Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

scientific1982

Stinicker wrote: »

The people will always trump any constitution and civil rights also. Gay Marriage does not come into civil rights, we don't hear pedophiles arguing for under age sex to be legalised, just because they think it should be doesn't mean it should, similarly with gay marriage.

The people in California fighting for gay marriage have really damaged their cause with this and what they have done is akin to getting a referee from their side to ref the political match. The people of California have voted that they do not want gay marriage or the gay agenda and all these gay extremists have done is help alienate gay people when the status quo was working nicely.

This will lead to increased incidences of homophobia and will damage the gay community in the long term. Just because something is legal somewhere else does not mean that this is ok in every jurisdiction. In Germany parts of the Autobahn has no speed limit, this does not mean Ireland should have or that it would work here. Different strokes for different folks.

Yeah what an extreme position it is to fight for equal rights. The cheek of the gheys. Also dont mention pedophilia and then say similarly with gay marriage. You're making yourself look like an idiot.

LookingFor

Stinicker wrote: »

This will lead to increased incidences of homophobia and will damage the gay community in the long term.

Only from people like you. Equating gay marriage with pedophilia? Classy. (By the way, not to backseat mod, but your post is extremely offensive). As for the judge in this case, all you have engaged in are ad hominem attacks rather than rationally explaining why you think he was wrong.

Anyway, the judgment goes into much detail around Prop 8, the campaigns and the vote, and was not silent on why the vote does not stand, not simply based on his judgment, but on precedent.

The evidence shows that Proposition 8 was a hard-fought campaign and that the majority of California voters supported the initiative. See background to Proposition 8 above. The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licences. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code". "Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest" has never been a rational basis for legislation. Tradition alone cannot support legislation.

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, theri claim is subject to strict scrutiny.

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to compelling government interest.

Because the government defendants declined to advance such arguments, proponents seized the role of asserting the existence of a compelling California interest in Proposition 8.

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis, Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by the plaintiffs' due process claim. The minimal evidentiary presentation made by the proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Propostion 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny.

These excerpts are taken from much more detailed contexts and arguments. And swings back on a good question for proponents of Prop 8 - should your fundamental rights be subject to vote?

Stinicker

scientific1982 wrote: »

Yeah what an extreme position it is to fight for equal rights. The cheek of the gheys. Also dont mention pedophilia and then say similarly with gay marriage. You're making yourself look like an idiot.

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual and has been for eons a symbol of dedication to and a proving of loyalty to each other in a union which is ultimately designed to further the species through procreation. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but a Homosexual and Heterosexual couple can biologically never be equal as it is impossible for Homosexual couples to produce children.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, wherby the person is attracted to others of his own sex or both sexes. Until quite recently in history this was considered a sexual paraphillia or sexual fetish and was treated thus.

Pedophiles instead are attracted to Children, however they never seemed to have the numbers or political momentum behind them for it to be acceptable to society. Should everything be legalised on this basis so?

philologos

LookingFor wrote: »

These excerpts are taken from much more detailed contexts and arguments. And swings back on a good question for proponents of Prop 8 - should your fundamental rights be subject to vote?

It is a good question, but the question largely revolves around the assumption that marriage was always broader than a structured relationship between a man and a woman and the basis for a family unit.

I think I would be quite adamant that already existing rights should be defended quite staunchly, but when new rights are being created we need to start thinking about whether or not it is profitable overall for our society to do so.

That's a a valid concern, even if you do hold it with disdain personally.

Stinicker

LookingFor wrote: »

Only from people like you. Equating gay marriage with pedophilia? Classy. (By the way, not to backseat mod, but your post is extremely offensive). As for the judge in this case, all you have engaged in are ad hominem attacks rather than rationally explaining why you think he was wrong.

Anyway, the judgment goes into much detail around Prop 8, the campaigns and the vote, and was not silent on why the vote does not stand, not simply based on his judgment, but on precedent.





