the reason the "ban" is unconstitutional is because the act of marriage is not stipulated in the constitution in the first place. the ban was poor public policy - and the voters voted for or against it because of their political agenda. the ban doesn't do what people think it does, it's really a moot point. so banning something that was never legal in the first place? why is that neccesary? it never states marriage is between a man and a woman, or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

this isn't an arguement - this is from someone who is researched it. I'm not against the ban, I'm for freedom for all people, but I wanted to share.
 

"the reason the "ban" is unconstitutional is because the act of marriage is not stipulated in the constitution in the first place."

The fact that there's no mention of marriage in the constitution doesn't make something unconstitutional.

"so banning something that was never legal in the first place? why is that neccesary?"

Lots of things weren't officially legal prior to being banned. Laws are designed to clarify such gray territory, and create a dividing line between "this is okay" and "this isn't okay."
 

The right of equal and not preferential treatment isn't a constitutional right. It's a common belief in the legal system that prevents people from being persecuted for their beliefs. Saying that it was unconstitutional is bull, but it isn't any fairer than any other form of segregation. "You gotta go drink over dere at da queer fount-ane"
 

Well sure, 61% of voters say that they would be in favor of such a proposition, but in order for that proposition to take effect, the Supreme Court has to determine that it is constitutional. 61% of people in California could have said that they were in favor of a proposition that would make honor killings legal. Hell, 99% of people could have voted in favor of it unanimously. But the Supreme Court can overturn that decision on the basis that it conflicts with other federal and state laws that make killing, of any kind (barring legitimate self-defense) illegal.

But also, think about it. The year 2000 wasn't a "mere" 8 years ago. 8 years ago I was 13-years-old and in the 8th grade. So much has happened in my life, and in everyone's lives in the last 8 years. Not to mention, since the turn of the millennium, our culture has become more tolerant of other cultures and ways of life. Although homosexuals are still persecuted and looked down upon, it's not nearly as bad as it was 8 years ago.

In that amount of time, this country has acquired base of new voters. 8 years worth of new voters. And much more of the younger, newer voters are voting more than people in that age group voted 10 years ago. So you have high schools, colleges, and grade schools teaching and promoting more acceptance and tolerance than previous generations did. And these younger generations are growing up hear that message and agreeing with it, and voting based off of that upbringing. Especially with hot topics like gay marriage, abortion, etc.

So I say we retake that vote. I can guarantee you that no, that 61% in favor of that proposition would be much lower.

But you do have a good point. America always says "Democracy this, democracy that." That the people have the power and voting is awesome. But in the real picture, the people don't have much of a say. We can express our opinions and make our voices heard. But in the end, it's the big wigs who make the choices.
 

But in the end, it's the big wigs who make the choices.

Thank you. That's the only point I'm trying to push in this particular blog entry.
 

well then you and I share a common paranoia/criticism of this so-called free country. The worst part about the big wigs making all those decisions is that, for the most part, their intentions aren't always pure. More often than not, there is usually some under-the-table deal going on, or ulterior motives to making seemingly decent decisions.

Example: Dick Cheney worked as a public servant for most of his life. And to his credit. Then he went into the private sector and worked for Haliburton. I believe he was the CEO. Then when he retired from that job, Haliburton felt he did such a good job that they gave him $31 million to thank him. Because that's what companies do. Then he ran to become the vice-president and he won.

What's dangerous about this is that Cheney is in charge of deciding what our energy policy is going to be. And he's doing it with $31 million of oil company money in his pocket.

And this country wonders why, especially with our gas prices climbing so high, that we haven't adopted methods of alternative energy?
 

I respect your views, Chris. But, I’d like to respectfully disagree with your reasons.

While I do not know much about the previous laws, I agree with you that the majority of the people shall rule. This is because usually the fairest way to go about business is to give the power to the masses.

To say that only 4 people had an influence on state policy is an understatement. While I understand that your point is that 4 people brought it court, let us not forget their voices echo a vast voice of opinions and sincere beliefs – not just lobbyists'.

I think marriage should between people who dearly love each other. Gay people are not undercutting the notion of marriage, if that’s the reason why people believe homosexuals devalue marriage. But rather, it’s those who marry for financial reasons, for example, who disgrace marriage.

Let us just assume that of the millions of people in California, only 4 believe that the rest are wrong. I do believe that that numerical lopsidedness alone cannot be reason to ban same-sex marriage. It’s about principle. What is wrong here? While the majority believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, the key issue is that by having that belief and making law deprives a group of people a fundamental liberty that we all naturally posses: the pursuit of happiness. It also puts a discriminatory undertone that says people who are homosexuals cannot marry simply because of that fact, that they’re gay. Forget that they’re in love. The notion of not allowing a group of people to not enjoy a fundamental liberty is outrageous.

At one point, the minority fought against slavery, suffrage. Were they wrong then simply because the majority had ruled? I think the answer is safely and clearly “no”.

I think we all believe that invasion of privacy of law-abiding citizens is utterly despicable. So, I don’t think that will be an issue. You’re other examples are off-the-wall. There would be no celebration because such reversals will not yield happiness.

The constitution doesn’t tell us that we have a right to liberty, or happiness. But, when something might take away from happiness, something is utterly wrong. And if the majority believe that gay marriage is wrong, that they should be deprived of some end so fundamental to all of us, something is also utterly wrong. And such constitutional ban is self contradictory.
 

"I do believe that that numerical lopsidedness alone cannot be reason to ban same-sex marriage."

I agree that the popular vote won't always yield the best results, but democracy is supposed to be rule by majority, for better or worse. Obviously, 61% of the voters in 2000 didn't think the bill was unconstitutional. Voting is our fundamental right as American citizens, and to allow four non-elected people to overrule that seems like spitting in Lady Democracy's face.

What, you don't think there's a Lady Democracy? Well, there is. Click here to see what she looks like.

"You’re other examples are off-the-wall. There would be no celebration because such reversals will not yield happiness."

They were supposed to be off-the-wall. That was the point.
 

Jeez Chris you are getting legally served. Not like in the you have to come to court way... but like... in the way if we were all break dancing. Everyone would be going "OOOOOOOOOOOOH" right now... jeez.
 

I line up as an independent would, and I honestly could care less about gay marriage. The only real qualm I have with it is its name. Marriage is a holy union between man and woman. At least in terms of our shared religious beliefs. However with the separation of church and state, the law see's marriage as SOOO much of society does, as a legal obligation.

With the world going the way it is, as far as people really not taking marriage seriously, this is no surprise. I have gay friends, and I don't think they are bad people by any means, they do deserve the same legal benefits from marriage as anyone else... but call it something else. Like Butt Buddies.

Last thing would be the Voters versus the lobbyists. If you think your vote and or opinion ever mattered in the USA, you might have been right sometime back in 1944. However with the current money endorsed climate of politics, you will find yourself sorely mistaken.

PS

You know what this means Chris? There is still hope for us. ;)
 

"You know what this means Chris? There is still hope for us. ;)"
You'd better give me one heckuva romantic proposal.

Oh, and the correct term is "bum chum."
 

DUDE!.....


You know you like it..



Boom chicka weeeer chicka weeeeer
 

ay Marriage Ban Supported By 54% Of Californians