Unconstitutional Prop 8 OVERTURNED

Finally, the very discriminating Prop 8 has been overturned. It's amazing how uncivilized so many individuals can be to even support the outlaw of Love.

San Francisco — A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

source


this is about Liberty and Freedom. Don't like it? Get out.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by SeventhSeal]

reply to post by SeventhSeal



Sadly, love fails!

With the amount of heterosexual relationships that fail, this was about laws that would make it legal to share things like health insurace, etc.

Nobody should benefit from a partnership in my belief.

Everyone is entitled to benefits, and should not be denied, or accepted, based on a marriage license.

I'm going to post here too because there are two threads on this.

Good. Constitution upheld. That's what judges are there for, even if the people vote against what it right.

It's none of the government or anybody else's business who anybody marries or doesn't marry. That's between people and their gods, if they have gods.

Bet this is gonna suck for those fake libertarian Constitutionalists who ran around for years opposing gay marriage because it's somehow morally wrong or affects someone else's rights

reply to post by Blanca Rose


Just because heteros fail at marriage, doesn't mean you have to be bitter towards same sex marriage

The outlaw of gay marriage is uncivil, disgraceful and sickening. Thankfully, California can now rejoice.

It is indeed a clear and fantastic day.

I was ecstatic when I heard. A group to be able to vote away rights is just sickening. It's like voting on whether interracial marriage should be allowed. If that was what was at stake things would have been resolved way faster! I'm glad things have started to head in the right direction.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Just because heteros fail at marriage, doesn't mean you have to be bitter towards same sex marriage

I'm not bitter at all. It's all about the benies, though. I hope everyone can find love at stick to it. It so doesn't happen for the long haul though, for anyone.

I don't have a problem with gay people at all, as a matter of fact.

I have a problem with marriage. It should be ruled unconstitutional.

It should be every man and women for themselves, because when it boils down to it. many marriages fail, and that is the way it ends up. The cost to get married, and then, divorced is outrageous.

Nobody should have to be robbed like that, but if you support a law, that lets people have to eventually succumb to the BS, sobeit!

ATS is just too much sometimes.
Rights are NEVER subject to a vote, the majority does not rule.
EVERY FREAKIN DAY, ATS'ers gripe about the Constitution being ignored, then you gripe when it's followed!
The Constitution is THE standard by all American law is measured, do you want it followed or not? Or only for hetros? Civil rights are NOT subject to a popularity contest! LEARN YOUR CONSTITUTION!
LEARN HOW AMERICAN LAW WORKS!

I'm all for letting Homo's and Lesbians marry. They should have the same "rights" to pay alimony and child support like us Hetero's do when they divorce. Now that's equal rights! Marriage is highly overrated anyway.

reply to post by SeventhSeal


whos liberty and freedom? apparently not the voters.

and dont worry, ill be moving asap. and no im not "homophobic", it just doesnt sit well with me knowing my vote doesnt count here. Id move to Arizona but i hear votes arent any good there either.

Of course gays and lesbians should have the right to marry. I've never understood the American predisposition towards cowing to the will of the most conservative voices anyway.

Besides, this will make Divorce Court much more entertaining.

Fighting for the RIGHT to allow the STATE (government) to License a free activity always perplexed me.

Oh well, where are the people to fight for the RIGHT to allow the STATE to license breathing?

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
this is about Liberty and Freedom. Don't like it? Get out.

Smoking crack must have been legalized, huh?

Apparently, your version of "liberty and freedom" is about as screwed up as the "liberty and freedom" of that Californian majority that TWICE voted against same sex marriage, huh? You can call it "discriminating" or whatever else you and others so choose but in my book, this is simply another example of minority rule over the will of the majority. In fact, this judgement from the judge was expected, given the judge is a homosexual....no bias involved at all, huh x2?

Originally posted by OldDragger
Rights are NEVER subject to a vote, the majority does not rule.

Maybe in your libtard world majority does not rule....
Legislation in this country is enacted via majority rule....60 votes or 60%.
The POTUS is elected by majority vote.
Members of Congress are elected on majority vote.

Do I need to go on, or does this disturb your libtard worldview too much?

Democracy is mob rule. That is why we have a Constitutional Republic.

