The Truth on Prop 8, and what it means.

Im 22 years old.

This past election was the first where i was able to objectivly observe each and every event.


Prop 8 is the one of the biggest stories.

Thrughout the history of Human, a period spaning untold thousands of years, Marriage was between a man and a woman.

There has always been homosexuality. Whatever the cause of it.

This 'idea' of marriage between man and woman has been known to be an unchalenged truth throughout the years, that is until the Year 2000 in California.

In the 200 election, the people of California went to the Ballot box, and voted to explicitly define marriage as between a man and a woman.

They did this with every legal precident of the constitutionaluty and rights given to them.


In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court over-ruled the Constitutioanly-Back vote of the people


The most well put quote that came from the Supreme Justices came from one of the members of the Dissenting vote.

Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But Justice Corrigan said the courts should allow the political process to address the question.

“We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” she wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

Here is a justice who put personal opinion below her civic duty. She chose to rely on the will OF the people.

For the first time in my observeable politcal life, i saw OVERT and OPEN Fascism at works in the American Political system.

No media outlet called it what it was. And no average person saw the truth.

Even here on ATS, not many saw this, not many could see the truth when it is right in front of, we have been conditioned to be told.

Unless something is pointed out to us, we rarely see it. Even I suffer from this affliction. You must train yourself to put aside emotion, and to focus on the legality/legitimacy of the law.


Here, it was so simple. 4 people, overrode the Constitutional Vote of millions


People reasons for defending Fascism are diffrent.

Most people fall into the catagory of they don't know what they are doing, they are either ill-informed or have no desire to even be informed.

These people have had the media failed them. The open/free press died at some point in the past decade. These people consist of 90%+ of the people who vote for gay rights thru this measure. No fault should be aimed at them.

The second group of people that support prop 8 are much worse.
These are the people that i can call, Gay Fascists. These people are the VERY vocal minorty, less then 10%.

These people do not mind haveing fascism, as long as it benifiets them, or if they get some sort of self-gradification out of it.


Reguardless of how you feel about the morality of homosexuailty, its not right to strip them of certain tax benifets. Given to Married couples.

And, reguardless of how you feel about gay rights, its not a good thing to be an advocate for Fascism.


Fight for Gay Rights, thru civil unions, but use the RIGHTS given to you by our Constitution.

Do not rely on the Fascistic rulings of a compremised American Political system.

It is a man like San Fransisco Mayor, Gavin Newsome, who you need to worry about. People like him, are those that we have been warned about, thruout history.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.

--Marcus Tullius Cicero
Roman orator, statesman 42 B.C

I invite you to leave your comments, as long as you don't use the words:
Homophobe.
Bigiot
Hate-mongerer
Nazi
Or any other slur that is used to distract from the issue.


I would like to hear from people, who did not know this, esspicialy people who ARE big advocates of Gay Rights.

How do you feel that the fight for YOUR GAY rights, has been highjecked by fascists within the California Political system?

Are you fine with this Fascism, because it benifiets you?


A last word of note, please put aside EMOTIONAL thought when reasoning.

Humans are emotional creatures, and our emotions are a great benifit to us in MANY MANY circumstances, logical reasoning, is not one of these spots.

In any logical argument or debate, if you get your enemy to use their emotions to reason, rather then logic, you will win.


And i would like the screamers of both sides to stay away.
Those that are going to scream at gays, and say they are going to hell for sins, stay away.
Those that are going to attack someone for their beliefs, and the choices they make in their lifes, stay away.


Those open to logical reason, I welcome you to disscusion.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by TKainZero]

Originally posted by TKainZero

Those that are going to with gays into hell for sins, stay away.

oh, darn. you almost made it all the way to the end of the post without breaking your own rules.

you almost had yourself a calm, logical debate.

but use of language like this can ONLY spark an emotional response.







Mod edit - accidental post removal - replaced.



[edit on 7-11-2008 by elevatedone]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by elevatedone]

reply to post by tgidkp


I may have misstyped a word or two...


I am a very bad speller, i will reword that phrase.
**

Upon, edit, i REALLY did type that line poorly.

Thank you for pointed it out. The way i reworded it is the way i was trying to write it. I was helping my friend with Calculus when typing.

[edit on 11/7/2008 by TKainZero]

A very thoughtful and well written post overall, nice job


As to the issue at hand..

