CA: Appeals Panel Overturns Prop 8's same-sex marriage ban

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Emma Peel, Feb 7, 2012.

  1. Emma Peel

    Emma Peel Keep your bowler hat on in times of trouble, & bew

    Messages:
    9,892
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html


    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html


    Welcome back, California. :wave:
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady New Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hooray!!!
     
  4. Trino

    Trino New Member

    Messages:
    7,521
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good for CA.

    And, here we are in Minnesota, which will have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2012, thanks to the Republican held legistature, which had it placed on the ballot.

    According to a poll taken by Public Policy Polling reported on Jan. 27, 48% of Minnesotans polled support an amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman; 44% oppose. 1200 voters were surveyed.

    So, BACKWARD Minnesota may pass a marriage amendment, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, only to have it declared unconstitutional in the near future. Can you believe this?
     
  5. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady New Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seriously? I always had the impression that MN was quite liberal for the most part. :confused:
     
  6. Trino

    Trino New Member

    Messages:
    7,521
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Seriously. It's true.

    Minnesota USED to be progressive. I don't understand what happened really. This state has changed since the 1980's.
     
  7. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady New Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, don't feel too bad, even we are stuck with Senator Cosmo here in Mass! :D

    Hopefully he will soon be trounced back out by Eliz. warren, and we can just ignore his term as some weird abberation lol.
     
  8. Nova

    Nova New Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kansas used to be one of the more progressive states in the Union. Read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? to understand the change in so many Heartland states.

    But Minnesotans need not despair: 44 to 48% isn't bad and time is on our side. Members of the younger generation have trouble understanding why this is even an issue.

    In the meantime, GREAT DAY FOR US CALIFORNIANS!

    ***

    This article:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ay-not-hear-california-gay-marriage-case.html

    suggests the Supreme Court may not even agree to hear an appeal. The reason? The appellate court's ruling is very narrow and based entirely on the idea that a majority vote may not target and eliminate the existing rights of a minority. The ruling applies only in California and it stops short of saying gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry a same-sex partner; it just says that once they do have that right, a majority vote can't take it away.

    Even people who are uncomfortable with gay marriage should think long and hard about whether you want your civil rights to depend on the whims of a majority vote. Next time, YOU may be the minority under attack.
     
  9. Quiche

    Quiche New Member

    Messages:
    9,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :clap::clap::clap::clap:

    :woot:
     
  10. Nova

    Nova New Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Amen. Please try to vote at least twice for Ms. Warren. I'm sure they'll understand if you tell them you are voting once for me.
     
  11. Trino

    Trino New Member

    Messages:
    7,521
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It might be a good thing for the Supreme Court to hear the case. I think there's a good chance the court would call laws against gay marriage discriminatory and unconstitutional.
     
  12. marauder

    marauder Inactive

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think gay marriage could be legal nationwide in maybe 80-100 years. Maybe. Not likely, but possible. No sooner.

    It took about fifteen generations to take slaves away from the One Percent, and another full century for dark skinned Americans just to get the right to vote in this land. Many thousands of Americans sit in cages at this very moment, their only "crime" being marijuana cultivation, a product safer than pure H2O.

    Personally I don't think we'll really see any efforts towards legalizing personal liberty in our lifetimes. Not if the uber conservative supremes can drag it out for a few more generations.
     
  13. Tuffy

    Tuffy Not really that tough...

    Messages:
    6,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Respectfully snipped

    Sadly I have to agree with this sentiment. I would love to see it happen, but I think it will be a long struggle.

    As a conservative, who leans libertarian, I would love to see the government stay out of our marriages altogether. If people of the same sex want to marry, or multiple marriages...it doesn't affect me. I just can't see in good conscience, standing in the way of someone else's love.
     
  14. Nova

    Nova New Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I fear you are right. But if we can keep gay marriage legal on the coasts and a few other states, such as Iowa, at least gay people will have places where they can live and know their homes and families are protected by law.
     
  15. Nova

    Nova New Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From your mouth to God's ear, as the saying goes.

    But after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, I don't trust our Supreme Court to demonstrate common sense or even simple decency.
     
  16. Emma Peel

    Emma Peel Keep your bowler hat on in times of trouble, & bew

    Messages:
    9,892
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady New Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow, good for Bill O!! (didn't ever think id say that! :D )

    And what the heck, million moms?! Ellen? You're boycotting Ellen? people think Ellen is dangerous? LOL! Leaving aside the bigotry of it all,isn't it just a bit ridiculous to be so afraid of Ellen Degenerous? I mean, that's sort of like boycotting and fearing the nice, funny gal who does your hair, or your kid's favorite teacher, or something!
     
  18. Emma Peel

    Emma Peel Keep your bowler hat on in times of trouble, & bew

    Messages:
    9,892
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know, right?

    I thought about putting it in the Celebrity News section so it would get noticed more.

    Then... I thought ... I'm not going to be the one to promote hits for whatever that millionmoms attack-on-Ellen nonsense is.

    So ... in the celebrity thread, I went with Arnie & Sly instead. :innocent:
     
  19. Trino

    Trino New Member

    Messages:
    7,521
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just thinking...

    What if Santorium gets elected (favors a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage), and we have a GOP controlled House and Senate? Could an anti-gay amendment be passed? This could set gay rights back for years but could also pose a challenge the Supreme Court would be required to hear.
     
  20. Nova

    Nova New Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know if SCOTUS can be "required" to hear any case they don't want to hear, can they? (I really don't know.) In theory, they don't rule on constitutional amendments, but I suppose that, as in California, they could be asked to rule whether such an amendment was in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. But that would be way down the road...

    First, I don't think Santorum can get elected (or even nominated). In fact, a president has nothing to do with amending the Constitution, so this is only one more ignorant thing Santorum has said. Of course he can make public statements proposing such an amendment whether or not he is president; but his being president doesn't change matters, at least not legally.

    An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both houses, so it wouldn't be enough for the GOP to simply "control" both. (And in fact I believe at least a few GOP legislators would vote against such an amendment on libertarian grounds.) Some Democrats might vote for it, but I'm not at all sure they could get the required super-majority.

    THEN the proposed amendment has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 out of 50. I think we can assume that the states with gay marriage or the equivalent (that's about 17 out of 50, depending on how you define domestic partnerships) would vote against it. And there would be a battle in every other state. That should leave Santorum many states short of ratification.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

    It's hard to tell with Santorum, as he really does seem stupid. But I suspect his advisors have explained all this and he is just posturing.
     
  21. Kimster

    Kimster Former Member

    Messages:
    58,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This may be a stupid question because I don't keep up with the politics in California like I did when I lived there, but didn't this come before the people in a vote and it was voted down?

    It always scares me when the people vote for something and then the government overturns it, no matter what the issue.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice