California Prop 8 is "unconstitutional"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/california-proposition-8/index.html?hpt=hp_c2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2 -1 Federal Appeals Court Ruling In San Francisco. 2 people just outvoted 52% of California.



There is talk about it going to the Supreme Court, but the way the law is written, they might refuse to take it since it is a VERY California specific law. This one might stand.



CA joins several other states allowing gay marriage.



I wonder if the one judge that voted against the ruling is going to be targeted like the supporters of Prop-8 were.

Boo. So much for the voice of the people or a democracy for that matter.



The funny thing is that a hundred years ago they would have said it was constitutional.

20 years ago it would have been constitutional.

I think this one will stand unfortunately.



So in the end is it better to have government dictate what marriage entails or would it have been better to have government out of the business of marriage in the first place? The way things are going I think the only hope to preserve marriage is to prevent any government from recognizing marriage at all.

I think that's where this has to go.



Get government out of the marriage business and effectively destroy it for everyone. Grant Civil unions to anyone that wants one and then you can conduct whatever other "marriage" ceremony religions please like they do in other countries.



And as we destroy marriage in this country, I suggest we all re-read the proclamation to the world on the family.

So, it's constitutional to define marriage in some ways, but not others? I'm confused (okay, I'm really not, because California is a state with way too much dumb in it).

The cat is already out of the bag, if you will, with so many states already legislatively recognizing same sex marriages. Our task may be more to advocate and set examples of the power of marriage between a man and a woman and the need children have of being raised as much as possible in such an environment.

This is just the next step in disenfranchising organized religions.



Right now religions get tax-exempt status, saving them millions of dollars a year. As there becomes more and more states that allow gay marriage the next step will be for the federal government to mandate that any organization that performs marriage must do so for all eligible partners or else they will lose their tax-exempt status. This will effectively force most religions to perform gay marriage as they cannot survive without that tax-exempt status.

Wouldn't a better and more democratic option to have been passing another constitutional amendment repealing the Prop 8 amendment?



Doesn't the 21st Amendment of the US Constitution (repeal Prohibition) basically say that the 18th amendment (Prohibition) was unconstitutional? Shouldn't the anti-prop 8's have done the same thing. Started a campaign to repeal the new amendment to the CA constitution?

SpiffCoug wrote:
Wouldn't a better and more democratic option to have been passing another constitutional amendment repealing the Prop 8 amendment?



Doesn't the 21st Amendment of the US Constitution (repeal Prohibition) basically say that the 18th amendment (Prohibition) was unconstitutional? Shouldn't the anti-prop 8's have done the same thing. Started a campaign to repeal the new amendment to the CA constitution?

They certainly could have, but if in fact Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment, as they contended, there's no need to go that route. The latter is more democratic, but constitutional provisins were never too democratic in application mostly protecting if you will, one type of minority or another....

The U. S. constitution has no provision for the federal government to be involved in marriage, therefore it is left to the states and to the people. Everything else is bs.

tww wrote:
The U. S. constitution has no provision for the federal government to be involved in marriage, therefore it is left to the states and to the people and a couple of judges. Everything else is bs.

fixed it for you.



two popular votes were struck down.

CougarClaw wrote:

The U. S. constitution has no provision for the federal government to be involved in marriage, therefore it is left to the states and to the people and a couple of judges. Everything else is bs.

fixed it for you.



two popular votes were struck down.

I take it that you are demonstrating the democrat process for ratifying a constitutional amendment.