Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let the celebration begin

I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

pantherclaw wrote:I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

danefan wrote:

pantherclaw wrote:I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

Well stated

danefan wrote:

pantherclaw wrote:I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

Then why couldn't it be determined that a vote BY THE PEOPLE would be unconstitutional BEFORE THE VOTE? Why waste the time and money, and frustrate certain voters, by going through with the vote?

CAA Flagship wrote:

danefan wrote:
Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

Then why couldn't it be determined that a vote BY THE PEOPLE would be unconstitutional BEFORE THE VOTE? Why waste the time and money, and frustrate certain voters, by going through with the vote?

Mainly to burn through the mormon money pile.

I know one lawyer, a leading constitutional attorney specializing in LGBT rights, who thinks this case is going to get to the Supreme Court too soon for his liking.

Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts are probably going to hold that the US Constitution reserves to the states the right to define marriage, and that laws outlawing same-sex marriage do not discriminate against any recognized class, i.e, "preference" is not a class.

Ginsburg and Breyer are likely to hold that the US Constitution outlaws discrimination based on preference. Sotomayer and Kagan have not been involved in prior decisions but generally I think they would side with Ginsburg and Breyer.

And then there's Anthony Kennedy, who said in Lawrence v. Texas that the state didn't even have a rational basis to criminalize sodomy. In doing so, though, he was also able to avoid discussing whether laws which impinge on the liberty interests of gays are subject to the rational basis test or strict scrutiny, .i.e., since the law could not pass even the rational basis test, it could not pass the strict scrutiny test.

For this reason, he had no reason to discuss whether gays are a protected class whose interests/rights are subject to the protection of the strict scrutiny test.

CAA Flagship wrote:

danefan wrote:
Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

Then why couldn't it be determined that a vote BY THE PEOPLE would be unconstitutional BEFORE THE VOTE? Why waste the time and money, and frustrate certain voters, by going through with the vote?

Because a court can not rule on it until it BECAME law...

JoltinJoe wrote:I know one lawyer, a leading constitutional attorney specializing in LGBT rights, who thinks this case is going to get to the Supreme Court too soon for his liking.

Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts are probably going to hold that the US Constitution reserves to the states the right to define marriage, and that laws outlawing same-sex marriage do not discriminate against any recognized class, i.e, "preference" is not a class.

Ginsburg and Breyer are likely to hold that the US Constitution outlaws discrimination based on preference. Sotomayer and Kagan have not been involved in prior decisions but generally I think they would side with Ginsburg and Breyer.

And then there's Anthony Kennedy, who said in Lawrence v. Texas that the state didn't even have a rational basis to criminalize sodomy. In doing so, though, he was also able to avoid discussing whether laws which impinge on the liberty interests of gays are subject to the rational basis test or strict scrutiny, .i.e., since the law could not pass even the rational basis test, it could not pass the strict scrutiny test.

For this reason, he had no reason to discuss whether gays are a protected class whose interests/rights are subject to the protection of the strict scrutiny test.

I tend to agree - as long as the Neatherthal four (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) are around, they will vote against the Constitution and allow their hatred of gays to overrule what should be a slam-dunk case.

Are they going to repeal Loving vs Virginia as well?

dbackjon wrote:the Neatherthal four

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:the Neatherthal four

Truth hurts.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote:

Truth hurts.

Too bad it's not true.

BTW, when questioning somebody's intellect you should probably spell Neanderthal correctly.

danefan wrote:

pantherclaw wrote:I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

That's why they call it a REPUBLIC!!! That aside how can anyone rightfully argue that it is okay for certain people to have one thing while another doesn't? Sorry but that useless little book the bible isn't the law.

Wedgebuster wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Then why couldn't it be determined that a vote BY THE PEOPLE would be unconstitutional BEFORE THE VOTE? Why waste the time and money, and frustrate certain voters, by going through with the vote?

Mainly to burn through the mormon money pile.

polsongrizz wrote:That aside how can anyone rightfully argue that it is okay for certain people to have one thing while another doesn't?

I guess the same way people can vote and be drafted at 18 but can't drink until 21. The gov decided what was in the best interest of individuals and society. I can only assume that's what people against gay marriage are going on.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Truth hurts.

