A Sea Of Red

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/su ... .html?_r=0

Should be very interesting. Can't predict what the judges will decide, especially after the ruling of Obamacare. Anyone else care to split the 1000 page decision to break it down next year?

My prediction is that they'll rightfully rule in favor of the homosexuals in some capacity.

I wonder if Elena Kagan will recuse herself......

DOMA unconstitutional, Prop 8 was not decided by the court due to legal technicality, leaving lower court decision to stand.

ATrain wrote:DOMA unconstitutional, Prop 8 was not decided by the court due to legal technicality, leaving lower court decision to stand.

Now just need the Supreme Court to do the right thing and say it's unconstitutional to illegalize same-sex marriage.

Sounds like to me it's the upholding of the status-quo standard of judicial activism.

States may choose the laws under which they live. That's the entire purpose of federalism, or, at least when it existed.

You do know that illegalize isnt even a real word right?

BJWilliams wrote:You do know that illegalize isnt even a real word right?

Maybe 'illegalization'?

That LC education comes shining through once again

jbock13 wrote:Sounds like to me it's the upholding of the status-quo standard of judicial activism.

States may choose the laws under which they live. That's the entire purpose of federalism, or, at least when it existed.

I'm fine with each state having their say, but the frustrating part is, as a former Californian who voted for Prop 8, the government refused to step up to represent the people's wishes. With that, I think it's reasonable that the people can choose to represent themselves and their wishes if the elected officials choose not to. In that regard, it's too bad that the merits of Prop 8 will not be argued in the court.

On a lighter note, I no longer live in California so I just get to hear my friends and family complain about it.

Yacht Rock wrote:
I'm fine with each state having their say, but the frustrating part is, as a former Californian who voted for Prop 8, the government refused to step up to represent the people's wishes.

Exactly. Vermont voted their approval through the legislature. Nobody had any issues with that, because that's how it was supposed to be done. Something is really wrong when you have so few people whose opinions can overthrow 50 million others.

jbock13 wrote:

Yacht Rock wrote:
I'm fine with each state having their say, but the frustrating part is, as a former Californian who voted for Prop 8, the government refused to step up to represent the people's wishes.

Exactly. Vermont voted their approval through the legislature. Nobody had any issues with that, because that's how it was supposed to be done. Something is really wrong when you have so few people whose opinions can overthrow 50 million others.

And which is the reason cited who Prop 8 proponents lost. Some members of SCOTUS felt that they could hear arguments like this argued by private parties. Crazy technicalities. Next they'll say Obamacare is a tax

I don't think the Supreme Court wants to touch gay marriage. It's hard to believe considering most liberals believe in ramming and cramming their agenda through. But, perhaps it's because they know they don't have the votes quite yet.

BJWilliams wrote:You do know that illegalize isnt even a real word right?

jbock13 wrote:That LC education comes shining through once again

I'll let you two make that argument to the folks over at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Now what was that about the LC education?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegalize

Now now shuk...that last comment wasn't necessary. taking the high road would have served you better. You know the saying, "Do not argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Thank you for taking the time to look up "illegalize" and letting it be known that it is a real word, but you certainly were quick to give up any high ground you could have gained by doing that.

BJWilliams wrote:Now now shuk...that last comment wasn't necessary. taking the high road would have served you better. You know the saying, "Do not argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Thank you for taking the time to look up "illegalize" and letting it be known that it is a real word, but you certainly were quick to give up any high ground you could have gained by doing that.

I don't care about gaining any high ground though.

Its only going to be a matter of time before gay marriage is recognized in all 50 states.

ATrain wrote:Its only going to be a matter of time before gay marriage is recognized in all 50 states.

+1

In West Virginia? lol, that'll be the day.

ATrain wrote:Its only going to be a matter of time before gay marriage is recognized in all 50 states.

50 will be a stretch. 30 or 40 maybe. But the key is STATES and I'm ok with that.

Yeah, it will happen eventually. The real shame is that the opposition has really done a good job of vilifying the position of believing marriage is between a man and a woman. In California, the same folks who voted liberal on every other ballot item in 2008, including voting for Barack Obama, also voted that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Get into a public conversation about that topic though and everyone thinks you're crazy for believing that man and woman are designed to be together because you are immediately called a bigot, hater, etc. Funny how that works.

Yacht Rock wrote:Yeah, it will happen eventually. The real shame is that the opposition has really done a good job of vilifying the position of believing marriage is between a man and a woman. In California, the same folks who voted liberal on every other ballot item in 2008, including voting for Barack Obama, also voted that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Get into a public conversation about that topic though and everyone thinks you're crazy for believing that man and woman are designed to be together because you are immediately called a bigot, hater, etc. Funny how that works.

You can believe it all you want, but when you try to enforce your view on others, then its a problem. I also feel that if a vote on Prop 8 were held today, it would be defeated. Marriage amendment repeals are in the process in Oregon and Nevada, and I would not be shocked to see NJ and IL approve marriage equality before 2015.

ATrain wrote:when you try to enforce your view on others, then its a problem.

Isn't that what voting and government is about? People vote on a viewpoint or they can choose not to vote on a viewpoint. In this case, they did. How is that a problem?

Yacht Rock wrote:

ATrain wrote:when you try to enforce your view on others, then its a problem.

Isn't that what voting and government is about? People vote on a viewpoint or they can choose not to vote on a viewpoint. In this case, they did. How is that a problem?

Because its denying civil rights to a certain class of people, on the basis of religion no less. People voted to have slavery, for segregation, not having interracial marriage, not allowing women the right to vote, etc...

ATrain wrote:

Yacht Rock wrote:

ATrain wrote:when you try to enforce your view on others, then its a problem.

Isn't that what voting and government is about? People vote on a viewpoint or they can choose not to vote on a viewpoint. In this case, they did. How is that a problem?

Because its denying civil rights to a certain class of people, on the basis of religion no less. People voted to have slavery, for segregation, not having interracial marriage, not allowing women the right to vote, etc...

I understand that we are devolving into a different argument but I don't see it as a religious argument at all. I see it first as the fact that the human race is built on the relationship between men and women and that, whatever you believe, this fact cannot be denied.

In the end, at least from my experience from the many years I have lived in California, people weren't looking for rights. They were looking for equality. I see this as two different things. From my perspective, I am not going to make a statement at the ballot box that a relationship between a man and a man is equal to the relationship of a man and a woman because they are not.

As far as rights are concerned. I don't mind if someone is in a same sex relationships and want a union that gives them benefits, etc. Personally, I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. That's a different argument.