California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8; gay marriage remains banned in state
All the California Supreme Court managed to do today is drag out this issue. Obviously they don’t get the idea of civil liberties for all.
Religious or personal opinion of gay marriage should not be a deciding factor….the deciding factor should always be what is constitutionally proper and I find nothing in the constitution that permits the denial of rights to a group based on a religious belief.
At one time interracial marriages were illegal and just as those unconstitutional laws were overturned so to will laws like Prop. 8. It’s just a matter of time. Any time the country moves forward to guarantee equal rights for minority groups there is always a segment of the country that must be dragged kicking and screaming…….a segment that reminds me of a 3 year old having a temper trantrum.
The constitution is a matter of law, not religion, not prejudice and not bigotry. And I for one will celebrate the day when judges have the courage to stand up for the very principles on which this country was founded….liberty and justice FOR ALL.
California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8; gay marriage remains banned in state
10:01 AM | May 26, 2009
The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.
The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists said they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
[...] California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8; gay marriage remains banned in state | Mountain Sage (mountainsageblog.com) – May 26, 2009All the California Supreme Court managed to do today is drag out this issue. Obviously they don’t get the idea of civil liberties for all. Religious or personal opinion of gay marriage should not be a… [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
WOOHOOO, California’s supreme court followed their own constitution finally.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I for one feel that individuals should be free to marry whomever they choose. At the same time I feel equally strong that this was the right decision for the Supreme Court of CA. The measure was voted on, it was passed. They did there job by upholding the law.
I fully expect to see this on the ballot again in 2010 and perhaps the outcome will be different. If it is different and it goes before the Supreme Court of CA(which I predict will happen), then they should uphold that law. What ever the people of California vote in to law is law…
Now, then back to looking for the riots…
Sage Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
If a law is unconstitutional it doesn’t matter if it was voted on. We were never intended to be a country where the majority persecutes the minority by law.
barga Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Here is the thing Sage, the law is not unconstitutional in any sense. Most of the benefits are private, and almost all public ones are already granted or something a separate contract can handle.
Sage Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Federal law trumps state law in matters of discrimination.
Sage Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Do you have any idea how many hoops a gay couple must jump through just to allow their partner to enter their hospital room if the family doesn’t want them to? I do and it takes more than one separate contract.
taoofterri Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I’m not a lawyer and I may be way off base here, but this is my thought: the Constitution provides every single person equal rights to life, liberty, blah, blah, blah. That said, if liberty is a state of being equally free to enjoy social, economic and political rights and privileges, then anything that one would have to do differently than another to achieve those same rights and privileges would be discrimination. In other words, if a gay couple must enter into a separate or different contract that would afford them similar rights and privileges of a straight couple who only has to marry (or in some cases only live together for a specific number of years), would in itself be unconstitutional, would it not?
Sage Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
One would think so.
Of course barga thinks it’s perfectly ok for a hospital to make any rule they want….wonder how he would like it if the hospital made a rule that a husband couldn’t see his wife in the hospital if her parents didn’t want him to. He also thinks discrimination doesn’t encroach on someone’s rights.
barga Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 7:30 am
As for you Mr. Republicrat. I agree that everybody should be allowed to marry, btu i am against state marriage at all. I believe that there should be contracts and the only benefit in the public sphere should be if there are children in any relationship.
2fewfactsaround Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Why an exception for children involved? If we can finally admit that marriage should be treated exactly the same as any other contract, then any stigma of unmarried parents, etc., would be as outdated as the special category marriage now enjoys before the law.
Wizcon Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
There are 1,138 Federal benefits for being married. How is this not discrimination?
Wizcon Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
As a single person, that p%&^es me off
Sage Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Why should people who procreate get benefits? Lots of them are too ignorant to be allowed to own a dog much less have children.
2fewfactsaround Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I agree. I am upset about the 1,138 federal benefits for being married. I had never realized just how very unfair this system is. I wish more people knew about that figure. As a single person, I’ve gotten really tired of the marriage-is-good mantra. Been there, yada yada….Why don’t we start some petitions across the country to strip some of those discriminatory benefits away if those same benefits can’t be applied to greater numbers of American citizens?
