Democracy!... when it goes our way...

[sensibleS13driver]

Ever hear of the Jim Crow laws? Humanity has seen a lot of ignorance.

Saying that Article 14 ensures gay marriage is extrapolation and broad interpretation.

Jim Crow laws were passed by legislatures, not a popular vote. They were also struck down by the 14th Amendment. See a trend here?

Your second assessment is incorrect. It doesn't grant any rights, it only prevents rights from being removed once granted. Gay marriage was granted through legitimate means, thus it can not be taken away by popular vote based on 14th Amendment precedent. "Article 14" doesn't exist, you really are in way over your head.

Next.

[Cold_Zero]

Surely, people defending Prop 8 will use the 10th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights

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.

So how does this play into the mix?

[sensibleS13driver]

The state has the power to create and remove rights, but they must do so equally.Prop 8 explicitly targets a constitutionally protected minority faction.

Like marriage, the power to grant drivers licenses is not delegated to the federal government thus the states assume that power. Gays are entitled to the right to drivers licenses. A popular vote proposition to "remove the rights" of gays to have drivers licenses is preposterous. Still with me?

What if gays and Christians got "domestic licenses" while everyone else got "drivers licenses"? Even if they mean the same thing you are SEPARATING a certain group from the greater population. Effectively segregating the groups and violating the equal protection clause.The drivers license power is still held by the state, but allotting that right based on a personal trait is unconstitutional under the 14th A, even if done so by a majority vote.

Today, 11/21/2008, gay people in California have the right to get marriage licenses. By removing that right they will be statutorily separated from the greater population.

[OriginalWheelman]

Jim Crow laws were passed by legislatures, not a popular vote. They were also struck down by the 14th Amendment. See a trend here?

Your second assessment is incorrect. It doesn't grant any rights, it only prevents rights from being removed once granted. Gay marriage was granted through legitimate means, thus it can not be taken away by popular vote based on 14th Amendment precedent. "Article 14" doesn't exist, you really are in way over your head.

Next.

Ok, since you want to make this a semantics argument, the right was never given, therefore it could not be taken away. The right was implied at best. The legal definition saying a man and a woman was removed, and then reinstated, under a broader scope, through a decision of the people. The issue I have is not about gay rights it's about the court being able to overturn the will of the people. If the government can do that, it is too powerful.

*DISCLAIMER* Sarcasm I sorry I referred to it as article and not amendment. I hope the political science gods forgive me./sarcasm

You're trying to make me out to be an idiot because I'm not educated in the same field you are? We're all specialized in something. When I finish school I'll have Greg start an Aerospace Engineering forum so I can make you look like an idiot. You're more informed than I am, not smarter. I'm not what you are, good. To be honest it sounds ****ing boring. Furthermore, being a professor hardly makes you an expert. What's that old saying? Oh yeah, Those that can, do. Those that can't teach.

[sensibleS13driver]

Ha, I never called you an idiot. You have shown to be habitually incorrect. Call that what you like.

Ok, since you want to make this a semantics argument, the right was never given, therefore it could not be taken away. The right was implied at best.

This is 100% factually wrong. The right was given in May 2008 by the California Supreme Court. No implication or extrapolation there.

The issue I have is not about gay rights it's about the court being able to overturn the will of the people.

God bless America

[C-Kwik]

Saying that Article 14 ensures gay marriage is extrapolation and broad interpretation.

Please point out where I mentioned anything with the number 14 in it....

So now we're on to semantics. The last hope of the desperate. They're trying every angle that could be conceived as possible. This is ridiculous. So what, now the country is "by the people, unless you have a better lawyer"?

Semantics? The court wouldn't allow it to be heard prior to the election. It's procedure/protocol, not semantics. They would have preferred to keep it off the ballot if they could and I'm sure they knew it was a long shot.

Last hope huh? One could just as easily argue that Prop 8 was a last hope effort. Lets see, they get a law passed. The Supreme Court rejects it for being unconstitutional. So what's the next step? Change the constitution of course. But they do so in the easiest (perhaps only) way possible by making it an initiative amendment rather than obtain the 2/3rds legislative vote required to make it into a revision.