Too bad it's not true.

BTW, when questioning somebody's intellect you should probably spell Neanderthal correctly.

I knew the Morans and they were pretty dumb.

I just noticed that this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who has been a bit of a whipping boy before the US Supreme Court. He might be the most reversed Circuit Judge on the entire US Court of Appeals.

pantherclaw wrote:I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

Bullcrap. People will always vote on issues that they feel strongly about. This particular issue should never had gone to voters.

danefan wrote:

pantherclaw wrote:I am mixed on this, while I support full rights for gays/lesbians, I am very concerned that the will of three people has overruled the will of the people, and a right that is fundamental to our legitamacy as a republic and country, the right to vote. My biggest concern is that people who did vote will now go, well it didn't matter anyway because a court overturned it, so next time a social issue comes up they may be less likely to vote because they figure the courts will decide it anyway. Just my two cents.

Our system of government (a constitutional democracy) was set up for situations like this exactly. The rule of the majority is intended to be tempered by our Constitution. The actual majority hardly ever rules....and rightfully so.

89Hen wrote:

polsongrizz wrote:That aside how can anyone rightfully argue that it is okay for certain people to have one thing while another doesn't?

I guess the same way people can vote and be drafted at 18 but can't drink until 21. The gov decided what was in the best interest of individuals and society. I can only assume that's what people against gay marriage are going on.

And what are your reasons for being against gay marriage?

Maybe Justice Roberts will change his mind on this subject eventually........

mainejeff wrote:Maybe Justice Roberts will change his mind on this subject eventually........

Look at the trembling wife. Scared shitless a la American Beauty, that bible freak abuses her and had her clit and uterus removed after the second and last kid. He keeps em in a mason jar in formaldehyde in his Supreme Court office.

She's addicted to prescription anti anxiety drugs and has never watched TV in her life. She spends 2 hours every day, scrubbing Roberts' slippers and ironing his SKULLS smoking jacket.

When everyone, including Roberts, is tucked in for the evening, she retreats to a clandestine, damp dungeon Roberts made her dig out in the middle of their fucking house. God have mercy on that poor woman.

D1B wrote:

mainejeff wrote:Maybe Justice Roberts will change his mind on this subject eventually........

Look at the trembling wife. Scared shitless a la American Beauty, that bible freak abuses her and had her clit and uterus removed after the second and last kid. He keeps em in a mason jar in formaldehyde in his Supreme Court office.

She's addicted to prescription anti anxiety drugs and has never watched TV in her life. She spends 2 hours every day, scrubbing Roberts' slippers and ironing his SKULLS smoking jacket.

When everyone, including Roberts, is tucked in for the evening, she retreats to a clandestine, damp dungeon Roberts made her dig out in the middle of their **** house. God have mercy on that poor woman.

Were you bullied in elementary school?

dbackjon wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I know one lawyer, a leading constitutional attorney specializing in LGBT rights, who thinks this case is going to get to the Supreme Court too soon for his liking.

Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts are probably going to hold that the US Constitution reserves to the states the right to define marriage, and that laws outlawing same-sex marriage do not discriminate against any recognized class, i.e, "preference" is not a class.

Ginsburg and Breyer are likely to hold that the US Constitution outlaws discrimination based on preference. Sotomayer and Kagan have not been involved in prior decisions but generally I think they would side with Ginsburg and Breyer.

And then there's Anthony Kennedy, who said in Lawrence v. Texas that the state didn't even have a rational basis to criminalize sodomy. In doing so, though, he was also able to avoid discussing whether laws which impinge on the liberty interests of gays are subject to the rational basis test or strict scrutiny, .i.e., since the law could not pass even the rational basis test, it could not pass the strict scrutiny test.

For this reason, he had no reason to discuss whether gays are a protected class whose interests/rights are subject to the protection of the strict scrutiny test.

I tend to agree - as long as the Neatherthal four (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) are around, they will vote against the Constitution and allow their hatred of gays to overrule what should be a slam-dunk case.

Are they going to repeal Loving vs Virginia as well?

You never know. Who would have ever thought that the conservative justices on the Iowa Supreme Court would have joined the liberals to unanimously overturn the Iowa law prohibiting gay marriage?