will just have to wait and see.

One more time:  What is the Constitutional principle that makes same-sex marriage justiciable by the Supreme Court?

What principle applies to right to die but they took it up did they not?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

There have been many majority laws and amendments struck down over the years. I hope this is one..but we will just have to wait and see.

One more time:  What is the Constitutional principle that makes same-sex marriage justiciable by the Supreme Court?

What principle applies to right to die but they took it up did they not?

Butch

You are not answering the question. 

What is the Constitutional principle that makes same-sex marriage justiciable by the Supreme Court?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evility

The thing about the whole Proposition 8 debate that I find most interesting is that California voted in favor of Obama. The people spoke. Many of the opponents to Prop 8 likely voted for Obama. So the people spoke and that's that... since the people spoke in a manner that those who are against Prop 8 approved of. Then the people spoke again in favor of Prop 8. Suddenly the will of the people is not good enough. What if everyone across the nation who did not vote for Obama rose up and protested against the decision?

I'm not personally for Prop 8. Had I had a voice I would have voted against it. But I do respect the will of the people as I have in the election of Obama, stupid as it may be. Why is the will of the people only okay for these folks if it falls on their side of the fence?