I'm quite sure they know this was weak. But it does 2 things. First, it gets it into law such that if by chance the supreme court allows it, then it stands as law. Second, there is the propaganda factor. They can revert to an argument of this being "the voter's will". Gives them a great avenue of getting people to buy into the argument that gay-rights advocates are heretics for opposing a majority vote. It essentially preys on ignorance of law to make this case. Seems to me you bought it hook, line and sinker.

But in the end, I still think either outcome will be advantageous to gay-rights activists. If the Supreme Court overturns it, its unlikely that Prop 8 supporters will have another move left. If the court lets it stand, then its only a matter of time before it can/will be reversed using the same process. And when that happens, its unlikely they'll ever get it passed through another initiative amendment. It's checkmate either way as far as I can tell.

[C-Kwik]

The issue I have is not about gay rights it's about the court being able to overturn the will of the people. If the government can do that, it is too powerful.

The argument made is that the will of the people can't change the constitution to the extent it is without including the legislative branch in the process. THIS is what the article stated and that I pointed out. You've failed to acknowledge or dispute it and simply maintain your point of argument.

You're trying to make me out to be an idiot because I'm not educated in the same field you are? We're all specialized in something. When I finish school I'll have Greg start an Aerospace Engineering forum so I can make you look like an idiot. You're more informed than I am, not smarter. I'm not what you are, good. To be honest it sounds ****ing boring. Furthermore, being a professor hardly makes you an expert. What's that old saying? Oh yeah, Those that can, do. Those that can't teach.

Wow, this sounds really childish. Does daddy make it better for you if you fail at anything in life? I'm going to try and be as nice as possible about this. But if you want to debate seriously in here, you need to back up your statements. Many arguments you are debating against are technical arguments. If you are going to debate against, then do some research and bring back what you find to support your arguments. Frankly, it will either help your argument or allow you to see your own flaws more clearly. This debate isn't about feeling smarter or making someone look like an idiot. Unless of course that WAS your intent when you started this thread. If so, sorry it didn't work out the way you intended. But this IS a politics forum. You must be prepared to play. Noone here is going to let up to just to be nice. We won't allow it to get personal, but everyone gets to lick their own wounds in here.

[OriginalWheelman]

The argument made is that the will of the people can't change the constitution to the extent it is without including the legislative branch in the process. THIS is what the article stated and that I pointed out. You've failed to acknowledge or dispute it and simply maintain your point of argument.

Wow, this sounds really childish. Does daddy make it better for you if you fail at anything in life? I'm going to try and be as nice as possible about this. But if you want to debate seriously in here, you need to back up your statements. Many arguments you are debating against are technical arguments. If you are going to debate against, then do some research and bring back what you find to support your arguments. Frankly, it will either help your argument or allow you to see your own flaws more clearly. This debate isn't about feeling smarter or making someone look like an idiot. Unless of course that WAS your intent when you started this thread. If so, sorry it didn't work out the way you intended. But this IS a politics forum. You must be prepared to play. Noone here is going to let up to just to be nice. We won't allow it to get personal, but everyone gets to lick their own wounds in here.

ALL I AM TRYING TO SAY IS THAT I FEEL A REFERENDUM SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO BE OVERTURNED BY A COURT CASE. TO ME A REFERENDUM IS THE HIGHEST RANKING WAY A LAW CAN BE ESTABLISHED. I'm sorry for yelling, but you don't seem to get the point. I don't care about gay marriage, the 14th amendment, or anything else, all I was ever trying to say is that the courts should not be able to overrule the people. Period. I do not feel prop 8 should have ever been on the ballot, but it was, and it passed. If this is a result of the system not allowing pre-ballot challenges then the system needs to change. I'm sick of this reaction based methodology. If you wait until something is a problem and react to it it is often to late. Look at off shore oil drilling.

As for the my daddy fixing everything for me comment, I'm not even going to respond to that. Nice of you to take a few shots, after criticizing me for making them. Real adult of you there professor.

