Tenth Amendment defeated in California; Judge voids 7,000,000 voters. Big Gov Victory

[FrankRep]

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker on August 4 ruled against Proposition 8, a referendum passed by California voters in November 2008 that banned same-sex marriages in the state of California. By Raven Clabough


Homosexual Judge Okays Same-sex Marriage (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/4229-gay-judge-rules-in-favor-of-gay-marriage)


Raven Clabough | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Thursday, 05 August 2010


U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker on August 4 ruled against Proposition 8, a referendum passed by California voters in November 2008 that banned same-sex marriages in the state of California. According to the Judge, the ban violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

Exercising its rights under the Tenth Amendment, the state of California debated and voted on same-sex marriage and ultimately made its decision in a 52-48 decision in November 2008 banning same-sex marriage. The vote overturned a state Supreme Court ruling six months earlier that legalized homosexual marriage.

The law has been contested, however, by homosexuals in California who sought a judicial activist to succumb to their bidding.

On behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley, a federal challenge was filed, with the couples represented by Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boies.

The city of San Francisco and homosexual couples from Burbank and Berkeley served as witnesses against Proposition 8 in Walker’s court, while sponsors of Proposition 8, led by Attorney Charles Cooper, appeared as witnesses in support of the law.

According to Walker, an appointee of President George H. W. Bush, “Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

In his 136-page decision, Walker concluded that Proposition 8 “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.... Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supported the Judge’s decision, crediting him with the “courage to stand up for the constitution.”

Legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund Austin Nimocks defended Proposition 8 in Walker’s court, and vows to appeal. He states, “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”

The appeal to the Ninth Circuit court can take up to a year to be decided, but it seems likely that the fight for same-sex marriage will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans reject same-sex marriage while 44 percent support it.

For now, California joins five other states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire — as well as the District of Columbia, in legalizing gay marriage.

President of the National Organization for Marriage Brian Brown reacts to the Judge’s decision: “Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted his trial. With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman.”

Critics of Judge Walker’s decision have cited the Judge’s own homosexuality (http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker) as an innate bias in his decision.

In February 2010, Ed Whelan of National Review predicted (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49294/judge-walkers-skewed-judgment/ed-whelan) that Judge Walker’s decision will not be determined wholly by his sexuality, but by his inability to rule impartially. Citing a variety of examples supporting this statement, Whelan concludes, “Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.”

Apparently, Whelan was correct.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/4229-gay-judge-rules-in-favor-of-gay-marriage

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Never understood why any government, local ,state, or federal should be involved in marriage?

The fact that its called a marriage "license" bothers me. License means that the state has the authority to deny you the privilege. A marriage should be as simple as a contract between 2 people detailing their prenuptial agreements and vows. If or business or organization wants to recognize their marriage as legit or not is totally up to them.

[spudea]

California would think we live in a democracy where 51% enslaves the other 49%. Discrimination by referendum is illegal and not protected by the 10th amendment. Thank you to our founders for the checks and balances of the judicial branch.

[FrankRep]

California would think we live in a democracy where 51% enslaves the other 49%. Discrimination by referendum is illegal and not protected by the 10th amendment. Thank you to our founders for the checks and balances of the judicial branch.
Same Sex Marriage is a Tenth Amendment Issue.
The Voters and the CA State Reps both support the ban.

[spudea]

Same Sex Marriage is a Tenth Amendment Issue.
The Voters and the CA State Reps both support the ban.

Marriage is a contract. Judges have authority on contracts between two consenting parties. not voters.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Same Sex Marriage is a Tenth Amendment Issue.
The Voters and the CA State Reps both support the ban.

State government is prohibited from discriminating against citizens with regards to privileges or immunities created by state legislatures (ie. marriage/civil union licenses).

If you want to bow down and worship the state obtaining permission to exercise a natural right choosing a partner in lieu of spiritual authority don't bitch when the state is prohibited from discriminating.