These excerpts are taken from much more detailed contexts and arguments. And swings back on a good question for proponents of Prop 8 - should your fundamental rights be subject to vote?

I am not equating Gay Marriage with Pedophillia, however if there were enough pedophiles in the world should it be a civil rights issue and should the Heterosexual have to accept it if they had voted against it?

Making a democratic decision is most important, Ireland voted No to Lisbon and then secondly Yes. We accepted this and got on with life. I am a believer in rights for gay people and an end to discrimination but granting gay marriage is something that crosses a line as it is something firmly between a man and woman. Equality yes but not at the expense of the masses or the sanctity of marriage.

LookingFor

Stinicker wrote: »

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual and has been for eons a symbol of dedication to and a proving of loyalty to each other in a union which is ultimately designed to further the species through procreation. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but a Homosexual and Heterosexual couple can biologically never be equal as it is impossible for Homosexual couples to produce children.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, wherby the person is attracted to others of his own sex or both sexes. Until quite recently in history this was considered a sexual paraphillia or sexual fetish and was treated thus.

Pedophiles instead are attracted to Children, however they never seemed to have the numbers or political momentum behind them for it to be acceptable to society. Should everything be legalised on this basis so?

You're trotting out stale arguments that have long since been addressed.

Marriage in this context is a civil matter.

Homosexual couples are biologically equivalent to the many reproductively incapable heterosexual couples who are perfectly able to marry. Homosexual couples are capable to having children and are having children.

Marriage is not exclusively designed to support child rearing.

Pedophilia is a crime. It is rape. You are talking about non-consensual sex between an adult and a child. It is completely inequivalent to relationships between adults and always will be. That is the difference. It is extremely offensive to compare the two.

You seem to have not paid any attention to the arguments - or in this case, the judgment - you so vehemently argue against.

scientific1982

Stinicker wrote: »

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual and has been for eons a symbol of dedication to and a proving of loyalty to each other in a union which is ultimately designed to further the species through procreation. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but a Homosexual and Heterosexual couple can biologically never be equal as it is impossible for Homosexual couples to produce children.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, wherby the person is attracted to others of his own sex or both sexes. Until quite recently in history this was considered a sexual paraphillia or sexual fetish and was treated thus.

Pedophiles instead are attracted to Children, however they never seemed to have the numbers or political momentum behind them for it to be acceptable to society. Should everything be legalised on this basis so?

Homosexual couples cant produce children, what a shocker. The reason pedophilia is illegal is because it causes profound lifelong suffering to one of the parties, not because there are a small minority of pedophiles.

strobe

Stinicker wrote: »

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual

I'm heterosexual. When I get married it will have nothing to with spirituality. I don't believe in a spiritual plane. Should I be refused the right to get married?

Stinicker

strobe wrote: »

I'm heterosexual. When I get married it will have nothing to with spirituality. I don't believe in a spiritual plane. Should I be refused the right to get married?

As a man marrying a woman then no.

gizmo

Stinicker wrote: »

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, wherby the person is attracted to others of his own sex or both sexes. Until quite recently in history this was considered a sexual paraphillia or sexual fetish and was treated thus.

Until quite recently in history mental illnesses were dealt with by either locking someone up in a mental asylum for the rest of their lives or cutting out part of their brain. In short, times change and people's understandings change. In this case, it's been, for the most part at least, for the better.

Stinicker wrote: »

Pedophiles instead are attracted to Children, however they never seemed to have the numbers or political momentum behind them for it to be acceptable to society. Should everything be legalised on this basis so?

Um, because paedophilia is wrong. To be honest, it says a lot about a person when they start comparing that to homosexuality.

strobe

Stinicker wrote: »

As a man marrying a woman then no.

So it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact it is a spiritual thing (to some people) then? If not why did you bring that up?

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

It is a good question, but the question largely revolves around the assumption that marriage was always broader than a structured relationship between a man and a woman and the basis for a family unit.

It doesn't actually.