Look, my wife is a bi-sexual, so the issue in and of itself is a bit more open in our household than in others. We have discussed these things at length, ourselves, and come to basically the same conclusion as you have.


Our opinion is, if people wish to be in a union and are gay, then there is no reason they should NOT be. It is their free will choice to do so. And as long as you exerting your free will interferes not with mine, or anyone elses, then I believe you should be free to live how you will live. If you make wrong or right choices, you'll live with the consequences, and nature can take care of your judgement or blessings.


However.. that being said, and getting to the point of the post, I believe, as well as my wife, that teh people DID speak, politically, right or wrong, and they decided that they did not wish to grant those things to those of a gay bent.

My friends, right or wrong, that IS what this country is based on.


If I can toss a little advice in? Be patient. Right now, people see the gay community pushing this issue harder than anything else, and because of that, its like throwing jello against a brick wall. You will not get through to them, and you're going to piss people off. You already are.

What you need to do is to get people to realize that you're not something to fear or hate, and quit trying to force issues down people's throats.

By now trying to go through a court action to overturn the decision that the people have made is going to do no less than cause that much more hatred towards you, and you will reap the consequences. No, this is not a threat, this is LOGICAL, and both my wife, and I, can see it clearly. Look how much hatred it's already breeding.

Patience. Quit pushing. Step back out of the scenes for a little while and talk to people, that is the way. Later, when things have calmed and people are not so emotional, you can try again with a new proposition. It does not all have to come down to this one moment in time, understand?



That's .02 from myself, and my wife. Again she is part of the lifestyle and the issue is something we have a personal take on, I guess you can say. As it stands, those who are pushing these issues are going to cause great harm to a lot of people, a lot of which, to begin with, have no interest IN THE ISSUE to BEGIN with.

A great many gay couples are quite content living their lives exactly as they are, without the need for the union of marriage. Why this has become a big issue is obvious to me, but i'll not go into it here.

So you don't want to be called a nazi, you think that will derail the thread. But you are more then fine grouping people together and calling them fascists. You are more then fine calling ATS supporters that agreed with this judicial decision, supporters of fascism.

Anyways, thanks for the thread I am gonna make some coffee and then share my thoughts in a few minutes.

I think prop 8 is a good indication of why "democracy" doesn't work. Democracy allows the majority to rule over the minority, rather than protecting the minority from the majority.

This is why the US is setup as a republic, rather than a democracy.

I live in cali, and I'm not gay. But I was disappointed it passed. I think it's just tyranny of the majority over the minority.

IMO, government shouldn't be involved in marriage to being with. It has no business being involved.

One of the commercials I seen for prop 8 had kids on it, and then it was like "What are you going to tell them?". And it was just a downright stupid commercial. What are you going to tell them when there are 2 guys walking down the street holding hands and kissing? It's not like prop 8 stops people from being gay.

Which brings up another issue. Why are gay people wanting it so badly? It's not like you have be married to someone to live and be with that person. So it's not the biggest issue to me, but I do think they should be given equal rights, and while I don't see why it is so important to them, they should be given those rights.

Under a limited government that minded it's own business, and served the sole purpose of protecting peoples rights, this would not even be an issue. It's time the people got the government out of our lives, rather than trying to change it to fit our lives while forcing that onto other people.

Sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding the point of your post, but I would like to address these statements.

What's actually happened recently is the notion that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, as there have been same sex marriages "spanning thousands of years"...

Originally posted by TKainZero
Thrughout the history of Human, a period spaning untold thousands of years, Marriage was between a man and a woman.
...
This 'idea' of marriage between man and woman has been known to be an unchalenged truth throughout the years, that is until the Year 2000 in California.

This isn't true. Gay marriage goes back at least 600 years.

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
...
For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

Source

One of the recurring clichés of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In many cultures and in many eras, the issue has emerged-and the themes of the arguments are quirkily similar. Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage.
...
In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted. Judge for yourself what this might mean for our current convulsion. One thing emerges clearly: this issue is not a modern invention.
...
What follows is from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript labeled Grottaferrata G.B.), and I have inserted some of the significant original Greek words in transcription.

Office for Same-Sex Union

Source

To override the majority who have clearly voted to pass proposition 8 is to disenfranchise them.