[Dr.3D]

Marriage is a contract. Judges have authority on contracts between two consenting parties. not voters.

Then the simple solution would be to call it a contract, rather than a marriage.
The contract should be between two people and possibly involve the state. A marriage is something between two people of the opposite sex and is usually a religious ceremony.

[TonySutton]

Nice how the author cherry picked a couple sentences out of a 138 page report and never addresses the 2 issues in dispute.

I advise people read the decision for themselves and then post an opinion.

[devil21]

Marriage is a contract. Judges have authority on contracts between two consenting parties. not voters.

It's only a contract because the government itself made it a contract by passing a law stating such. The bigger point is that it should not be a "contract" subject to the whims of the courts or the government. Marriage is a private matter between two people that shouldn't require government approval.

[spudea]

A marriage is something between two people of the opposite sex and is usually a religious ceremony.

when people divorce you don't go back to the church...... you go to court.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Marriage is a contract. Judges have authority on contracts between two consenting parties. not voters.

Judges only have jurisdiction over a contract that does not have an arbitration clause or where one party seeks enforcement of an arbitration clause.

[Acala]

Of course as usual if you get government out of it the problem goes away.

However, putting aside the fact that government's totally unwarranted involvement in marriage is the root of the problem, this is an interesting case. The court stepped in and stopped a slim majority from singling out and punishing a minority for no rational reason, pure dogmatic morality not being in and of itself rational. This is, in theory, how the pathetic last remains of a check on government power is supposed to operate. But here it is a case of the Federal government interfering with state law. And that is what makes it interesting to me.

More friction between the states and the Federal government! Woohooo! Come on Secession!!!

[spudea]

Marriage is a private matter between two people that shouldn't require government approval.

I agree that marriage is a private matter, but if it entails the sharing of property and most importantly taking your spouses last name, the union must create a new legal entity with rules and responsibilities that must be protected by the law.

[Dr.3D]

when people divorce you don't go back to the church...... you go to court.

Fine, then let people have a contract that is state sanctioned and applical to court decisions should it be broken and let marriage be a separate contract between those two people and God. As it is now, the state seems to be trying to play the role of God.

[t0rnado]

There is something very immoral about the majority taking away the rights of the minority.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This is, in theory, how the pathetic last remains of a check on government power is supposed to operate.

I agree



But here it is a case of the Federal government interfering with state law. And that is what makes it interesting to me.

More friction between the states and the Federal government! Woohooo! Come on Secession!!!

I also agree. :D

Reality is that states have been just as negligent creating the problems as the federal government. For example health care costs suck ass because the states regulate the piss out of it accelerating the federal socialism crisis.

[Rael]

Essentially, they have been given the "right" to give up even more rights by entering into a state sanctioned marriage.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Never understood why any government, local ,state, or federal should be involved in marriage?

The fact that its called a marriage "license" bothers me. License means that the state has the authority to deny you the privilege. A marriage should be as simple as a contract between 2 people detailing their prenuptial agreements and vows. If or business or organization wants to recognize their marriage as legit or not is totally up to them.

The state has its agenda, God has His. The state says I am legally obligated to take care of my children until they are 18 years of age which is according to the legal precedence of tradition. By natural law, I desire to care for my children forever. Legal precedence confuses and confounds us. When we stand silent, we express the power of the Truth and its Civil Purpose; meanwhile, when we speak out, we become divided by the traditions of legal precedence. We need to move on beyond the old legal precedents that, although they were once useful, have now become cans of worms taxing us beyond limit.
In other words, while the idea of civil disobedience and civil rights once worked as measures to better implement the Truth and the people's Civil Purpose, such once useful tactics have now become legal precedents burdening and persecuting the people.

[Rael]

BTW, I don't think gays really are looking for the right to marry-they want acceptance from society and think that somehow winning the right to marry will achieve that. They are wrong.