It's a general question. Should your fundamental rights be subject to popular approval?

In this case though, my understanding of the background is that it was found to be a right in this context. They did have this right. 18000 marriage licenses were subsequently issues to same-sex couples. Then Prop-8 came along and legislated to take away that right.

Stinicker

gizmo wrote: »

Until quite recently in history mental illnesses were dealt with by either locking someone up in a mental asylum for the rest of their lives or cutting out part of their brain. In short, times change and people's understandings change. In this case, it's been, for the most part at least, for the better.


Um, because paedophilia is wrong. To be honest, it says a lot about a person when they start comparing that to homosexuality.

Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.

squod

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional

Passage of the proposed Amendment failed 236 yea votes to 187 nay votes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment



Am I right here in saying the judge discribed the ban as unconstitutional, when no such ammendment to the constitution exists? What's the story there, looney judge or wha?

oppenheimer1

LookingFor wrote: »

That smacks of a soundbite taken straight of right wing blogs. The aristocracy bit, I mean. I always chuckle when I hear that.

It is nice when social change has a resounding popular endorsement, for sure. But most modern democratic systems have a series of checks and balances as does the United States. Whilst nothing is perfect, the reasons for such systems are very sound and very obvious. If you have a set of fundamentals, like a constitution, the will of the people means NOTHING if it is incompatible with that.

But social change has to have the support of the majority (active or passive support) otherwise it won't work. Changes imposed upon a society against the majority invariably lead to more hostility of the general populace against the minority.

On a side note, conservatives are typically super defensive of the constitution, but in this case they seem to not care. It's funny how that works.



Find me someone who's not biased.

Would he be unbiased if he was straight?

Would he be unbiased if he hadn't been appointed as a conservative judge by Reagan?

Despite his sexual orientation he has actually ruled against gay plaintiffs on issues in the past - in fact, his original appointment to the bench was challenged by Democrats on the grounds that he was 'insensitive to gays and the poor'.

Read the judgment and consider carefully if he came to the wrong decision based on the case brought before him. The defense for prop 8 barely showed up. The case against it was remarkably compelling and well argued and supported by the evidence presented. He wasn't going out on a limb here based on the case presented, it was a very 'water is wet, sky is blue' kind of judgment.

Someones been reading wikipedia.

This is an important first step in challenging the legality of the law and no doubt will be appealed to a higher court, perhaps even the supreme court in Washington. Considering the two sides are zealous and well funded it wouldn't surprise me if it goes all the way.

I guess in Ireland we are lucky that the nation and the state are the same entity. We are also lucky in that only one party subscribes heavily to the left-right polarisation of politics. This gives us a more balanced spectrum of opinions in our supreme court. In the US the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is seen as a way a president can have his legacy and views integrated into American life long after they have left office.

As for the ignoring of the vote on prop 8. Its never healthy in a democracy to see the will of the people ignored as expressed at the ballot box. However the US legal system is more complicated then ours and has many more layers. If the people make a decision then the constitution must be changed to allow that change. To deny the people their freedom to make their own laws is unconstitutional in itself.

LookingFor

Stinicker wrote: »

Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

Think about the complexities of what you talk about before you speak.

Most studies regarding pedophilia conclude that it is about ACCESS to children vs specific gender attractions. And golly gee wizz - most male priests primarily had access to boys, and most nuns only to girls. And golly gee wizz, there are many cases of pedophile priests - and nuns - abusing boys and girls respectively.

If you actually believe what you say though, that pedophilia has its roots in repressed sexuality, you should be entirely supportive of healthy adult sexuality and healthy adult relationships in all their flavours.

Stinicker wrote: »

I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.

The evidence so far doesn't support your discomfort. And your last sentence is just confusing. It's one half "really I'm reasonable" appeal while completely not supporting the other half. If you think gay people would make great adoptive parents, the grounds for opposing them pretty much evaporate.

strobe

squod wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment



Am I right here in saying the judge discribed the ban as unconstitutional, when no such ammendment to the constitution exists? What's the story there, looney judge or wha?