An argument could be made that to deny marriage to gays is to disenfranchise them.

The question then arises, whose disenfranchisment is superior?

To follow the line of logic in the first sentence here, what would be wrong then with overriding the majority in other things, say, the recent presidential election? Doesn't make sense does it?

Or say the majority have voted to preserve farmland in your county. Should a minority overide the vote of the majority here?

By what rulebook does one wish to play? He who has the biggest stick wins? Have a duel to see who rules?

Why do you think bigamy, polygamy, sodomy, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality and the like have not been mainstream throughout mankinds history?

Upon hearing this question the gay community often goes directly into attack/defense mode, attacking the questioner, specifically, concerning the comparison of the aforementioned chosen behaviors. No comparison is implied by this author, rather, the list of chosen behaviors is simply provided to show those chosen behaviors which have NOT been mainstream throughout the history of mankind, globally.

And lest you bring religion into the mix, remember these behavioral choices are not endemic to the United States, nor to Christian lands.

And so, simply because one does not agree with the majority does not give that one the right to reverse the will of same.

Now, if one is vehement in their disagreement, then one would have to make the choice to take up either a civil (which is currently underway) or an armed struggle to force ones will upon the majority.

Having read the Benevolent Heretic's post, I might add, I have not denied the existence in history of homosexuality, nor of civil union between same. I do, however, remain steadfast in stating that said behavior and unions, though being shown to exist from time to time in various places throughout history, has never been the mainstream.

What I understood the topic of this thread to be was democracy, and California proposition 8, not an argument as to the question of whether homosexual marriage has ever existed.

I have addressed the Constitutionality issue Here and Here

Basically, gay people are citizens and their rights are protected by the Constitution. You can't make a law that abridges the rights of citizens.

A state law, OR a state Constitutional Amendment that denies citizens the right to marry is unconstitutional. A simple majority cannot vote to deny people their Constitutional rights.

Democracy at its most essential form IS Mob Rule.


In my opinion, Mob Rule is a terrible way of deciding something.

That is why the US was set up as a Constitutional Republic, not a direct democracy.

Having one culture have something that can be said to be, Homosexual marriage, does not meant that it should be emplimented into our society.

Also, evidence of such marriages, are circumstantial evidence.

Also, we are talking about California. And only California, and ONLY the methods of WHAT happen back in May of 08, and what did it mean in reguards to prop 8.


If you want to lead the charge in a California State Prop that would put forward a bill that would give same-sex couples the SAME rights are married couples, then do that.

That is something California would embrace.

But, to defend the actions in which this messure took place, i cannot condone.



Also, Marrige is not a right. Marriage is a name to describe a LEGAL document.
A document that the STATE issues.


Much like a drivers liecense, you have to earn it, it is a privilage. It is not a right.

Obtaining a marriage leicense is a privilage, not a right.

Not having a marriage liensce isn't going to make you anyless of a person, and having one, ins't going to make those that disaprove accept homosexuality.

California Gay Rights groups should push FULL STREAM AHEAD towards the ballot, they should work so that in 2 years, Californians can vote FOR Gay Rights.

The political will for this is here in California.

So again, i go back to the Supreme court Justice, who can say things A LOT more elequently then i can.

“We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” she wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

And to LL, sorry if you fell like a called you a Fascist. I made a mistake in wording earlier, so its pausablie it could have happen 2 times.

I only said that the Means in Which this came to be, is Fascistic, and those, that DID this, are what i am calling, Gay Fascists.


If your name is:
Ronald M. George
Joyce L. Kennard
Kathryn M. Werdegar
Carlos R. Moreno


Then yes, i did call you that. And for that, i am sorry.
These are the 4 people who overrode the vote of California.

These people are 4 of the Working cogs of the Gay Fascist movement, that is within California, missreprsenting the Homosexuality population of California.

These are the VERY people Cicero wrote about over 2000 years ago, when he said, 'The Enemy Within'.



I can only Hope and Pray that everyone that is on ATS falls into the first catagory of people i described.

If you are indeed one of these people, who are in support of Fascism, for whatever reason, i cannot understand you.

I hope that we NEVER EVER have to see this kind of actions again in our political system.

Ever.

This is a dirty political entity. Something that our generation should NEVER have to face.