[Golding]

Meh, it can be argued as a big government victory no matter what you do. What we saw with Proposition 8 is a majority of 7,000,000 voters using government to oppress a minority of 6,400,000 voters. In such a situation, it is just for the judge to void those 7,000,000 votes. And it's expected in the very concept of checks and balances that this is the sort of thing that happens. Otherwise, no unconstitutional proposition would be overturned on the basis that the majority of people (however marginal) approve of it.

The reason that this is a big government victory no matter what is because (as RP would say), people are asking the wrong question. It's not whether gay marriage should be allowed by the government. It's whether marriage in general should be certified by the government. If you've ever made the argument that the government should not be involved in your private life, then the answer is clearly no.

Reluctantly understanding that the current dogma of society isn't prepared for that answer, the follow up is whether the government has the right to exclude people wanting to vow commitment with another person (particularly when it attaches financial favoritism towards couples that do marry). The answer is no. All men are created equal, and the government has no authority to create an inequality among them.

I understand why people are upset at what they view as a tradition being changed. But who do you have to blame? For allowing it to be a government institution, you're bound to the same constraints that the government is bound by.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I agree



I also agree. :D

Reality is that states have been just as negligent creating the problems as the federal government. For example health care costs suck ass because the states regulate the piss out of it accelerating the federal socialism crisis.

Yes. But the real solution is a paradox. I posted it today in a writ. When people get paid less, less major corporations will be needed to care for the smaller aristocracy that will form as a result. This can't be a good situation for most corporations. Their simple solution? Collectively downsize their legal departments by firing as many lawyers as possible. As there exists great shame in being a fired worker, there is little shame in being a fired lawyer. Besides, lawyers should be able to retrain and find a job easier than workers.
This method will serve to return the people to their Civil Purpose by weeding the nation of legal precedence.

[Guitarzan]

Voters cannot vote to take away, or vote to keep away, the rights of a minority in a free society.

Period.

[Rael]

Voters cannot vote to take away, or vote to keep away, the rights of a minority in a free society.

Period.

I agree, except...state sponsored marriage is really a violation of your rights to begin with IMO.

[FrankRep]

I agree, except...state sponsored marriage is really a violation of your rights to begin with IMO.

The BEST solution is to remove Government from Marriage in the first place. I agree.

[klamath]

I believe that people should be able to marry 100 different people and that the state of California Cal Per retirement system should grant benefits to all the spouses. When the state goes broke I think the rest of the country should be required at gunpoint to pay taxes to bail us out.:rolleyes:
The only solution to this is to remove the government from mariage intirely not trying to make a patchwork of special rights to cover government inequities against all lifestyles.
For those that are cheering this decision unless you add all lifestyles into your comments I will to call you hypocritical asses. I see no reason why you should not be required to pay for all my 1000 wives. After all equal is equal and since that is the way the law is You should have to pay.:rolleyes:

[Guitarzan]

I agree, except...state sponsored marriage is really a violation of your rights to begin with IMO.

And I agree with you. If the gov't wasn't involved, there would be no issue. So the only answers to this "gay marriage might end the world controversy" is to either end gov't involvement totally and let private institutions decide what they will or will not honor, or give gay people the same access to marriage licenses, and the benefits from the gov't that come with that license.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I believe that people should be able to marry 100 different people and that the state of California Cal Per retirement system should grant benefits to all the spouses. When the state goes broke I think the rest of the country should be required at gunpoint to pay taxes to bail us out.:rolleyes:
The only solution to this is to remove the government from mariage intirely not trying to make a patchwork of special rights to cover government inequities against all lifestyles.
For those that are cheering this decision unless you add all lifestyles into your comments I will to call you hypocritical asses. I see no reason why you should not be required to pay for all my 1000 wives. After all equal is equal and since that is the way the law is You should have to pay.:rolleyes:

That is what I am talking about. 100 spouses with welfare benefits to all spouses. :D

I am going to rethink strategies I have proposed and revisit the breeding a majority strategy. I wonder if I could knock up multiple birds with one stone...