It's specifically because no such ammendment to the constitution exists that makes the ban unconstitutional.........State laws must conform to the federal constitution.

oppenheimer1

Stinicker wrote: »

Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

Have you any proof of that? A large proportion, how large is this proportion? Considering one in four people in Ireland were abused as children, I doubt even a significant percentage of those abuses were carried out by clergy. Literally one must look closer to home.

ciaranmac

Stinicker wrote: »

No gay judge will decide what is legal and what is not and the rule of majority is what counts or else there is no rule at all.

The job of a judge is exactly to decide what is legal and what is not.

In the US, the majority in just one state does not have the power to take away rights that every citizen has under the US constitution. They lost that argument a long time ago.

Stinicker wrote: »

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual and has been for eons a symbol of dedication to and a proving of loyalty to each other in a union which is ultimately designed to further the species through procreation.

There is a difference between church marriage and state marriage. The state has no business controlling anything spiritual and they can't force any church to recognise a marriage it doesn't agree with. It follows that churches can't use spiritual arguments to stop the state reognising marriages either. Spirituality is almost as deeply, fundamentally personal as sexual orientation. I'm sure if the people voted in a law to stop Christians from marrying, that would be unconstitutional too, regardless of whether religion is a genetic trait.

Stinicker wrote: »

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but a Homosexual and Heterosexual couple can biologically never be equal as it is impossible for Homosexual couples to produce children.

So what you're saying is that because my wife and I don't have kids, we're somehow not fully married?

Stinicker

LookingFor wrote: »

Think about the complexities of what you talk about before you speak.

Most studies regarding pedophilia conclude that it is about ACCESS to children vs specific gender attractions. And golly gee wizz - most male priests primarily had access to boys, and most nuns only to girls. And golly gee wizz, there are many cases of pedophile priests - and nuns - abusing boys and girls respectively.

If you actually believe what you say though, that pedophilia has its roots in repressed sexuality, you should be entirely supportive of healthy adult sexuality and healthy adult relationships in all their flavours.



The evidence so far doesn't support your discomfort. And your last sentence is just confusing. It's one half "really I'm reasonable" appeal while completely not supporting the other half. If you think gay people would make great adoptive parents, the grounds for opposing them pretty much evaporate.

I beleive Lesbians would make better parents because of the natural nurturing nature of a mother. Also in most cases of lesbian parentage the lesbian is the actual mother through sperm banks etc. How two men could suddenly decide to raise a child on their own is beyond me, whether they be gay or straight to be honest.

Mrmoe

Stinicker wrote: »

Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.

It is not natural for a lot of things to happen, but that does not mean that those things are wrong or should not happen.

squod

strobe wrote: »

It's specifically because no such ammendment to the constitution exists that makes the ban unconstitutional.........State laws must conform to the federal constitution.

? Don't get you. It seems to me as the judge is going against the constitution here.

wild_cat

Stinicker wrote: »

Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.

Sweet jesus.

If someone got banned from this thread for basically calling a spade a spade and stuff like this is allowed stand with out any infraction.....


:mad:

mardybumbum

Stinicker wrote: »

Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals.

Tony Geraghty, is that you?

oppenheimer1

On gay parenting, this is an interesting documentary on the topic. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/my-weird-wonderful-family

I'll be honest, I did feel uneasy when the little boy in the film said he wanted to be gay, like his dads.

strobe

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

As for the ignoring of the vote on prop 8. Its never healthy in a democracy to see the will of the people ignored as expressed at the ballot box. However the US legal system is more complicated then ours and has many more layers. If the people make a decision then the constitution must be changed to allow that change. To deny the people their freedom to make their own laws is unconstitutional in itself.

This is precisely why the American Civil War was fought. The federal north won, the confederate south lost. The result was no more slavery. You would have aligned with the confederacy if you were to hold to the above opinion.