Wizcon Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Sad thing about that is that when I started receiving disabilty benefits from my ex for the kids when he was terminal, I was getting over $800 per month per kid (2 kids). Prior to that under the child support I was getting about a quarter of that. (he earned a lot of his income “unoffically” fixing furnaces and cars). I just kept on my old budget and socked the excess away for them.
AliSilver Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
LMAO ,,, Amen SAGE!!!!!!!!!
Sage Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I guess I can’t be accused of holding my feelings back. LOL
May 28th, 2009 at 7:42 am
i can not reply properly so i am going to list these in order, enjoy finding your:
-Sage1 to my first responce – what federal law is this that trumps it? Also, no they dont, only in certain areas
-sage 2 to first – hospitals are private entities, they have every right to make rules as they see fit
*SECOND REPLY*
-2 few facts around – Children need protection and help, so benifits should be granted to children
- Wizcon – what are these benifits?
-Sage – Um, adoption counts as well in this regard
2fewfactsaround Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 9:09 am
barga, you misunderstood my reply. I am advocating benefits to all children, regardless of their parents’ marital status, or rather, by stripping away marriage as a special category of contract, thus erasing stigma and unequal treatment, allowing all children better odds of growing up hale, healthy, educated, etc.
barga Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 10:42 am
ahh, i am fine with that
Sage Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Federal discrimination laws trump state laws.
That’s your answer? Hospitals have the right to make rules as they see fit? Good grief. I’m going to leave it at that before I say something I might regret.
barga Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
no it doesnt actually, only in certain areas can federal law trump (based on where they rule constitutionally)
I believe that private entities have the same rights people do, that is, they can be as discriminatory as they want until they violate another persons rights
Sage Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Well duh….being discriminatory IS violating a person’s rights.
barga Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
actually, Sage, it is not
unless you tell me that i can not kick blacks out of my house (note, i would never do that) then you can not argue it is a violation
what right do you have to be in my house, in my resteraunt, etc.
Sage Reply:
May 28th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Of course it is a violation and I think you know it very well. Hospitals must serve the public as 2fewfactsaround stated above. This idea that “private” businesses can do anything they damn well please is just ridiculous. Privately owned corporations can’t discriminate against a protected group now can they?
Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose…..the only exemptions to discrimination laws.
You’re wrong barga.
You’re welcome to join us in the new and improved 21st Century.
barga Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 7:32 am
i am having issues with the reply button. Let me start by saying something…
1) I am not racist, sexist, etc.
2) i would not shop at a place or if i could help it be at a place which is racist, sexist, etc.
I believe those laws are unconstitutional, consider this:
In Plessey v. Fergison (never overturned, Brown merely said that the separate but equal part was not achievable (if it was segregation would be allowed))SCOTUS considered buisnesses to be people and have rights under the 14th. We have been operating that way ever sense
now, if they are people, they have every right to discriminate
that is, unless you believe i don’t have the right to kick blacks out of my house (not, wouldnt due to race)
Sage Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
And I believe declaring a business a person is unconstitutional and just down right stupid. I guess we are at an impasse except there are discrimination laws and they are in opposition to your idea of what is legal and what isn’t.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Whoa, barga. Hospitals and restaurants are open to the public. And in the case of hospitals, they receive funds(and tax breaks) from all levels of government that specify they must serve the public. The public is all of us, regardless of how you feel about our politics or skin color or anything else. Is it my imagination or do I denote a tone of intense anger in most of your comments? I don’t know what anyone here has said to warrant such vitriol from you.
barga Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 7:34 am
My tone of anger is because i do not like the government infringing on the rights of people, which buisnesses are considered. I believe that everybody has the right to be an asshole, that include the owner of a bar, resteraunt, and PRIVATE hospital. Unless the hospital is 100% government i believe they have the right to be as jackassish as they wish
Sage Reply:
May 29th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Your belief doesn’t make it legal.
barga Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Do you agree that i have the right to kick people out of my house because they are black?
Sage Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
What’s the point in that question? We have anti-discrimination laws that cover most businesses with the stated exceptions. What I believe your personal right in your home is is completely immaterial to the discussion.
I notice you are ignoring the fact that you were wrong about hospitals being able to discriminate.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:03 am
This conversation is going somewhere weird~
May 30th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“And I believe declaring a business a person is unconstitutional and just down right stupid. I guess we are at an impasse except there are discrimination laws and they are in opposition to your idea of what is legal and what isn’t.”
um, Sage, Plessey defined a buisness as a person under the 14th, so SCOTUS ruled that that is how it was
Sage Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
And your point is what? You were talking about what you believe concerning hospitals and clearly the law didn’t agree so it was just your belief.