[LibertyVox]

The BEST solution is to remove Government from Marriage in the first place. I agree.

Pretty much this is it. The rest of our fears are irrelevant.
Let's not murk the picture. Taking the govt. out or any incrementalism of taking the government out of individual's private lives is a good thing. Until then if there is government enforced coercion, it should be equally applied.
The immorality of homosexuality should be decided in the arena of free market of values.

[erowe1]

Voters cannot vote to take away, or vote to keep away, the rights of a minority in a free society.

Period.

Did Prop. 8 take away anyone's rights?

[Guitarzan]

Did Prop. 8 take away anyone's rights?


The rights are already being violated. Prop 8 presumed to be the proverbial authoritarian "nail in the coffin" and end of discussion of this violation.

Is there justification here for thinking that since someone's rights are already being violated, anything more to pile on to that violation is then ok?

[Dr.3D]

The rights are already being violated. Prop 8 presumed to be the proverbial authoritarian "nail in the coffin" and end of discussion of this violation.

Is there justification here for thinking that since someone's rights are already being violated, anything more to pile on to that violation is then ok?

What rights are already being violated? :confused:

[Anti Federalist]

when people divorce you don't go back to the church...... you go to court.

Not if you're Catholic.

[Guitarzan]

What rights are already being violated? :confused:

I've read this board for a long long time. And I know that most of the posters here are very intelligent. So stop with the rhetorical questions and fire away.

If you don't think gay couple's rights aren't being violated by them not being allowed to attain a marriage license and the benefits that the license gives, I'd love to hear your argument.

[FrankRep]

I've read this board for a long long time. And I know that most of the posters here are very intelligent. So stop with the rhetorical questions and fire away.

If you don't think gay couple's rights aren't being violated by them not being allowed to attain a marriage license and the benefits that the license gives, I'd love to hear your argument.

Bigger question: Should Married couples get special benefits?

[Dr.3D]

I've read this board for a long long time. And I know that most of the posters here are very intelligent. So stop with the rhetorical questions and fire away.

If you don't think gay couple's rights aren't being violated by them not being allowed to attain a marriage license and the benefits that the license gives, I'd love to hear your argument.

I'm just trying to determine if there is a specific right being violated. Is it one found in the U.S. Constitution or is it found someplace else? If it isn't specifically found in the U.S. Constitution, then the 10th amendment would apply and thus be a matter for the state to decide.

[JK/SEA]

Seems this is just a battle over ownership of a 'word'. Reminds of black people telling white people they can't use the 'N' word, but they can.

[FrankRep]

Appeal filed over gay marriage ruling in Calif.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

Appeal of ruling could delay gay weddings in CA
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100805/D9HD9HHO0.html

[Guitarzan]

Bigger question: Should Married couples get special benefits?

No, but they do. I'm for getting the gov't out of the marriage business altogether and I believe that will solve the issue.

[Guitarzan]

I'm just trying to determine if there is a specific right being violated. Is it one found in the U.S. Constitution or is it found someplace else? If it isn't specifically found in the U.S. Constitution, then the 10th amendment would apply and thus be a matter for the state to decide.

Per your logic, then, the 10th amendment provides for pure democracy. If the voters of a state vote to imprison all redheads, under your interpretation of the 10th amendment, that would be fine.

[Dr.3D]

Per your logic, then, the 10th amendment provides for pure democracy. If the voters of a state vote to imprison all redheads, under your interpretation of the 10th amendment, that would be fine.

Well, red heads would be free to move to another state. But I believe it would have little to do with them having red hair that would allow them protection from imprisonment, but that the U.S. Constitution has provisions requiring the due process of law before someone can be imprisoned.

[Guitarzan]

Well, red heads would be free to move to another state. But I believe it would have little to do with them having red hair that would allow them protection from imprisonment, but that the U.S. Constitution has provisions requiring the due process of law before someone can be imprisoned.