Killer Pigeon

Ha Ha, Yepee! Fuck you Democracy!

metaoblivia

I think this is a great day for California and gay rights. The fight isn't over, but this is an important milestone. Normally, I'd love to see it go all the way to the Supreme Court to get a federal ruling on the issue (since some states - like my own - have very anti-gay rights laws on the books), but with the conservative Roberts court I'm not sure it would result in the outcome I'd like to see.

LookingFor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But social change has to have the support of the majority (active or passive support) otherwise it won't work.

In this case I think popular support will follow. And I think it's a very two way thing, I think state and legal recognition helps prompt cultural change. When changes like this are made it gives dignity to people (and thus helps promote respect for them), and typically the sky doesn't fall in and people come to wonder what the fuss was about. Support for gay marriage and lgbt in general seems to be a very generational thing in the US judging by polls, and within 100 years I'm pretty confident most people there will look back on all this with puzzlement.

All that said, it still doesn't mean these kinds of things should be purely subject to majority vote.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This is an important first step in challenging the legality of the law and no doubt will be appealed to a higher court, perhaps even the supreme court in Washington.

Unless the supreme court declines to review it I think there's no perhaps about it. I don't know how that'll go, the composition of the current supreme court could be read either way on this.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

As for the ignoring of the vote on prop 8. Its never healthy in a democracy to see the will of the people ignored as expressed at the ballot box. However the US legal system is more complicated then ours and has many more layers. If the people make a decision then the constitution must be changed to allow that change. To deny the people their freedom to make their own laws is unconstitutional in itself.

This is another debate...the question of how malleable the constitution should be. If the constitution though were to simply automatically react and change based on legislation passed and/or voted on, you pretty much don't need a constitution...it's a bit pointless in that context if it has no 'teeth'. Again, we come back to whether you want a direct democracy, or a republic founded on some fundamentals. And if the latter, what can be changed, and what exactly it takes to change them.

strobe

squod wrote: »

? Don't get you. It seems to me as the judge is going against the constitution here.

No man, you have it back to front. The ammendment was to change the constitution to say that marriage must be between a man and a woman. It didn't pass. Therefore for a State to introduce a ban saying that marriage must be between a man and a woman is not supported by the constitution. It is infact inconsistant with the parts of the constitution the judge, and others have highlighted.

oceanclub

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's a bad thing when the democratic vote of the people isn't respected.

So if 51% of people voted that blacks should be slaves, that would be OK?

P.

Killer Pigeon

oceanclub wrote: »

So if 51% of people voted that blacks should be slaves, that would be OK?

P.

I'm all for gay marriage but I don't think you can really compare the slavery of black people to the suppression of gay people to marry.

Dudess

Stinicker wrote: »

Making a democratic decision is most important, Ireland voted No to Lisbon and then secondly Yes.

Lol

oceanclub

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I'm all for gay marriage but I don't think you can really compare the slavery of black people to the suppression of gay people to marry.

They're both the tyranny of the majority:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

P.

Jazzy

a guy calls homosexual people paedophiles and he doesnt get a ban or anything.

GO TEAM ACTIMEL!

Magill

Matthewthebig wrote: »

Jakkass hates the gays, as he is a fúcking christian fundie retard

LOL

scientific1982

Stinicker wrote: »

Well unfortunately in this country up until quite recently a large proportion of our pedophiles were homosexuals and also members of the catholic clergy. So there was a clear link between the two, nowadays we have moved on, and homosexuals are not longer hidden away behind the veil of the clergy.

I would however I would not be comfortable for children to grow up in an environment with only two parents of the same sex. It is just not natural and while I am sure gay parents would make great adoptive parents I would be against it.

Most of our pedophiles were/are hetrosexual so by your position there must also be a clear link between the two.

Killer Pigeon

oceanclub wrote: »

They're both the tyranny of the majority:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

P.

