US Supreme Court likely to decide the gay marriage issue for states

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,2696248.story
A federal judge today ruled that California's prop 8 ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. This is the second time the voters of California have pushed through a gay marriage ban and the second time the courts have overturned the will of the people. The first rejection of such legislation was done by the state supreme court. This time, it was an openly gay Federal judge who made the ruling. The contest is now headed off to the liberal 9th circuit court of appeals, where the ruling will undoubtedly be appealed to the supreme court, regardless of the outcome.

It looks like the US Supreme court will be taking up the issue of whether Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, or if other arrangements will qualify for the legal protections, restrictions, and benefits of marriage. As Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is currently legal, it makes me wonder if the high court in the land will be able to decide the matter in such a way that instantly overrides the sovereignty of 49 individual states.

 

Admittedly, I don't know that much about this, but it's an interesting topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the current time, the State can decide to marry a man and a man, or a woman and a woman - but, the Federal government would be unable to make that a federal law because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Would that effect Supreme Court rulings, or not have any effect at all?

 

Right now California, like 48 other states, only issues marriage licenses for and recognizes opposite sex marriages. California has civil unions which offer many of the same aspects of marriage to gay couples but even if they were to offer all of the features of being married, the word 'marriage' would be specifically withheld due to the wording of prop 8. If the high court upholds the opinion that denial of married status to homosexuals is discrimination, California, and every other state in the union will likely have to begin issuing marriage licenses to and recognizing the marriages of homosexuals, regardless of how their local laws read. Alternatively, the high court can refuse to hear the case, leaving California with whatever decision comes out of the 9th circuit, and leaving the federal question unanswered, leaving each state to pursue its own path.

 

Thanks for better informing me on that. Personally, I do feel it seems to be a form of discrimination to deny consenting adults the right to marriage (man/man or woman/woman). But, saying Prop 8 is unconstitutional is getting a little more in the gray area, at least in my mind, because they appear to be claiming in the court documents that it's unconstitutional based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'm actually only running on a few hours of sleep right now, but I did glance over the court documents, and this appears to be all they are basing the "unconstitutional" argument on. The Fourteenth Amendment is so BROAD, I could probably make many arguments on it of things that are violating my life, liberty, property. Oh well. Nice talking to you, Obamanation - time to go to sleep now.

 

I support gays because (for me) they lessen the competition to hit on women! Let them marry and live happily ever after

 

I'm also in favor of legalizing gay marriage. It is time. I do, however, find it more than a little irritating to see a federal judge overturning state law, again. Changing the definition of what is moral needs to be done by the voters, not the courts. I hope that one day Polygamists will also be released from the prejudice our government has allowed to exist against them. Polygamy has been around as long as Homosexuality, and I see no reason to single them out and deny them their rights and equal protection under the law.

 

Twice California courts have ruled on behalf of gay marriage. A vote of the population ruled against it. In my effort to simplify this so I can better understand the legality it appears that the courts are ruling that in regard to the constitution, certain rights, and in this case rights of a minority, are not subject to the popular vote. In this latest ruling the court used facts to back up its ruling. That in itself is interesting, and a reflection of the complex nature of our system of government.

This one is going to be very controversial over time.

As for my perspective. Let the gay population get married. Good luck to them.

 

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

While I couldn't care less about what people choose to do, isn't the supreme court itself, in this case, breaching the constitution? Each state should have its own take on the matter.

 

I agree on letting them marry why not let them just be happy they aren't bothering anyone they are just getting married

 

My understanding is the California courts ruled against the ballot initiative prior to prop 8, but ruled in favor of prop 8 itself. This is why the most recent ruling came from a Federal court.

Is marriage a "right"? Is it something guaranteed to us by the federal government? The answer to both of those questions is no. Right now, as I write this, individual states discriminate against individuals in regard to their "right" to marry. Some states have common law marriages, others do not. Some states will let cousins marry, while other states will refuse to recognize those marriages. Restrictions on minimum age and a variety of factors other than sexual preference will determine whether or not your marriage is recognized in a state other than your own. I don't believe marriages of polygamy are recognized in any state, though there are many polygamists in our nation. Should they be denied what the Supreme court might determine to be a "right"?

I think what bothers me about this is the political mess around it. Liberals and a few conservatives argue against an amendment to the constitution that defines marriage between a man and a woman by saying it is an issue for the states to take up. The states take the issue up, and the federal government strikes down the will of the people by the judiciary. I saw a Latino congressman arguing against the Arizona law yesterday mention that no illegal alien receives federal benefits. Yet when California made legislation specifically making benefits for illegal aliens illegal, the federal judiciary ruled it unconstitutional. It seems we may be a nation of the judiciary branch, rather than a nation of the people.

This would probably not grate on me anywhere near as much if we didn't have an oppressive regime in power running through unpopular legislation in blatant defiance of the will of the people. Perhaps if the federal government was enforcing our immigration laws rather than filing suit against those who are picking up their slack, I wouldn't feel so much like our rights were being stepped on. For the time being, lets just call it another straw on the camels back.

It so happens I agree with you.

 

This isn't something I focus on; California court, federal court.....2 courts ruled against prop 8. okay???

When discrimination laws against Blacks were knocked down, Amongst many other things Blacks couldn't sit at public lunch counters or ride in the front of a bus. Neither lunch counters, sitting at lunch counters, buses, or where to sit in a bus are mentioned in the Constitution either. In fact marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Of course we didn't have lunch counters or buses when the constitution was written. We did though have horses, horses asses, sex and public places back in the period when the constitution. None of them are mentioned in the constitution though.

