California legalizes same-sex marriage; Proposition 8 overturned

[WSE]

I was unaware that anyone had a "Constitutional right to wed", much less gay people. States grant marriage licenses, not the federal government.

if you want to take away all the advantages under the law married couples get, then maybe this point would make sense. Because as of now, its blatantly incorrect.

[WSE]

this (non complete) list is what makes this a constitutional issue


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Valandui]

As of right now, the federal government has no jurisdiction over marriage of any kind. If the Supreme Court legalizes it or the Constitution is ammended to ban it, it would give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage, which they definitely should not have. If California wants to legalize it, that's their deal. This power should in no way, shape, or form be given to the federal government.

[WSE]

As of right now, the federal government has no jurisdiction over marriage of any kind. If the Supreme Court legalizes it or the Constitution is ammended to ban it, it would give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage, which they definitely should not have. If California wants to legalize it, that's their deal. This power should in no way, shape, or form be given to the federal government.

I agree, but states still have a constitutional (federal) duty for equal protection under the law.

[LANGER72]

The states should decide by voting on it. If the public wants the changes and agrees, it should be OK.
The federal government should stay out.
What bothers me is when the courts over turn the will of the people. That is a slippery slope.
Another things is the special protected class that they seek. I don't agree.

[Valandui]

I agree, but states still have a constitutional (federal) duty for equal protection under the law.

I feel that this is strictly a state issue. When it really gets down to it, I don't feel that government at any level should be involved in marriage at all. It's a contract between you and God. Why should any government be involved?

[WSE]

The states should decide by voting on it. If the public wants the changes and agrees, it should be OK.
The federal government should stay out.
What bothers me is when the courts over turn the will of the people. That is a slippery slope.
Another things is the special protected class that they seek. I don't agree.

what stops a majority from voting away the rights of a minority in your opinion?

Groupthink voting for constitutional issues makes no sense since the rights are guaranteed under the constitution.

[WSE]

I feel that this is strictly a state issue. When it really gets down to it, I don't feel that government at any level should be involved in marriage at all. It's a contract between you and God. Why should any government be involved?

its not between you and god only- the list I posted of the legal benefits proves that. There are both state and federal benefits given to married couples.

you take those benefits away and its a different issue- then it is status only.

[Locke]

The states should decide by voting on it. If the public wants the changes and agrees, it should be OK.
The federal government should stay out.
What bothers me is when the courts over turn the will of the people. That is a slippery slope.
Another things is the special protected class that they seek. I don't agree.

"Will of the people" would have lead to women still not able to vote, as well as continued segregation. Sometimes, the will of the people is exactly the opposite of what is right...

[LANGER72]

what stops a majority from voting away the rights of a minority in your opinion?

Groupthink voting for constitutional issues makes no sense since the rights are guaranteed under the constitution.

Which amendment guarantees the right of marriage, straight or gay? This should be interesting.