I agree that the government has no business defining marriage. I also agree that a marital union should not receive special benefits. Under what logic should the unmarried be discriminated against? Are they second class citizens?

Hmmmmmmmm.........some flawed logic here. Conservatives voted for this twice and it passed twice? Really, in the most liberal state in America, you found enough conservatives only to do this.......nope, will of the people, not conservatives..........the people.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by adifferentbreed]

the result of this vote was determined unconstitutional. votes cant override the constitution. it doesnt matter if the majority wants the ban. if the ban is unconstitutional, then the ban has to be removed. laws have to be within the constitution...

Originally posted by LurkerMan
reply to post by SeventhSeal

 

whos liberty and freedom? apparently not the voters.

and dont worry, ill be moving asap. and no im not "homophobic", it just doesnt sit well with me knowing my vote doesnt count here. Id move to Arizona but i hear votes arent any good there either.

What votes? Oh you mean the ones to tell people who they can or can't marry? Nice. Yeah please move...to another planet. We'll miss you...Not.

reply to post by devilishlyangelic23


tell that to the healthcare reform bill.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
this is about Liberty and Freedom. Don't like it? Get out.

Smoking crack must have been legalized, huh?

Apparently, your version of "liberty and freedom" is about as screwed up as the "liberty and freedom" of that Californian majority that TWICE voted against same sex marriage, huh? You can call it "discriminating" or whatever else you and others so choose but in my book, this is simply another example of minority rule over the will of the majority. In fact, this judgement from the judge was expected, given the judge is a homosexual....no bias involved at all, huh x2?

My reply above is the same to you. Don't like it? Move out. This is about freedom and liberty. I know, those words don't sit well with conservatives.

Also, I'm ashamed to see such ignorance on this web site...out of all places. I think the hate forums are easy to find...go post on them..not here. Thank you.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by OldDragger
Rights are NEVER subject to a vote, the majority does not rule.

Maybe in your libtard world majority does not rule....
Legislation in this country is enacted via majority rule....60 votes or 60%.
The POTUS is elected by majority vote.
Members of Congress are elected on majority vote.

Do I need to go on, or does this disturb your libtard worldview too much?

You have taken the context of 'majority rule' and twisted it to fit your narrow view in regards to such.

Since you opened with an attack, it first lowers your stance and view point greatly. Attacking one with such a colorful and creative name as 'libtard' shows a lack of vocabulary development and critical thinking skills.

Sadly you were unable to understand that the poster you responded to was referring to popular vote, as in mob rule, being the definition they were seeking to put forward when they said 'majority rule.'

Instead, you have twisted it around with very factual statements that are inaccurate to the argument.

While the President does win with a majority, it is of the Electoral College and not of the Majority (meaning the People or popular vote.) As seen before in history, one can win with a majority (electoral college majority) and yet still lose with a majority (popular vote majority.)

I will expand on what the poster was getting at, or at least what I understood from it.

The United States of America is a nation of laws, who are passed by a majority within Congress, signed by the executive and placed under the scrutiny of the judiciary. That very law, even if supported by the majority of persons in the country, state, or city is still subjected to the test of constitutionality; State and Federal levels.

The poster was conveying that persons speak from both sides of the mouth in this regard. They whoop and holler about following the Constitution, which sets up a Representative Republic (generally direct voting is not involved on a wide scale use), but then bitch and moan when their representatives vote a certain way and demand that the People, or Mob must be heard and followed!

In regards to this case, yes, the voters of California overwhelming supported a ban but even so, that law must be held to the Constitution, not the People, the governor, the State, etc.

One could argue that since the Constitution does not directly address the issue of marriage, that it would fall under the 10th Amendment. Which would mean that the State's Constitution is now the law of the land in regards to the issue. I am sure it also violates due process, the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness in which one sees fit. Since that pursuit does not infringe upon anyone else's pursuit of life, liberty or happiness I would call this a win for the People of California. It ensures that personal freedom has prevailed and that backhanded legislation under the guise of moral fabric cohesiveness.

Where I am curious to see in regards to the future will be the State's imposition upon religious groups to perform a marriage. This is where I believe the State's power should stop. As religious groups, along with all the People have the right to worship how they see fit. They should not be forced into performing a ceremony that violates their own faith. This would be a direct violation of the First Amendment and could easily be won.