[sensibleS13driver]

ALL I AM TRYING TO SAY IS THAT I FEEL A REFERENDUM SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO BE OVERTURNED BY A COURT CASE. TO ME A REFERENDUM IS THE HIGHEST RANKING WAY A LAW CAN BE ESTABLISHED.

LOL

You defended the COURT CASE that overturned the DC Gun Ban which was passed by the MAJORITY.

The 2nd Amendment must be an exception, then?

Maybe I don't see the point because what you just posted is antithetical to OUR ENTIRE Constitutional Republican system. Wake up, the United States is not a Democracy, and everyone should be ****ing grateful.

[Cold_Zero]

No,He supports the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that supercedes any state (or in this case local ordinance.)

He probably also supports the 10th Amendment as well, which gives the State "The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Aka administration, granting and defining the institution of Marriage.

So in your example, OrigWheelMan does not contradict himself.

[sensibleS13driver]

All Amendments supersede State governments, and no one is more important than any other. He said he doesn't "care about the 14th Amendment, or anything else". How do you assume he cares about other amendments?

Answer me this:Drivers licenses are a right held by the state following the 10th Amendment. If the majority of your state voted to remove the right of Christians to apply for drivers licenses, would that violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause? Does the 10th Amendment allow Indiana to take drivers licenses away from a particular group of people because the drivers license right is reserved by the state? Or does the 14th Amendment supersede the State's ability to do that?

Edit: Just so we're on the same page "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Modified by sensibleS13driver at 2:02 PM 11/22/2008

[audtatious]

The US Constitution does not mention sexual freedom or anything about sexual orientation, thus it is not a legitimate Federal issue. For it to become a Federal issue it would first require a Constitutional amendment concerning sexual choice and lifestyle.

I have yet to see proof that gay is anything but a choice. At least male-female marriage has a reason besides "because we want to be recognized".

[sensibleS13driver]

Answer my previous post and tell my if your first statement holds any water.

Religion is a choice, why can states not distribute rights based on Religious groups?

The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" It doesn't say that states can not.

[audtatious]

Religion is directly represented in the Constitution so I don't see how you can compare it. Article 1, Section 4 covers religion in Indiana. From a gay perspective in Indiana I do not believe there have been any cases addressed by the Supreme Court since Romer v. Evans in which the state Supreme Court struck down a state constitutional amendment which both overturned local ordinances prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals, lesbians or bisexuals, and prohibited any state or local governmental action to either remedy discrimination or to grant preferences based on sexual orientation.

The whole gay marriage deal is not simply a religious issue. People like to make it that way but it's not the case. Gays have the same rights of marriage that I have so I don't see how they are being subjected to discrimination. Obviously you feel different and that is your right.

As I've stated before, it will eventually be changed regardless as with time everything that was traditionally immoral will be wiped off the books to satisfy everyone. Except for polygamy because it's something a religious organization wants legalized. Well, at least until a gay couple decide they want to marry a bisexual.....

[480sx]

I have yet to see proof that gay is anything but a choice.

Bahahahahahahah! Man i wish i could take a video of this guy who sings soprano in my choir(thats right , you know how much untapped A is in a college choir? ) I PROMISE you this guy would at least make you question that statement. Some people its a choice, some people its damned genetic, hardwired, w/e. Some of these guys that my sister refers to as 'extra' in her arts college are just born that way.

But this has nothing to do with this thread(that i havnt really had the time to read) i just saw that line and had a laugh about it.

[sensibleS13driver]

Religion is directly represented in the Constitution so I don't see how you can compare it. Article 1, Section 4 covers religion in Indiana.

Yes, but a State Amendment referendum like Prop 8 could change that.

Would that State Amendment violate the federal Constitution? OF COURSE! And it would violate the 14th Amendment, not the 1st.

[Cold_Zero]

All Amendments supersede State governments, and no one is more important than any other. He said he doesn't "care about the 14th Amendment, or anything else". How do you assume he cares about other amendments?

You were strictly raking OrigWheelman over the coals on his view of the Voter's will being antithetical to say the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. You mentioned NOTHING about the 14th Amendment. So get off of my back.

