Originally Posted By Mr F <<< The problem with Proposition 8 is that it violates the 14th Amendment. >>> <<Says who? I'm not aware of any court of competent jurisdiction that has made such a finding.>> 14TH AMENDMENT: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"..."nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Prop 8 ABRIDGES the privileges of marriage for sex couples, and anyone who may wish to marry someone of the same gender. Prop 8 also denies EQUAL PROTECTION towards same sex marriages, because same sex unions would not be defined as "Marriage" and would not have the equal protections or benefits which only "Marriage" provide. Good thing that that 18,000 gay marriages are still recognized as marriage, but that causes a contradiction in the law.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Prop 8 ABRIDGES the privileges of marriage for sex couples*** Same sex couples, Butters. Same sex.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< 14TH AMENDMENT: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"..."nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Prop 8 ABRIDGES the privileges of marriage for sex couples, and anyone who may wish to marry someone of the same gender. Prop 8 also denies EQUAL PROTECTION towards same sex marriages, because same sex unions would not be defined as "Marriage" and would not have the equal protections or benefits which only "Marriage" provide. Good thing that that 18,000 gay marriages are still recognized as marriage, but that causes a contradiction in the law. >>> You have a few problems there Mr F. First of all, you didn't quote a court finding. Second of all, you quote this part: <<< "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States >>> The meaning of that part of the 14th Amendment is that the states cannot take away any right that's granted to citizens on the federal level. Since there is no federal right to gay marriage in the United States, this section has no applicability to Prop 8. <<< "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." >>> That is the closest anyone is going to get to getting Prop 8 overturned based on the US Constitution. But if denying same-sex marriage is an equal protection issue, then it's not just Prop 8 that's at issue, but the laws of all the states that currently don't allow gay marriage. The 14th Amendment was passed in the 1860's. If gay marriage was something protected by the 14th Amendment, I suspect we would have figured this out before now.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "The 14th Amendment was passed in the 1860's. If gay marriage was something protected by the 14th Amendment, I suspect we would have figured this out before now." Oh please. Look how long it took after the 1860's for the Supreme Court to rule on interracial marriage as an equal protection issue. Right around 100 years. The argument that "we would have figured it out by now" with regard to marriage equality for gay people is totally off base.
Originally Posted By mele << If gay marriage was something protected by the 14th Amendment, I suspect we would have figured this out before now.>> Some of us *have* figured it out. More do everyday.
Originally Posted By mele At what point in time do I think the millions of people began to believe so? I'd have to check my spreadsheet and get back to you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 imadisneygal makes a good point. SCOTUS certainly COULD have declared laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional as soon as the 14th Amendment was passed. They later did so, and based the ruling on the 14th Amendment. So why did it take 100 years? SCOTUS is a human institution, and although it likes to pretend it simply applies the law as written without regard to public opinion, in practice this is often not so, interracial marriage being a prime example. It took till 1967 for a combination of a case with proper standing AND public opinion large enough (though still a minority) to come together. SCOTUS could thus rule the way they could have ruled 100 years earlier... and they STILL ended up goosing a large portion of the populace to a position that seems today like a no-brainer.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "The meaning of that part of the 14th Amendment is that the states cannot take away any right that's granted to citizens on the federal level. Since there is no federal right to gay marriage in the United States, this section has no applicability to Prop 8" Does the US Constitution define marriage as being between one man and one woman? If not, then it could be implied that no state has the right to disallow same sex marriage. "If gay marriage was something protected by the 14th Amendment, I suspect we would have figured this out before now." Relatively speaking it hasn't been an issue for very long. It's only recently that people have begun to realize that the exclusion of gay couples from the legal status of marriage is unfair.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Does the US Constitution define marriage as being between one man and one woman? If not, then it could be implied that no state has the right to disallow same sex marriage.<< Yes, this is known as the "Air Bud" rule. It comes from Disney films primarily, where a frazzled coach of the usually dominant and overpowering visiting superstar team starts screaming at the ref/umpire, "Hey! You can't just stand there and allow a dog/ to play basketball!" And the ref/umpire puts glares back at the coach and says, "There ain't nothing in the rule book that says a dog can't play basketball." The team with the amazing dog and/or Flubber sneakers or what-have-you go on to win the game, while the frazzled and frustrated opposing coach winds up somehow falling into a swimming pool.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>while the frazzled and frustrated opposing coach winds up somehow falling into a swimming pool.<< LOL
