Am I understanding this whole issue of CA's Prop 8 correctly?

[Ronin13]

I guess when it comes down to it, I just don't understand... Here's how I see it and someone chime in and correct me if I'm in any way wrong...
Prop 8 provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." And this passed 52% to 47% by the CA voters. So now it's going to the SCOTUS to be decided on the constitutionality of the Proposition- basically making gay marriage a constitutionally protected right, states rights be damned. And I have no dog in this fight, I couldn't care either way (won't de-legitimize marriage if gays can do it, shit, it's already passed CO- I say BFD on that), but my point of contention is the fact that the CA voters already decided on this, and now a group has said "Wait a second! You can't do that, it's not right" when it was a choice made by the people. Also, doesn't this whole issue, if deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, fly in the face of the 10th Amendment? Or am I way off base in thinking this is just someone who didn't like the way the CA voters decided their state would operate and they're now pouting and crying to the Supreme Court over it?

[jhirsh5280]

You're on track. Basically the minority voice in the California decision decided to sue because they lost and made an argument on constitutional grounds. This has no federal legs because like you said the 10th Amendment states powers not delegated to the federal government are given to the states. There is not place in the constitution outlining marriage, much less gay marriage. Im on pace with you, I could care less however, the fact that it has reached this point is ridiculous. Its a state issue, not a federal issue plain and simple. On a side note, they are playing with fire here by taking it to the SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS rules against them stating it is unconstitutional, the issue for the most part will be said and done and no argument can ever be made for it again. So would you rather have a state say no or the federal government say no? You can always move to a different or friendlier state on the issue, you cant avoid the umbrella of the government and the US is probably the friendliest LGBT country in the world.

Edit: some background on prop 8. The California Supreme Court make a decision that gay marriage was allowed. Then some 100-some-odd days later California residents passed prop 8 banning gay marriage. If it sounds fucked up and confusing its because it is.

[Ronin13]

I just had a discussion with someone stating that this isn't a 10th issue, but instead falls under the 14th and the equal protection clause... I feel that this simply is not the case. So because one group wants to define something and that technically forces all to recognize that as legitimate, wouldn't that fly in the face of religious freedom? Some religions do not believe in same sex marriage, and refuse to officiate or legitimize said marriage, thus forcing them to accept the definition of marriage that is different from their own is nothing less than wrong. I think it comes down to wording. Marriage vs. Civil Union. Marriage is a religious institution, civil union is that recognized by the state as a binding contract between two people.

[Madeinhb]

I've said this all along- the federal government and all laws should be civil unions whether straight or gay. Would solve the equality issue. Then let marriage be a religious thing.

[asmo]

From arguments today:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when -­ when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became
unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -­as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

[Sharpienads]

I think you're pretty much on track Ronin.

This whole issue is ridiculous, imo. The government has no business being involved in marriage. Bottom line. An overbearing government is the major obstacle standing in the way of gay marriage, and instead of taking government out of the equation, gay marriage supporters go to government for a solution. Gay marriage is just about at the bottom of my give a damn list, but I am not about to join a group that petitions the government for the ability to do something that they should be able to do. Now if the movement was all about telling the government to go f*ck themselves, I would probably care more.

[roberth]

I think you're pretty much on track Ronin.

This whole issue is ridiculous, imo. The government has no business being involved in marriage. Bottom line. An overbearing government is the major obstacle standing in the way of gay marriage, and instead of taking government out of the equation, gay marriage supporters go to government for a solution. Gay marriage is just about at the bottom of my give a damn list, but I am not about to join a group that petitions the government for the ability to do something that they should be able to do. Now if the movement was all about telling the government to go f*ck themselves, I would probably care more.

Thank you.

The government needs to butt out of alot of things and there are a million things more important than who is married to whom.

[Great-Kazoo]

To condense the whole thing. Some folks (the minority) didn't like the outcome of a an election and took it to court. The CA courts pushed it off on the SC.

CO voters passed Amendment 2 many an election cycle ago. The (once again) minority of voters took it to court and had it over turned. The cycle of over turning / going to court is becoming more prevalent in today's litigious society.
Don't like the election results go to court. See Bush v Gore or as it was referred as , SORE / LOOSERMAN

[davsel]

I have always advocated that homosexual "marriage" is a big deal, and people who care about the direction Western civilization is taking, ought to be more concerned.

From someone who can explain it better than I:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0003.html

I am neither Jewish nor Catholic, however I found this research of the history of homosexuality by Dennis Prager very enlightening.

[mb504]

I would prefer that the government would get out of the business of defining what type of relationships we can form. It has long been that the government has used its power to tax to regulate the desired behavior. This might be the formation of corporations, partnerships, or marriages. I don't view at the Federal level a marriage* very much different from a LLC or LLP. Why should the government care about the "organizational interfaces" within the taxed organization?

Maybe it would be better to get rid of "marriage" at the governmental level and let the government tax on the individual or business organizational level.

The marriage could be defined by the entity that conveys it on the couples. Pick your religion/belief and pick your contract.

oh and stay off my lawn.


*At a personal level, the implied or stated contract you form with your partner is what really defines the bounds of your marriage.