Shut up, but if the California Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 let them because if anything is not protecting the sanctity of marriage then it is Prop 8 and divorce. Besides I don't think a federal court can block it anyway. Screw your values that marriage has to be between a man and a woman.If the liberal California Supreme Court gets out of hand overturns Prop 8 can a federal court block it?
Both the State and Supreme Court will overturn it because it is so obviously not Constitutional.
You can't support it with anything other than religious scripture, and the Courts have to rule on Law - not peoples feelings and personal prejudices.
How can a state court overturn a part of their constitution and base the ruling on their interpretation of their states constitution?
Their authority is derived from their constitution. If they say the constitution is invalid then they lack the authority to overturn it.
The highest authority in a state is not its supreme court but its constitution which the court uses as the final authority to justify their decisions. A supreme court cannot over rule a constitution that they swear to uphold.
This would be the equivalent of the United States Supreme Court ruling that an amendment of the Constitution is unconstitutional based on a UN resolution.
Nor is a federal court going to rule that a states constitution is an invalid document no matter how liberal they are. That doesn't just open a bag of worms, it smashes Pandora's box into little pieces. If California wants to change its mind then they need a new proposition to amend their constitution.
Hmmm . . . maybe there would be some federal civil rights or voting rights issue, but I wouldn't count on it.
There may be a way for the state court to say the amendment was not passed properly - that some procedural requirement was not met - but I can't see any way that the constitutional amendment can itself be ruled unconstitutional. If it were, then the judges would have declared themselves the sole rulers of California - a situation that clearly cannot be allowed to exist..
Would they be getting ';out of hand'; if they enforced California law? There is a legal question as to whether or not it was legal to make the kind of change to the constitution that was done via a referendum. That argument is independent of what was actually in the referendum.
If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage you might want to focus on the high divorce rate in California among heterosexuals.
They can't ';block it';, but they can overturn the lower courts decisions.
Edit: Considering that Federal Tax laws give benefits to married couples, as well as children, then the Federal Government ALREADY has said they have some jurisdiction over it. All it takes is for the lawsuits to keep moving through higher levels of the court system, which may take time, but would happen once all the lawsuits are filed.
Also, to anyone who says make divorce illegal...I agree. I had a couple of classmates in high school admit they got married only for the party. I find such a notion as those classmates had nauseating.
the only remedies that exist for protecting the sanity of marriage, is to let each individual church decide if they want to perform same sex marriages or not, and keep the government out of religious rights.
If a gay person finds a church willing to marry them, that marriage should eb recognized by all states.
any church has the right, right now to refused to marry any couple, based on their own religious views. Do right-wingers think their churches are as powerless to say ';NO I will not marry you'; as they think God is to handle punishment for bad moral decisions such as abortion?
Why would you declare loyalty to an entity that you view as weak?
Personally, my view of God is strong, and I think he/she can handle the task. Maybe you right-wingers should worship the all mighty God that is in the Holy Bible, rater than your weak one promoted by the cults you have joined.
';the sanity of marriage';? What the hell have you been smoking? Since when do ';marriage'; and ';sanity'; have anything to do with each other?
News flash, scooter. Marriage is nothing more than a legal agreement between two people to combine their households and share their worldly good with each other. Even the bible spells this out. There is nothing SANCTIFIED about it. And gay people have as much right to be miserable as anyone else.
';The will of the people'; should have nothing to do with a personal matter such as marriage.
I got a good one for protecting the ';sanctity of marriage.'; How about you ban divorce.
Prop 8 is a violation of civil rights. Separate is not equal. The Supreme Court will not be getting out of hand by overturning a discriminatory law.
And, P.S., since apparently people don't know what they're talking about, Obama does not ';stay away from'; gay issues. He plans, wisely, to immediately overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Check his website.
If the California Supreme Court overturn proposition 8 then we need to hold an immediate recall election.
The California Supreme Court is supposed to only determine if something is in accordance with the Constitution of the State of California.
Proposition 8 amended the State Constitution so the California Supreme Court must make their interpretations in accordance with what proposition 8 says.
The moment the court is allowed to ignore the Constitution and in effect 'rule by decree' then we might as well send the governor home and disband the legislature.
Interesting question! It's a 10th Amendment issue, and the people have spoken. However, is there a federal statute on gay marriage? I don't think there is.
I don't think it should go to the Federal level or we will have another Roe v Wade.
Individual liberty is paramount (according to our Constitution and our Founding Fathers). Legislating morality has not worked here in the United States, should not work and is a tyranny that we should not stand for.
I may be ';morally'; opposed to gay marriage personally, but I would defend the rights of homosexuals to marry as it does not infringe on MY rights. This should not even be an issue. However, if it is an issue (as it has proven to be) it should DEFINITELY be a STATE issue (again the 10th Amendment) than a Federal issue.
Once it goes Federal, then NO ONE will be happy.
The will of people ?
Do have any idea of exactly how hateful and evil the will of the people can be if it's not properly regulated by a sane judiciary
So if the People of CA voted to ban marriages between Hispanics and Anglos , or Christians and Mormons or Blacks and Whites then all of you Prop 8 supporters would raise your clenched fists and say ';The People have spoken. Power to the People Right On! ';
Why not ? It's the will of the People and how dare the judiciary over rule the will of the People ?