The Constitution also protects the lives, pursuit thereof, and liberty of all people. It also protects persons from being treated unequally under the law. The 10th Amendment to that same Constitution is under the umbrella of those same protections. Just because it says that all powers not delegated to the feds are held by the states doesn't mean that the states can disregard the very intention that the Constitution itself spells out. Right?

As it stands, gay people are being treated unequally under the present law as they are not allowed to receive the same benefits that heteros receive from being married. That, my friend, is unconstitutional. It's got nothing to do with the 10th amendment.

[Southron]

I'm just trying to determine if there is a specific right being violated. Is it one found in the U.S. Constitution or is it found someplace else? If it isn't specifically found in the U.S. Constitution, then the 10th amendment would apply and thus be a matter for the state to decide.

No one understands the concept of federalism anymore and is happy with whatever the federal government does as long as it promotes their views.

"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."

You supporters of this judicial tyranny are just begging for an amendment to the US Constitution the next time the Republicans take power. And now they have even more ammunition for it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

What rights are already being violated? :confused:

California Constitution:



ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

[Anti Federalist]

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting

Doesn't say anything about same sex marriage.

Am I missing something?

[spudea]

I'm just trying to determine if there is a specific right being violated. Is it one found in the U.S. Constitution or is it found someplace else? If it isn't specifically found in the U.S. Constitution, then the 10th amendment would apply and thus be a matter for the state to decide.

Rights don't come from constitutions. The first amendment doesn't give us free speech, it protects it.

We have a natural right to be free from discrimination. If the state gives licenses to hetero couples then the state has to give licenses to **** couples.

If you don't like it, then the best way to fix it is to lobby for the removal of state regulations and benefits of marriage and have it exist solely as a religious institution because churches can discriminate all they want. If you don't want ***** in your church, just call them bad names and say they'll burn in hell for all eternity. Thats sure to fix em.

[michaelwise]

Marriage is a states rights issue. If you don't like what CA did, move to one of the other 49 states.

[Golding]

Rights don't come from constitutions. The first amendment doesn't give us free speech, it protects it.Yep. This is why the elaborate understanding as to why Proposition 8 is oppressive will inevitably not be found by looking at the strict lettering of the Constitution. We realistically know that when you're proposing to restrict part of the livelihood, via authority of the government no less, of a large group of people based on an identifying feature (whether you approve of that feature or not is an irrelevant matter), you are trying to negatively impact their liberty.

I see very smart and capable people who most certainly do believe in freedom (theirs and others) who are missing this for whatever reason, and it's unfortunate. It seems like it would be an issue we could all agree on, and what's more improve a voting block on.

[Dr.3D]

Rights don't come from constitutions. The first amendment doesn't give us free speech, it protects it.

We have a natural right to be free from discrimination. If the state gives licenses to hetero couples then the state has to give licenses to **** couples.

If you don't like it, then the best way to fix it is to lobby for the removal of state regulations and benefits of marriage and have it exist solely as a religious institution because churches can discriminate all they want. If you don't want ***** in your church, just call them bad names and say they'll burn in hell for all eternity. Thats sure to fix em.

You seem to think I give a rats behind what gay people do. Seriously I don't, but I will say it has been fun seeing if you can determine if it is a Federal issue or a States issue. Seems you still are having a problem with that.

Perhaps you will post your answer when you have figured it out.

As for the state or federal government having anything to do with marriage, I am still trying to figure out how either of them can legally mandate some kind of license being required for it.

[Golding]

Marriage is a states rights issue. If you don't like what CA did, move to one of the other 49 states.Invariably, I know I will. Prop 8 doesn't affect me personally, but it's a bad message and shows that the majority is willing to drown the minority. California voters oppose me on financial issues as well, and that's where I'm more worried about being the victimized minority. That's more why I hope to move away by next year.

