Printable View
Indeed, we should just go to a flat sales tax instead of income tax and get the gov't out of marriage. Of course, this should include the right of people to decline that which goes against their beliefs; if a baker doesn't want to make a "wedding" cake for a gay couple, let 'em, don't let them be sued!
My bigger concern for the future, though, is that standing issue I mentioned earlier. If the state won't defend it, who can?
Bingo. A priest and friend staying with me said he voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Minnesota, but that doesn't mean he supports gay marriage. I'm sure this last bit'd make people label him as hateful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
From the Prop 8 decision so everyone is on the same page:
From the Chief Justice’s opinion:
Here is how his opinion concludes:Quote:
The public is currently engaged in an active political debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. That question has also given rise to litigation. In this case, petitioners, who oppose same-sex marriage, ask us to decide whether the Equal Protection Clause “prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” Pet. for Cert. i. Respondents, same-sex couples who wish to marry, view the issue in somewhat different terms: For them, it is whether California—having previously recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry—may reverse that decision through a referendum.
Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to answer such questions only if necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual “case” or “controversy.” As used in the Constitution, those words do not include every sort of dispute, but only those “historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 95 (1968). This is an essential limit on our power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives.
For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,” which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit.
Quote:
We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.
Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
It would be ideal, except when divorce comes into play. Laws and courts have to be there to preside over what is usually the worst proceedings a judge will ever hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3beansalad
I'm with the whole keep it in the bedroom idea, as long as it's two consenting adults. But I also don't need to see it flaunted out in public. I'm not a huge fan of straight people groping each other in a park either, get a room, and that means everyone.
Thanks for that Asmo, I have a hard time following all the legalese.
They said to have the 9th dismiss the case. Do you know if this was the case which itself repealed Prop 8, or if this was one trying to defend it?
SCOUTS says that the plaintiffs do not have legal standing to defend prop 8, it is the states job to do this. So it is referring the decision to the lower courts, which is the California Supreme Court. Which essentially repeals prop 8 (based on the previous lower court decision).Quote:
Originally Posted by RblDiver
*Sigh* Thought as much. So much for the rights of We the People.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImNtUrBuddyGuy
I call bullshit. Marriage, from a pure legal ideal, is nothing more than a contract between two people. There is nothing special about a marriage that requires anything special from the courts. There is ZERO reason why the gubment should be involved in marriage in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Civil courts can and do handle divorces... no need for government regulation beyond that. Since the government IS involved in marriage, why not make it much harder to get out of a marriage?
Hell, the only benefit I can see of gay marriage is economic. No one throws a party like a gay guys!
Yeah I can see a enlisted man and his family denied living in military housing because some higher ranking homosexual and his gay lover(spouse) have priority...so the .gov has no say in this? Pretty disgusting to me, but I guess conservative traditionalist are all wrong. So now we are forced to give security clearances to people like Bradley Manning...meanwhile Colorado is burning. The people have elected some real idiots this time around!