All you conservatives who claim to be interested in preserving ';marriage'; ought to think about becoming liberals, as THEY are the ones who have proven they know how to STAY married, e.g :
# Senator Robert Byrd of W. Va. = almost 69 years when wife died in 2006.
# Sen. %26amp; presidential candidate George McGovern = 64 years in 2007.
# Walter Cronkite was 64 years when wife died in 2005.
# Pres. Jimmy Carter = 62 years in 2008.
# Liberal journalist Bill Moyers = 54 years in 2008.
# Senator Harry Reid = 49 years in 2008.
# Pres. Harry Truman = 53 years when he died in 1972.
# Sen. %26amp; V.P. Walter Mondale = 53 years in 2008.
# Actor %26amp; Activist Alan Alda = 50 years in 2007.
# Director %26amp; Activist Norman Lear = 49 years in 2006.
# Speaker Nancy Pelosi = 48 years in 2008.
# Sen. Patrick Leahy = 45 years in 2008.
# Comedian Bob Newhart = 45 years in 2008.
# House Leader Charlie Rangel = 44 years in 2008.
# Speaker Dick Gephardt married = 42 years in 2008.
# Comedian Billy Chrystal = 41 years in 2008.
# Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt = 40 years when he died in 1945.
# Pres. Lyndon Johnson = 39 years when he died in 1973.
# Senator Paul Wellstone = 39 years when he died in 2002.
It's a states right issue, and it was voted on constitutionally in accordance with the 10th amendment. People are just pissed off they didn't get their way. I could care less if gays get married, but, there isn't anything wrong about the way it turned out. It was legal.
The US Supreme Court could, but it takes a long time for cases to work their way that far up in the system. And there's no guarantee the US Supreme Court would hear the case even if it got that far. Heretofore marriage has always been handled at the state level. I doubt the nation's highest court would want to upset that tradition. But the way things are going now, who knows?
Since the CA supreme court is mostly republican, does that mean they are liberal republicans? I didn't think so.
A federal court could actually block it but they will not.
I also find it interesting that these ';will of the people'; types are now suing to block their names from being made public.
yes we must protect the ';sanity'; of marriages. we must protect golddiggers, we must protect marriages that are locked in a cycle of drugs and violence, we must protect marriage of those who married too young, we must protect the sacred alimony and child support.
good question,hard to say if federal courts get involved,but since it is not a discrimination issue. since definition of marriage is between a man and a woman,both gay and Straight are banned from marrying the same sex,so that aspect is not a federal case,there may be others
Nope, sorry... WHEN the California Supreme Court overturns this non-constitutional REFORM attempt that was voted only marginally through (not following the process of a true reform) there will be nothing the Supreme Court of the U.S. or thousands of bigots will be able to do about it.
After the California Supreme Court, it could be appealed to the US 9th Circuit (regardless of how the CSC rules, it will be overturned by the 9th Circuit as it is the most liberal court in the country) and then it will end up in the US Supreme Court...
what sanctity does marriage have now? we have a divorce rate over 50%, thousands perhaps millions of cases of spousal abuse and child abuse, women and men who only marry people for money, and people who have been married 3+ times. and despite all the things that are messed up about marriage its some how wrong for gay people to marry? even if its once?
Why don't you live your life however you deem best and let other people do the same? Don't you think everyone should have the same right to live a happy life? What pleasure do you get from making other people's lives hard?
If you believe that a God exists who will judge us for how we live our lives, why don't you let him do it, instead of taking that job upon yourself?
Well, the courts should refuse to hear the case, overturning the result of an election process is not Constitutional. And yes a federal court can over-rule the lower court.
This happened in the 2000 Florida re-count case.
If you really care about marriage, why not make divorce illegal? Why hasn't the end of the world come yet? Gays are getting married by the truckload in Mass. Why hasn't this destroyed the sanctity of everyones marriage yet?
The 9th circuit court in Ca is the most Liberal, and most overturned court in the country. My guess is they will be overturned if they do it.
Seeker, since when is it proper for the Supreme Court to overturn the majority vote of the people in a legally placed ballot vote.
If the court does block it, it is because honesty, justice, and decency outweighs religious fanaticism.
If it gets overturned it will be due to the ';equal protections'; clause found in the US Constitution.
Nothing can supercede that...
I hope not. Hate has no place in America and the court system has no business supporting hate.
BTW, John 3:17 does not contain a provision against gays, I suggest you actually read it.
A federal court has no right to intervene in what is a state dispute. Even though I would have voted for prop 8 if I still lived in California, the fact is the federal government would have no right to interfere, nothing in the constitution allows it even though it should
And to the person above, why would Prop 8 make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. What principle of federal law is at stake?
Actually you can support it with something other than scripture. I guarantee you the Supreme Court will not touch this because if they strike it down, in theory, it would strike down every gay marriage ban in the country and I'll doubt they'll do that
I moved from Calfornia to another state where they voted for Obama by a double digit margin and where they oppose gay marriage far more deeply. Iowa. Iowa will go nuts if we are told that we have to allow gays to marry. It's just the way it is, and I voted for Obama and Culver
That is a BIG FAT NO.
All state issues stop at the border until the federal government has JURISDICTION.
(That would mean one state disputing another state, a federal law being broken, a specific federal constitutional issue, etc. Otherwise, the federal courts have absolutely no authority over states.)
No comments:
Post a Comment