But I have to correct you on suggesting that marriage is a states rights issue. Marriage is a personal issue that neither the state nor the federal government have any business in. Simply replacing an oppressive federal government to favor an oppressive state government is not conducive to liberty. Marriage is no more a states rights issue than my personal finances are a states rights issue.

[fj45lvr]

stick with Dr. Paul's view: marriage is already defined in the dictionary!!!

It isn't a government matter anyhow (so both sides are "off" on this one).

[spudea]

but I will say it has been fun seeing if you can determine if it is a Federal issue or a States issue

I will say absolutely it is the states responsibility to protect the rights of its people indiscriminately. California has failed to do this. And luckily our founders predicted the tyranny of the majority and put in place the judicial system that protects the minority with the rule of law. And if you want to cite the U.S. constitution for authority its not found in the bill of rights. Article 6, the supremacy clause.

Federal Court > State Court.

[Dr.3D]

~snip And if you want to cite the U.S. constitution for authority you'll learn Federal Court > State Court.

Well, what is not allowed the federal government via the U.S. Constitution is for the state or the people to decide. So even if the federal government says it trumps the state, they can often be incorrect in that assumption.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Rights don't come from constitutions. The first amendment doesn't give us free speech, it protects it.

We have a natural right to be free from discrimination. If the state gives licenses to hetero couples then the state has to give licenses to **** couples.

If you don't like it, then the best way to fix it is to lobby for the removal of state regulations and benefits of marriage and have it exist solely as a religious institution because churches can discriminate all they want. If you don't want ***** in your church, just call them bad names and say they'll burn in hell for all eternity. Thats sure to fix em.

But aren't there requirements to getting a license? I believe too that if heterosexuals can marry then homosexuals should be able to, but isn't it true that right now you could look at the "requirements" of obtaining a marriage license as being a man and a woman? That, as the state, if you want them to issue a marriage license, they should be able to decide who gets one? I don't know, I've been thinking about this a lot and I'm having problems convincing people the government shouldn't be involved at all. They think marriage is a right but they are talking about the benefits. And I thought benefits like health care aren't rights? :confused:

[spudea]

Well, what is not allowed the federal government via the U.S. Constitution is for the state or the people to decide. So even if the federal government says it trumps the state, they can often be incorrect in that assumption.

It is allowed. The original constitution allows federal courts to overturn state courts and state laws.

[Dr.3D]

It is allowed. The original constitution allows federal courts to overturn state courts and state laws.

The states created the federal government, what has been created can not be greater than it's creator. The states at any time may dissolve the federal government should the need arise. This would be done by secession. If all of the states seceded from the union, the federal government would cease to exist.

[spudea]

But aren't there requirements to getting a license? I believe too that if heterosexuals can marry then homosexuals should be able to, but isn't it true that right now you could look at the "requirements" of obtaining a marriage license as being a man and a woman? That, as the state, if you want them to issue a marriage license, they should be able to decide who gets one? I don't know, I've been thinking about this a lot and I'm having problems convincing people the government shouldn't be involved at all. They think marriage is a right but they are talking about the benefits. And I thought benefits like health care aren't rights? :confused:

This is what the legal case is about. Sure, a state can make certain requirements to obtain a license. I don't know all the details about the case but the requirements must have merit i.e. there has to be a good reason to deny a license to a gay couple thats based on something other than their sexual orientation.

First cousins can marry in California. That has more merit to be denied IMHO.

[spudea]

The states created the federal government, what has been created can not be greater than it's creator. The states at any time may dissolve the federal government should the need arise. This would be done by secession. If all of the states seceded from the union, the federal government would cease to exist.

Lets not get into a debate about secession, I've already hashed that out in a debate over the civil war.

My position on that is that if a state wishes to deny our natural rights, then their secession is invalid and the federal government is within its right to occupy that state until the natural rights are no longer denied.

Maybe that referendum will be on the next state ballot but until then, california is pursuing this issue in federal court.

[osan]

Same Sex Marriage is a Tenth Amendment Issue.
The Voters and the CA State Reps both support the ban.