Originally posted by TKainZero
Also, we are talking about California. And only California, and ONLY the methods of WHAT happen back in May of 08, and what did it mean in reguards to prop 8.

In your OP, you said:

Thrughout the history of Human, a period spaning untold thousands of years, Marriage was between a man and a woman.

I didn't think you were talking JUST about California and ONLY California.

Much like a drivers liecense, you have to earn it, it is a privilage. It is not a right.

What does one do to earn the privilege to marry?

Not having a marriage liensce isn't going to make you anyless of a person,

Neither is not voting.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand the fascist thing... But that's ok.

the traditional depiction of "justice" is made by the blindfolded woman with the balance-scales in her hands.

the reason that she is blindfolded is because she does not care what the majority thinks. her job is merely to measure the wills of society against the constitutional standard.

the "bad" and the "good" have no bearing here. whether or not people think gay marriage is "right" is totally irrelevant. as it stands, they are a protected minority in california.

"equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny..."

opinion of Chief Justice Ronald M. George

(the Massachusetts supreme court came to the exact opposite decision several years ago: that gays are NOT a protected class.)

i particularly like the words "equal respect and dignity of marriage". all those whom do not understand this argument from the gay's point of view would do well to ponder those words.

to sum it up: i do not understand why you are tossing the word "fascism" around. supreme court justices are elected for the term of "life" because, for the love of God, we need to be able to trust someone around here! if the enemy truly has gone that deeply within, then america really is dead. (i do not think this is the case).

the argument is no longer about the morality of the issue. it is now about whether or not gays are second class citizens (or protected minority). so long as they are a protected minority, no amount of blustering by religious zealots will change it. period.

we should all take great comfort in that, not fear it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I didn't think you were talking JUST about California and ONLY California.

For Consitutionality, and Law, California.

For how the species humans has worked, thats human history.

What does one do to earn the privilege to marry?

For Marriage, as a legal document from the state, the state grants that right.
For a Religious ceremony, you can just walk up and do that. Just go ask a priest to have a little ceremony.


I'm sorry, I still don't understand the fascist thing... But that's ok.


The rule of the few overturning the will on the people.




No matter how you feel about the issue, the people should be able to use their rights and choose.

We should not be happy to be regulated to correcting the California Supreme Courts every vote.

You should never sit by as the iligitimate few rule the Constutitionaly legal vote of millions.

Originally posted by TKainZero
For Marriage, as a legal document from the state, the state grants that right.

So why can the state not grant that right to any two consenting adults?

I am still at a loss to understand why anyone feels they have a right to tell any other citizen how to conduct their sexual life.

America is the home of freedom and liberty, we cannot single out a certain group and tell them they are not eligible for our freedoms unless they conduct themselves as we think they should.

I am not gay, but I am also not foolish enough to think that my opinion will change someones sexual orientation.

If two commited adults work hard through their lives and gain wealth,
is it right that they should have no right to that if one dies?

We are the land of freedom of choice, we cannot then say....
all but you!





[edit on 11/9/2008 by Ex]

reply to post by Ex


look gay couples are not missing out on any rights or privileges. For your example this couple could always write a will stating that they want all things in which they own to be left to that person. my question to you is who are homosexuals to say that i have to believe what they are choosing to do is humanly right? If a child is raised with a gay couple what is the child to believe? in california there is an educational code section 8850.5 that requires public schools to teach children of any age about parenting and families. do you want your children if you have any to believe that gay acts are apart of human nature to reproduce? what rights do you feel that gay people don't have in civil union or domestic parnership? do you realize that allowing gay couples to be noticed as married couples would change the very deffanition of marriage in the dictionary? if gay marriage were to become legal it would then force religions to marry these couples or maybe pay some kind of fine. i think you should understand the reprocutions of such a law and how it would effect other people that don't believe the same way.

Easy Anonymous. Let the children be raised and believe as they wish. My nephew was partially raised by me for many years. He has a little girlfriend now which I think is cute.

I would never bother to try to get into a church to get married. I would feel defiled as I am happy to have religion washed off me gosh 15-16 years ago.




[edit on 17/11/08 by toochaos4u]

OK before this thread gets to far a little history lesson

Prior to 1977, California Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at California Family Code section 300) defined marriage as: "a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."[3]

While related sections made references to gender, a state assembly committee that was debating adding gender-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married."[4] That year, the legislature amended the definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity.

