An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
California Prop 8...constitutional?
So, there's a big to do in Cali over prop 8 these days. In case you don't know, prop 8 somehow made the ballot, and it was in favor of banning gay marriage, so if you voted yes on prop 8, you voted to ban gay marriage. It passed, and recently a judge struck it down, which allowed homosexuals to get married, but only for a brief time until that's judge's decision was put on hold until some other judges can make a final ruling.
On the face of it, my gut tells me that prop 8 is unconstitutional, just because it seems wrong to me. I have no basis of actual knowledge on the constitution about this, but it seems to me that telling two people they can't get married is wrong. So, for those of you that know more about this than I do, is it unconstitutional?
Also, does this get into the whole states rights area? Shouldn't a state be able to pass whatever law the voters pass? I'm not saying I support prop 8 at all here, but just like Arizona, we are seeing the federal government stick it's nose in a state's business. In the case of Arizona, though, the DOJ wasn't even arguing constitutionality.
It's kind of weird for me. I don't like the federal government meddling around in state issues, but in the case of prop 8, I like that they are basically saying "wait a second here, something's not right, we better take a look at this."
Your thoughts?
On the face of it, my gut tells me that prop 8 is unconstitutional, just because it seems wrong to me. I have no basis of actual knowledge on the constitution about this, but it seems to me that telling two people they can't get married is wrong. So, for those of you that know more about this than I do, is it unconstitutional?
Also, does this get into the whole states rights area? Shouldn't a state be able to pass whatever law the voters pass? I'm not saying I support prop 8 at all here, but just like Arizona, we are seeing the federal government stick it's nose in a state's business. In the case of Arizona, though, the DOJ wasn't even arguing constitutionality.
It's kind of weird for me. I don't like the federal government meddling around in state issues, but in the case of prop 8, I like that they are basically saying "wait a second here, something's not right, we better take a look at this."
Your thoughts?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by mcglory13 on -
There are lawyers who can better answer this, but no I don't think it's ok to allow rights to some people and to others based on religious objections. I read a great editorial the other day that pointed out the fallacies in the slippery slope arguments (like, this will lead to polygamy being legal! well, nobody is allowed to engage in a polygamous marriage so it's not the same thing).
I also don't think this should be decided on a state by state basis, because people need to move for work or personal reasons, and you can't be married, unmarried, married, etc as your cross states for travel. That would just be chaos. Nor do I think people in a state's opinions should trump constitutional rights.
-
Permalink Reply by StitchyWench on -
States rights are always trumped by federal law, so no state can pass a law just because its people want to thwart The US Constitution. Prop 8 is unconstitutional in the same way segregation was, separate is inherently unequal. States cannot treat some of its citizenry unfairly by granting them lesser rights, just because the state's people want to. Same reason AZ cannot ignore the 5th Amendment just because a backwards angry Sherriff and their Governor want to.
-
Permalink Reply by Herasmus B. Dragon on
-
I think the judge's reason was "you can't have two different sets of laws for two different sets of people in one state" (straights can marry but gays can't).
Ditto what Stitchy said. What if Alabama decided to reinstitute slavery just because 100% of the people voted on it?
-
Permalink Reply by GreenLantern on -
I see. It's unconstitutional because it treats people who are gay differently, as in they don't get all the tax benefits and stuff that comes along with being married. Not only that, it's out and out saying "you are different from us straight folks, and that's bad". Again, I don't agree with that, but that's essentially what it's' saying.
Regarding the Arizona law, as far as I know, it's not unconstitutional. If it were, the feds would have sued over that. Plus, it's really is just the federal law put in the state law. I'm not saying I agree with it, or anything like that. The Arizona law is a whole different can of worms.
-
Permalink Reply by StitchyWench on
-
Not true GL. The law, as originally passed, would not have held up under the 5th amendment. The Obama Administration took exception to it and they revised the law and passed it as amended shortly after the initial bill. They wanted to be able to stop people and demand paperwork without probable cause (this is where it would be handy for the GOP in AZ to have more lawyers on their staff - I kid, I kid). It took them about a week to figure out how dumb that was if they wanted a prayer for it to hold up under any court so they changed it to mimic The Federal Law.
At question now is whether or not non-federal law enforcement agencies have the right to create their own agendas and enforcement procedures to uphold Federal laws.
GreenLantern said:I see. It's unconstitutional because it treats people who are gay differently, as in they don't get all the tax benefits and stuff that comes along with being married. Not only that, it's out and out saying "you are different from us straight folks, and that's bad". Again, I don't agree with that, but that's essentially what it's' saying.
Regarding the Arizona law, as far as I know, it's not unconstitutional. If it were, the feds would have sued over that. Plus, it's really is just the federal law put in the state law. I'm not saying I agree with it, or anything like that. The Arizona law is a whole different can of worms.
© 2012 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by 
.