Yeah, but stopping gay people from marrying is hardly the same as taking away all the freedom of a human being, putting him/her into captivity and making them work for nothing. I mean incest is illegal and I suppose one who is pro-incest could see it's illegality as "the Tyranny of the majority", yet a majority of people would say it is horrid and therefore should stay illegal. Saying this I still support gay marriage.

Magill

I seriously dont get why people would be against it, i guess there are alot of gay haters in cali.

Dudess

People are against it because it's icky pretty much.

Oh and if there's a link between homosexuality and paedophilia then there must be a link between heterosexuality and paedophilia, seeing as paedophiles also fancy children of the opposite sex to them.

Jazzy

Dudess wrote: »

People are against it because it's icky pretty much.

Oh and if there's a link between homosexuality and paedophilia then there must be a link between heterosexuality and paedophilia, seeing as paedophiles also fancy children of the opposite sex to them.

how do you know?! lads & lassies, i think we got one!

bodice ripper

Stinicker wrote: »

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual

sorry, let me stop you right there. in the united states, we have seperation of church and state. the state is not required to pay lip service to religious views in this. its a contract.

Dudess

Stinicker wrote: »

Marriage between a Man and Woman is something spiritual

Not if you get married in a registry office, or if it's a marriage of convenience.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

That's the problem with judicial activism. Judges can be completely out of touch with the actual electorate, whereas the electorate can give the broader opinion as to what their society really wants.

Out of interest - Do you think that the 1988 ECHR Norris judgement was wrong?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it is right that people should be able to decide how things are run in their own country, or in this case in their State. That's what democracy means, the term is derived from the Greek words demos - people and kratia - power.

That's lovely, but the USA is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. It's in the name. If it's unconstitutional then it doesn't hold any sway regardless of what the people vote.

Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[2] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.

eightyfish

Just reading some of the ignorant comments on FoxNews about the story such as:

Homosexuals are turning California into Sodom and Gomorrah. My recomendation to all God fearing Americans living there is to move out of that state while you still can.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

No man, you have it back to front. The ammendment was to change the constitution to say that marriage must be between a man and a woman. It didn't pass. Therefore for a State to introduce a ban saying that marriage must be between a man and a woman is not supported by the constitution. It is infact inconsistant with the parts of the constitution the judge, and others have highlighted.

There are two constitutions binding on California. The California State Constitution, and the US Constitution.

When Proposition 8 was passed, an amendment was added to the California State Constitution to say that marriage was between a man and a woman.

This was appealed by the 'No to 8' side, who challenged the Constitutionality of this amendment, in comparison to the US Constitution.

At least that is what I thought.

It is difficult to see how it is unconstitutional if there are other States with such amendments either in their Constitutions or in their State Statutes.

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Out of interest - Do you think that the 1988 ECHR Norris judgement was wrong?

There is nothing concerning LGBT sexual acts in the Irish Constitution. There was a clear mention of what marriage is in the California State Constitution.

This is different in that it proposes an entire change of family structure and marriage from its former position. This is something that can and will change entire societies, so it is something that the people need to think about, and decide for themselves on.

I would be wholly opposed to an EU-wide top-down imposition to change the definition of marriage.

Nodin

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Sadly, it's democratic. AKA the tyrrany of the majority.

jakass wrote:

I think it is right that people should be able to decide how things are run in their own country, or in this case in their State. That's what democracy means, the term is derived from the Greek words demos - people and kratia - power. .

Not in a Republic. The whole American setup was created to avoid that kind of thing.

jakass wrote:

I don't believe that essential legislation that changes the way of life for an entire State.

You might note that gay marriage was made legal, not mandatory.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing concerning LGBT sexual acts in the Irish Constitution. There was a clear mention of what marriage is in the California State Constitution.

This is different in that it proposes an entire change of family structure and marriage from its former position. This is something that can and will change entire societies, so it is something that the people need to think about, and decide for themselves on.

I would be wholly opposed to an EU-wide top-down imposition to change the definition of marriage.

You didn't answer my question