Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

[Heracles 417]

I have no problem with gay people being married.

But the will of the people should never be overwritten by a court. Using technicalities in laws written in the 18th century should not even be an option. As in this case, a vote by the people should and did decide the outcome. In my opinion any court which tries to override the will of the people is in contempt of the people which founded it in the first place.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure, but telling gay people they can't get married (going forward)? I don't see how that's unconstitutional. I am relatively certain the constitution doesn't address the issue at all.

It doesn't. The whole idea seems to center around whether we do or don't have a separation of church and state, as the arguments against it are primarily religious.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We have an establishment clause, which says the federal government can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't see how banning gay marriage does that either. It's not any one establishment of religion being respected there (which is what the Constitution protects against), but pretty much all establishments of religion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have no problem with gay people being married.

But the will of the people should never be overwritten by a court. Using technicalities in laws written in the 18th century should not even be an option. As in this case, a vote by the people should and did decide the outcome.

It isn't overruling the outcome. But the issue that was put to the vote is one that can be challenged in the courts in reference to the constitution and bill of rights. There are limitations on what you can put forward in a ballot initiative - just because people vote against gay marriage doesn't mean that its "right" constitutionally or under the law.

Furthermore this issue is about retroactively nullifying marriages that were previously deemed legal. I can't see how that can be justified at all.

We have an establishment clause, which says the federal government can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't see how banning gay marriage does that either. It's not any one establishment of religion being respected there (which is what the Constitution protects against), but pretty much all establishments of religion.

I suspect the case could be made that banning gay marriage advances a specific religious agenda.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... this issue is about retroactively nullifying marriages that were previously deemed legal. I can't see how that can be justified at all.

Agreed. Constitutional or not, it would be wrong.

I suspect the case could be made that banning gay marriage advances a specific religious agenda.

The Constitution protects against the government respecting a specific establishment of religion. It does not guard against respecting tenets or beliefs shared by many religions.

[Heracles 417]

It doesn't. The whole idea seems to center around whether we do or don't have a separation of church and state, as the arguments against it are primarily religious.

Another stupid principle which ironically is not even in the constitution. The people need to decide the outcome. After all the government is there to represent their people and carry out the will of the people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't. The whole idea seems to center around whether we do or don't have a separation of church and state, as the arguments against it are primarily religious.

Another stupid principle which ironically is not even in the constitution. The people need to decide the outcome. After all the government is there to represent their people and carry out the will of the people.

How is it stupid? The issue surely about whether articles of faith are being advanced to the obvious detriment of other law-abiding people in society - in doing so creating social inequalities and second class citzens.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The only guaranteed way, in my opinion, to make sure gheys have the right to get married, is a constitutional amendment.

I'd support that.

What I wouldn't support is creatively interpreting the establishment clause to fit a new agenda.

[Heracles 417]

It isn't overruling the outcome. But the issue that was put to the vote is one that can be challenged in the courts in reference to the constitution and bill of rights. There are limitations on what you can put forward in a ballot initiative - just because people vote against gay marriage doesn't mean that its "right" constitutionally or under the law.

Furthermore this issue is about retroactively nullifying marriages that were previously deemed legal. I can't see how that can be justified at all.

Using the constitution and bill of rights to get ones way is ridiculous considering that the mere notion of gay rights, for example, back them would have been a complete taboo. It is all about context. The bill of rights and constitution had no intention in protecting even a pinch of the ####### that is now erroneously protected by it. But hey this is America and the courts, rather than the will of the people, run the show.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only guaranteed way, in my opinion, to make sure gheys have the right to get married, is a constitutional amendment.

I'd support that.

What I wouldn't support is creatively interpreting the establishment clause to fit a new agenda.

Well perhaps... but if the US constitution doesn't address marriage at all (and to my knowledge it doesn't), is an amendment really necessary in order to permit it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It isn't overruling the outcome. But the issue that was put to the vote is one that can be challenged in the courts in reference to the constitution and bill of rights. There are limitations on what you can put forward in a ballot initiative - just because people vote against gay marriage doesn't mean that its "right" constitutionally or under the law.

Furthermore this issue is about retroactively nullifying marriages that were previously deemed legal. I can't see how that can be justified at all.

Using the constitution and bill of rights to get ones way is ridiculous considering that the mere notion of gay rights, for example, back them would have been a complete taboo. It is all about context. The bill of rights and constitution had no intention in protecting even a pinch of the ####### that is now erroneously protected by it. But hey this is America and the courts, rather than the will of the people, run the show.

The courts should run the show when it comes to people's rights.

[Heracles 417]

It doesn't. The whole idea seems to center around whether we do or don't have a separation of church and state, as the arguments against it are primarily religious.

Another stupid principle which ironically is not even in the constitution. The people need to decide the outcome. After all the government is there to represent their people and carry out the will of the people.

How is it stupid? The issue surely about whether articles of faith are being advanced to the obvious detriment of other law-abiding people in society - in doing so creating social inequalities and second class citzens.

Rubbish. The initial clause was there to prevent a similar situation from unfolding in England when one church was running the show and calling the shots. That not one denomination could rule the government and impose its will on the people. Hence, why so many people migrated here in the first place. It did no mean that religion should be torn out of everything. Or that people's religious views should be disregarded.

A similar rules adopted by English law who follow the actual meaning. The government is allowed and encouraged to celebrate with its people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't. The whole idea seems to center around whether we do or don't have a separation of church and state, as the arguments against it are primarily religious.

Another stupid principle which ironically is not even in the constitution. The people need to decide the outcome. After all the government is there to represent their people and carry out the will of the people.

How is it stupid? The issue surely about whether articles of faith are being advanced to the obvious detriment of other law-abiding people in society - in doing so creating social inequalities and second class citzens.

Rubbish. The initial clause was there to prevent a similar situation from unfolding in England when one church was running the show and calling the shots. That not one denomination could rule the government and impose its will on the people. Hence, why so many people migrated here in the first place. It did no mean that religion should be torn out of everything. Or that people's religious views should be disregarded.

A similar rules adopted by English law who follow the actual meaning. The government is allowed and encouraged to celebrate with its people.

In this context that's exactly what's happening. Hence there is a debate.

[Heracles 417]

The courts should run the show when it comes to people's rights.

Wrong. The courts were established by the people to represent the will of the people. The bill of rights and constitution was composed by members of the public chosen to represent them. Certainly not by a group of judges who we don't even vote in and know little about.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The courts should run the show when it comes to people's rights.

Wrong. The courts were established by the people to represent the will of the people. The bill of rights and constitution was composed by members of the public chosen to represent them. Certainly not by a group of judges who we don't even vote in and know little about.

If the courts mandated everything that the people decided - we might as well do away with the entire concept of law.