When Prop 22 came before voters, section 300 defined marriage as:

a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. [5]

Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere:

A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state. [6]

Advocates of Prop 22 described section 308 as a "loophole," apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state.[7] After passage, Prop 22 added a new section, codified at section 308.5, that reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. [8]

LAW BEFORE PROP 22

So in 1977, the California legislator defined what a marriage in California was.

Prop 22 was a ballot initiative That Basically closed a supposed loophole. But really what prop 22 did was say California would not honor a same sex marriage preformed outside of the state of California.

Then On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down this initiative and related California law in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry.

So the supporters of prop 22 seeing that the justices decided to be activists and not judges Changed prop 22 into prop 8 Which was a state constitution amendment to over rule the Activist justices that overstepped their bounds.

Now in 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and it states:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Defense of Marriage Act

****end of history lesson****

now those that use the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause. there are somethings you need to realize. whether right or wrong
1. Being homosexual is not a protected class.
2. marriage of any form is not a protected class

Marriage is expressly regulated by the states not the federal government. also marriage is not a right. its a privilege.

Now gays can enjoy the same privilege that heteros enjoy. they are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex as long as that person is of consenting age and they agree to that marriage.

Also there is a reason why the U.S. Supreme court has never heard a case involving same sex marriage. Because it is a state issue not a federal government issue. Also because being homosexual and marriages are not protected classes under the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

once a state amends it constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman it is usually game over for the gay rights activists. since amending a constitution makes the ban constitutional. And since it takes a majority to amend a constitution the majority of the population has spoken. whether you feel they were right or wrong .

Now I don't feel gays should be able to marry each other, Their rights are not being violated. But if they feel they are then they need to quit fighting the states and take on the federal Government.

But i advise a word of warning. Fighting the Government will force Congress to pass U.S. Constitutional amendment called the Federal Marriage Amendment. which will then have to be ratified by 2/3 of each house of congress and three fourths of the states. Right now 30 states have passed bans or constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. if all 30 states ratify a U.S. Constitution amendment they would only need 8 more states that ratify it for it to become part of the Constitution.

For those wanting to see what this amendment currently looks like look here: Federal Marriage Amendment

Edit to add: Since amending California's constitution just made banning same sex marriage Constitutional, Gay rights activists cannot Sue in California that it is unconstitutional. they can only sue to over turn the amendment on procedural grounds if anywhere along the line of getting the amendment on the ballot the supporters violated any procedures.

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Mercenary2007]

[edit on 11/17/2008 by Mercenary2007]

i need to correct something i posted above

Also there is a reason why the U.S. Supreme court has never heard a case involving same sex marriage. Because it is a state issue not a federal government issue. Also because being homosexual and marriages are not protected classes under the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

I was wrong i did find 1 case that the U.S. supreme court did hear on same sex marriages. Baker v. Nelson

On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied to Gerald R. Nelson, the clerk of Minnesota's Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis, for a marriage license. Nelson denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. Baker and McConnell then sued Nelson, contending that Minnesota law permitted same-sex marriages, and arguing against Nelson's interpretation that it did not violate their rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court ruled Nelson was not required to issue Baker and McConnell a marriage license, and specifically directed that they not be issued a license. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".

Later that year, the couple applied for and were awarded a marriage license by the Blue Earth County Commissioner in Mankato, Minnesota. Because of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision, the license was deemed invalid. The couple still claims it is valid to this day, and attempted to file a joint tax return in 2004. After the IRS rejected the joint return, McConnell filed an action in Federal District Court, seeking a federal income tax refund in the amount of $793.28 and a declaration that he is "a full citizen who is lawfully married and, by that fact, entitled to be treated the same as every other married Minnesotan, similarly situated". McConnell's action was rejected by the Court.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".

Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question."

Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) "[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction". Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lower Federal Courts are expressly prohibited from ruling in a way inconsistent with binding precedent. "[Summary decisions] prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts. "[L]ower courts are bound by summary decision by this Court until such time as the Court informs [them] that [they] are not". Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d 537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.

SOURCE

So the precedent has been set and all federal courts MUST FOLLOW THAT PRECEDENT Until the U.S. supreme court agrees to hear another same sex marriage case and reverses that precedent.