Sage Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
What is your argument? Yeah, I know that businesses were defined as a person just as we have anti-discrimination laws that you are arguing your opinion against. Do you deny that your argument was merely your opinion?
May 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Sage, pointing out laws is irrelevant. I agree that the laws state that hospitals can not do this, then i merely notice that the orig. civil right laws were overturned by the court and these ones were never taken to SCOTUS. Using that logic, i infer that these are also not valid constitutionally
i also talk about rights, i have the right to kill you, but it is still illegal.
Sage Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
If it’s illegal it’s not a right. What is legal and thus a RIGHT is me defending myself…..even in the form of a .357 magnum.
barga Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
sage, what is your education in terms of political theory and social contract theory
Sage Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
What’s yours?
I’m talking about the law and let’s just say I’ve had on the job training in the law.
barga Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
nice job of not answering it
i have three years of college level of it, almost complete with that portion of the degree (GEC and minor to finish), have stuided locke and hobbes for roughly ten years, and have been published regarding an analysis of how the current governmental system of our country perverts the intent of natural law as evidenced in the DoI.
Sage Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
LOL….you never answer anything as you just jump from thing to thing. Congratulations on what you obviously consider your superior education. I’m impressed…well maybe not.
I don’t believe you have ever sourced your information and seldom do you address the issue when someone responds….you just take a different tactic.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
what have i avoided sage?
i mentioned a court case
hell, i mentioned two which prove my argument
and, i even mentioned/implied a third
Sage Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
It didn’t prove your argument.
I tell you what. Let’s get down to the real world. Walk up to any cop you can find and tell him all about your right to kill him. I can almost hear the laughter as you get beaten to a bloody pulp.
Try that with a judge and see how far it gets you.
There’s life and then there’s fantasy and I think you are verging on living in a fantasy.
2fewfactsaround Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Barga, I’m confused. Where are you trying to take this conversation? The original post was about CA Supreme Court upholding Prop. 8. Then you opined that they Rightly (ahem) upheld their Constitution, which on a practical level means that there will be another vote and eventually gays in CA will have the right to marry. Why didn’t you comment on the murky situation they left up in the air since the couples who married within the short time frame when gay marriage was legal are still to be considered married? Where do those couples fit, constitutionally?
2fewfactsaround Reply:
May 30th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I meant to add to my remarks above that I think the CA Supreme Court didn’t bother trying to annul those existing marriages because they know this will go back to the voters again soon, and, if not the first time then surely within the next 5 -10 years at the most, this right will be extended to all CA residents. Or, as I think you advocated a couple of days ago, barga, by then all couples can change to having civil unions instead of marriage.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Let me attempt to break this down as you keep jumping around.
You believe that because the Supreme Court upheld the courts that gave businesses the designation of people, and because you believe people have the right to do most anything including murdering someone, businesses thus have the right to do what every they damn well please including discriminating. Is that your contention in a nutshell?
If that’s the case you are wrong. Businesses do not have the right to discriminate as federal law says they don’t. It’s really just that simple.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Hey I’m gonna throw a monkey wrench in the works… HOORAY ALI!
Uh, previously there was a talk ^^^^ up there re: state law vs. fed. law and federal trumps state law! This is not in the context of gay marriage. But in CA, we watched a documentary about the growing and selling of medicinal marijuana. State says it’s legal ! It’s a law in CA. But the federal law still bans it, so the feds go to the stores and close themdown all the time. It was very interesting because I’d never heard of feds cracking down onthese stores in CA.
I’m not sure what my point is insofaras the gay marriage law in CA….only that I wanted to mention that! The state can do nothing about the federal govt coming in to enforce FEDERAL law.
Weird,,,,,, helpful to this argument,,, probably not!
Sage Reply:
May 31st, 2009 at 12:10 am
It is a conundrum, isn’t it? I understand that is it perfectly legal for the feds to trump the marijuana laws in CA but I personally think the federal laws on criminalizing marijuana are wrong and quite possibly unconstitutional. How does criminalizing marijuana fit in with my right to the pursuit of happiness….I remember marijuana making me very happy.