I must disagree. If they passed a return to chattel slavery, would it be valid on 10th amendment grounds? The principle is the same.

If two *****s want to get hitched, it is nobodys business but theirs.

We cannot cherry pick freedoms. Many things that others do will disagree with us. Tough crap. If we are free, we are free to do things others do not like. The limit is injury to others, and hurting someones feelings or "offending" their sensibilities do not count.

[free1]

Never understood why any government, local ,state, or federal should be involved in marriage?They shouldn't.

But when you are dealing with government property, as in government subjects, as in United States citizens - it's another matter.

That's why the subjects need a license - permission to do something that would normally be illegal or unlawful.

Permission from the government.

Sovereign People don't need government permission to marry, it's an inherent Right, it's up to the church if they are going to do it or not.

So there's a little lesson in surf vs. free people.

Please go study, just a little bit.

[free1]

The states created the federal government, what has been created can not be greater than it's creator.I agree, but you have to watch out for the lawyer tricks.

There's the State

Then there's the state.

The state (lower case "S") is a subdivision of the United States (government).

And what pisses me off is it's damn hard to determine what the stupid court is referring to in a lot of cases. And they know it and use that to trick people into thinking they are all powerful.

So when you are dealing with the state, the United States is king. But remember, their jurisdiction is really limited, if you ever challenge it. And that's when things start to get interesting.

[Imperial]

This quote pissed me off in the OP's article he linked to:

Critics of Judge Walker’s decision have cited the Judge’s own homosexuality as an innate bias in his decision.

So if a heterosexual judge ruled in favor of prop 8, would he have been biased too?

[FrankRep]

Jack Hunter @ TAC


Gay Rights or States' Rights?

YouTube - ‪SA@TAC - Gay Rights or States' Rights?‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGfEKoYrNMQ)

[jmdrake]

Marriage is a contract. Judges have authority on contracts between two consenting parties. not voters.

The problem is that marriage is not just between two people. Not as it is currently defined. Two gay people (or three for that matter) have the right in any state to draw up a contract that covers living arrangements, who has durable power of attorney to make medical and legal decisions, how to divide up the property if they split up, who gets when when one of them die etc. But marriage contracts bind third parties though things like insurance benefits, pensions and even lease agreements. (Person A has a lease with person B and A later marries person C. Person A dies. Does person B have to allow person C to finish out the lease?) Much of the issues surrounding gay marriage can be handled simply by reducing the government footprint on marriage period. There's a debate as to whether there is a tax "benefit" or "penalty" to marriage. Get rid of the income tax. Problem solved. Some companies don't want to extend insurance benefits to gay partners. But the benefit regime only came about because FDR suppressed wages during the great depression and instead allowed companies to have tax breaks for benefits especially health insurance. Transfer the tax benefit to the individual (if you can't bring yourself to abolish the income tax), let people buy their own insurance on the open market, somebody somewhere will over health insurance that covers gay partners. Problem solved. Lot's of ways this could work.

[Fredom101]

California would think we live in a democracy where 51% enslaves the other 49%. Discrimination by referendum is illegal and not protected by the 10th amendment. Thank you to our founders for the checks and balances of the judicial branch.

The "checks and balances" are a hilarious joke.
Years ago CA voters overwhelmingly approved legalizing medical mj. What happened? A judge simply overruled the people, and 2 days later it was back to being illegal. The will of the people lost.

Government should not be involved in gardening or marriage, period.

[AlexMerced]

I'm not sure if this is purely a 10th amendmant issue, the 1st amendment has already been violtated with all the laws granting tax benefits to marriages which is inherently religous.

Now the states do have the right make laws regarding religon... although as soon as you mix tax benefits from federal taxation, this really muddies the waters.

I think this issue needs a massive reset.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm just concerned with the precedent for future abuses by the federal government.