Because they aren't explicitely mentioned in the Constitution does that mean that if you have sex with a horses ass in a public place you can't be arrested for indecent exposure. Does lack of mention in the constitution mean that your right to do so has been violated by the law.

Who cares if marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution? Horses, horses asses, sex, public places lunch counters and buses aren't either. We are able to make laws about these things despite not being mentioned in the constitution.

If you think we have an oppressive government, and choose to call it a regime its because you are overly political and favor republicans.

Frankly if you think its okay for Gays to get married don't you add to the unnecessary and overly loud politicization of the topic.

 

Like I said previously, the Bill of Rights states that what is not mentioned in the Constitution should be left to the people or respective state legislature to decide.

 

you have to stop gay to gay and such things
4th world ward will held with swards
the ways you are going seems in future your scientist will clone babies from men
they could not be able to fight to defense there selves so you will be removed from the history to keep into history you have to stop these things

however do what you think is better

 

Why don't you first *try* and fix your grammar?

 

Not accurate. One court ruled against prop 8. The federal court.

That is a carefully thought out argument against a point I never made. Not once did I claim marriage is something mentioned in the constitution. Marriage is something that is currently licensed at the state level(Like drivers licenses). The federal government is not even involved. Had you taken the time to consider the argument I actually did make, you would have commented on the blatant discrimination already existent in how states both license and recognized marriages. For the Federal government to come in and level the playing field between the states should require them to address these other inequities in how the issue of marriage is dealt with. This includes:

• Common Law marriages
• Minimum age to marry
• Consistent prerequisites of parental consent in the marriages of minors
• Clearly defined terms of what is immoral and not immoral, including marriage of your pet, marriage to multiple partners, etc, etc, etc

If you don't think the Federal government getting involved in all that is a states rights issue, I'd say there is very little you would consider to actually be a states rights issue. Lets not forget that the gay marriage ban being contested was put in place by the voters of California, one of the most liberal if not the most liberal state in the union. If Californians aren't ready for gay marriage, how do you think Alabama is going to take it when the federal government shoves this turd down their throats?

You are absolutely right on these points, though the statement as a whole makes no sense. I do think we have an oppressive government. I do choose to call it a regime. I am overly political. I do favor Republicans. All those facts are loosely related but to call any one of them causal lacks for evidence.

Its not the issue I'm trying to politicize. It is the process. Right now is not exactly the best time for the Federal government to be shoving anything more down peoples throats. It has gone past the tolerable annoyance level.

 

O_Nation: How can you claim you never made the argument when you wrote this.....

The scary notion is to see someone who states that it is okay for gays to marry; then to launch into an attack on this process by making the following crazy editorial comments that is simply based on fear mongering attacks on Democrats, Obama, and the current administration.

He calls the current administration an oppressive regime. Based on what besides fear mongering.

You want oppressive regimes go to China, Russia or dictatorships around the world.

You want an oppressive American administration: Look at Bush and the Republicans. This is how they treat basic Americans:

During these periods of war Bush installed "stop-loss" on the military extending their stay way beyond what any of these soldiers expected. The Pentagon estimated about 120,000 soldiers were impacted by "stop-loss"

John Soltz an Iraq war veteran who has argued against this oppressive issue said:

Stop Loss; essentially the Bush administration lied to its own soldiers. Of course that isn't unusual for Republicans and Bush:

When soldiers were dying from IED's the administration did nothing. It took the parents of soldiers and members of Congress to be willing to protect soldiers and increase protections against these bombs.

Of course the Republicans en masse just voted against providing health care benefits to the citizens who tried to save lives after the attack on 9/11. The Republicans en masse have been voting against extending unemployment benefits to those out of work.

Seems to me, Republicans have a consistent history in oppressing common Americans....and worse yet; they oppress and take advantage of heroic and patriotic Americans.

Finally, in discussing this case in which a judge overruled Prop 8 in California.....it has absolutely nothing to do with this outlandish comment by you....

I feel badly for gays. Their interests in being seen as full fledged members of American society is being kidnapped by crazed political partisans who care only about gaining political power and nothing about the lives of decent Americans.

 

Still campaigning against Bush I see. I suspect that isn't going to work out too well this November. In direct response to your statement, which of Bush's oppressive policies has Obama overturned? Patriot Act? Seems to me if Bush was oppressive, Obama is oppressive plus.

There is no way Gay marriage will not be made legal in California within the next two election cycles, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. IMO, it is inevitable. If the voters are going to put it in place anyway, why do we need the courts to decide when our country needs to be more progressive?

Perhaps one day, polygamists too will have equal treatment under our laws. In the meantime, Polygamy will remain illegal for, from what I can tell, no other rationale than the state weighing in on what is legal and what is not legal.

Perhaps one day, we can have our public schools end their blatant discrimination against gays by their constant portrayal of "normal" relationships as being between opposite sexes, or even between only two people.

Its a bright future. In the mean time, there is what we have now.

 

Great to see only one nutjob/homophobe commenting here. (So far.)

wajid_pk - Why do you assume that gay people would be unable to defend themselves? Gay people are no different to anyone else physically, they have the same abilities and flaws.

 

Why is the government in the marriage business in the first place?

A better solution would be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Let marriage be a religious matter, if the partners choose, and a matter of civil contract, if the partners choose.

This is not a legitimate role of government.

 

The same reason the government delves into our lives on so many other aspects, such as what we choose to put in our bodies. Big government is there to micromanage our lives.