May 31st, 2009 at 8:22 am
I do too…..
May 31st, 2009 at 8:22 am
But then again, maybe the reason I had to grow up is because of children and a family and the looming prospect of JAIL for enjoying it………… :@
May 31st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Sage, let me try this. There are three rights here:
Natural Rights, these include everything, we give these up to leave the anarchic state of nature and thus follow governmental institutions.
Constitution – US
Constitution – California
the DoI (happiness) is never a right, but i would argue it should be
okay, we know that this does not violate the californian constitution, but it does violate natural rights. However, we allow violation of natural to protect (hence me not killing you). Thus, we wondering if it violates the federal constitution
There is no constitutional right to marriage, thus it DOES NOT violate it. Thus, you have no right to be married in this country
as for laws, laws do not make rights. If that were the case, Marburry V. Madison would be irrelevant. My argument stems from the fact that even though there are laws saying something they can be unconstitutional and thus wrong. We all agree on that
Sage Reply:
May 31st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I really don’t get where natural rights have any relevance to this discussion. We were discussing laws and the constitution.
As for the constitutional right to marry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th Amendment the right to marry is a vital personal right essential to the pursuit of happiness. So the Supreme court disagrees with you on whether or not marriage is a constitutional right.
I’ll be posting the case in the morning.
barga Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:56 am
I assume you are referring to Loving V. Virginia, which, though i believe was badly decided (referencing the DoI which has no legal grounds) does not apply:
1) If you read the decision they decided that because the goal was to preserve the white race, not every race, it was a violation of the 14th. They clearly say if it was illegal to marry a WHITE and ANOTHER RACE together then it was wrong, if it was simply two races then okay
2) Singer v. Hara clearly says that banning gay marriages is allowed
3) There is a third case (escaping me) that indicates Loving V. Virginia does not allow gay marriages
Sage Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
It doesn’t matter why it was decided it matters what was said. You obviously didn’t read the whole decision.
Sage Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
NO, it was the Virginia Supreme Court who said the goal was racial purity.
Last time, you need to cite sources and make an argument instead of scatter shooting.
And DoI….Department of Interior, Department of Investigation, Digital Object Identifier, psychedelic drug? What?
May 31st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
as for the education question, I asked that so i could know where you were coming from in background to explain it better, not to be condesending.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:01 am
Barga, is your argument based on just ….having the last word?
barga Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 7:02 am
if only life were so easy
why would you assume that, i just listed some cases, countered her case, and exlpained rights
June 1st, 2009 at 8:05 am
It just seems to be a ’standoff’. I’ve been following the thread and it just seems to be a no win. Sometimes 2 parties have to decide ‘ i will never sway the other party to see it my way’ . However for folks who really relish a good debate, it never ends !
Barga Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am
The thing is that we are arguing over rights and legality, both of which are in my area of study and so i have a huge interest in this
June 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am
See here’s one problem…… I didnt’ say i assume anything. I asked a question, then you ASSUMED you knew my intent. My intent was just to get an answer.
Sometimes people just ask a question to get an answer.
Barga Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:30 am
the wording implied that my argument revolved around having the last word
sorry if i assumed incorrectly
June 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
i read the whole decision sage, and i understand exactly what the court said. I would recomend you read how the explain it, not the summary
that said, you want the sources for loving?
Sage Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I read the explanation. It doesn’t change the words they used regarding the right to marry being a vital personal right.
barga Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
are you sure, because the summery seems to be what you are mostly quoting from
Sage Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Yes, I’m sure.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:47 pm
then explain to my how you can justify expanding the scope
Sage Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
The state of Virginia used religion to justify the law against interracial marriage. The only real argument against gay marriage is one of religion. If one religious argument to justify a law is invalid then in my opinion so is the next. Our laws aren’t based on the Christian religion or any other religion.
PLUS:
The Supreme Court in the appeal of Loving v. Virginia cited Meyer v. Nebraska. In Meyer v. Nebraska the SC states:
Does that language sound familiar?
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:44 am
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf
handles the whole Loving issue well
Sage Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 am
You didn’t address Meyer v. Nebraska that was cited in Loving v. Virginia.
barga Reply:
June 4th, 2009 at 7:51 am
that is irrelevant, as Loving trumps it so shooting down Loving shoots down Meyer