What happens when 17 million voters vote on the issue of the healthcare nightmare mandate, reject it, and then a federal judge comes in and over-rides the vote of the people? I know that these are two separate issues (not looking for red-herrings, strawmen), and philosophically, approachable by different perspectives. The Federal Gov't, however, doesn't see it that way. Give an inch, and they take a yard.

Play it safe, gays. Move to New Hampshire and get married; forget California and its screwed up system of direct-democracy.

Or else, in a few years, IRS agents will bust down your doors when you and your gay spouse haven't proven that you've purchased health insurance from Big Insurance Co.

EDIT: In essence, we have to stop looking for Big Brother to come intervene, and just a) live our lives the way we want and tell everyone else to go to hell, or b) look for loopholes in anti-freedom schemes by governments and exploit them to our benefits (like moving or traveling to a "free" state to do things that aren't allowed in your home state).

[AlexMerced]

I'm just concerned with the precedent for future abuses by the federal government.

What happens when 17 million voters vote on the issue of healthcare, reject it, and then a federal judge comes in and over-rides the vote of the people? I know that these are two separate issues (not looking for red-herrings, strawmen), and philosophically, approachable by different perspectives. The Federal Gov't, however, doesn't see it that way. Give an inch, and they take a yard.

Play it safe, gays. Move to New Hampshire and get married; forget California and its screwed up system of direct-democracy.

Or else, in a few years, IRS agents will bust down your doors when you and your gay spouse haven't proven that you've purchased health insurance from Big Insurance Co.

(In essence, we have to stop looking for Big Brother to come intervene, and just a) live our lives the way we want and tell everyone else to go to hell, or b) look for loopholes in anti-freedom schemes by governments and exploit them to our benefits)

I agree, trying to restore the republic to me sometimes seems futile, the New Hampshire deal seems like the most productive move foward.

[nobody's_hero]

I agree, trying to restore the republic to me sometimes seems futile, the New Hampshire deal seems like the most productive move foward.

New Hampshire isn't the only state that performs/recognizes gay marriage. I just used it as an example. I think Vermont is another one, and there are two or three others but I can never remember them. There are also some states that recognize gay marriage licenses from other states as valid but do not perform them within their own state.

EDIT: Also, let me add that, differences in state laws is a healthy indication that the republic is alive and well. Some states are more tyrannical than others. That's the way it will always be, and trying to reduce (or raise?) everyone to the same common denominator is going to be the futile part. Reward free states with your business and patronization, and punish tyrannical states by taking your income (and tax dollars) elsewhere. 50 states means there are at least 50 choices in our republic, at least, until we're all under the direct rule of the Federal government, and then, the republic will have breathed its last breath.

[FrankRep]

Pat Buchanan on the TYRANNICAL JUDGE IN SAN FRANCISCO
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257016

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure if this is purely a 10th amendmant issue, the 1st amendment has already been violtated with all the laws granting tax benefits to marriages which is inherently religous.

Now the states do have the right make laws regarding religon... although as soon as you mix tax benefits from federal taxation, this really muddies the waters.


Beh! There's as much evidence of marriage "tax penalties" are there are marriage "tax benefits". Plus the "benefit" is created by the federal government, not the state. If that's the issue then the federal judge should strike down the income tax as unconstitutional (which wouldn't bother me at all). Besides atheists get married all the time, killing the "inherently religious" argument.

[angelatc]

Voters cannot vote to take away, or vote to keep away, the rights of a minority in a free society.

Period.

I'm not sure any of us have a right to get married though, and the fact that the 13th Amendment exists would seem to indicate that the state does have a right to take away the rights of a minority.

If they didn't have that right, why amend the Constitution to take away that right?

[nobody's_hero]

I'm not sure any of us have a right to get married though, and the fact that the 13th Amendment exists would seem to indicate that the state does have a right to take away the rights of a minority.

If they didn't have that right, why amend the Constitution to take away that right?

It was more of an amendment to 'give up' that 'right,' than any 'taking away'. But I think I get what you are saying.