What is funny is that the 10th and the 14th Amendments were NEVER brought up in oral arguments in the DC vs. Heller case. What they did do was go back to the founding documents and other documents that were used to create the founding documents to interpret the 2nd Amendment. Now I ask you this, #1. If SCOTUS fails to pick up this case, can the California Supreme Court overturn the Proposition?#2. If SCOTUS picks up the case, do the people opposing the Proposition feel comfortable with SCOTUS not only looking at the Amendments (10th and 14th) that govern the potential constitutionality of the Proposition, but also Case Law and the founding documents of this country? Seeing that Marriage in this country (until California came around in 2005) has never been interpreted the institution to be anything other than a man and a woman.

You can argue all you want about Equal Protections and Equal Access for an Amendment that gave former Black slaves their protections under law. But I assure you if SCOTUS picks up this case, the 14th Amendment will not be the only sources that they use.bud

[audtatious]

Yes, but a State Amendment referendum like Prop 8 could change that.

Except gay marriage is not explicitly protected via the Constitution like religion is.

[sensibleS13driver]

What is funny is that the 10th and the 14th Amendments were NEVER brought up in oral arguments in the DC vs. Heller case. What they did do was go back to the founding documents and other documents that were used to create the founding documents to interpret the 2nd Amendment.

:lolno****

YOU brought up the 10th. It doesn't apply here nor there. Answer my question and you'll understand why.

#1. If SCOTUS fails to pick up this case, can the California Supreme Court overturn the Proposition?#2. If SCOTUS picks up the case, do the people opposing the Proposition feel comfortable with SCOTUS not only looking at the Amendments (10th and 14th) that govern the potential constitutionality of the Proposition, but also Case Law and the founding documents of this country?

1. No, there will have to be another Amendment vote to overturn this one at some point.2. I am confident that the 14th handily covers this case and the 10th and the "tradition" card are null.

Except gay marriage is not explicitly protected via the Constitution like religion is.

Not from State referendums. How can changing the State Constitution be unconstitutional? - see CA Prop 8. If the Indiana Constitution is changed by a vote to remove rights from Christians, it is obviously then constitutional and no longer protected. But it is protected by the Federal 14th!

[audtatious]

You are still comparing apples to oranges. Religion has been in the Constitution(s) since their inception. Sexual preference is not. Why not talk real cases and not something you concoct to prove a point that only matters to you?

The whole issue comes down to this: The majority of the population does not support it, supports it as something by another name or feel it is not moral. Sexual preference is not protected via any Constitution that I am aware of. There is no proof that gay is genetic instead of emotional or choice.

[sensibleS13driver]

You are still treating this as if the issue is whether or not to GRANT gay marriage as opposed to whether or or not it can be TAKEN AWAY.

These are two fundamentally different legal situations.

"the fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice", SCOTUS 6-3, Lawrence v. Texas, 2003.

Here, a democratically passed law targeting homosexuals was struck down based on the 14th Amendment. Sexual orientation is mentioned no where in the Constitution yet the State may not pass laws which target Gays unequally, such as Prop 8. The "practice" of gay marriage was established 100% legally, and per Lawrence v. Texas, a majority vote is insufficient for prohibiting such a practice.

[Cold_Zero]

:lolno****

YOU brought up the 10th. It doesn't apply here nor there. Answer my question and you'll understand why.

%*#*@ ****ing Christ, is this ADD theater or what? You were attacking OriginalWheelMan's view that a Constitutional Amendment put forth by the people in a referendum is the ultimate (constitutional) authority in the land. YOU cited DC vs. Heller as a classic example of the contradiction in his logic. OriginalWheelMan is not in contradiction here because the DC Gun Ban (argued in DC vs. Heller in SCOTUS) had nothing to do with any Constitutional Amendments except for the 2nd Amendment. YOU were the one that implied that the taking away of guns in DC violated the 14th Amendment, which it does not and has no bearing or similarity to this case. The DC gun ban violated the 2nd Amendment pure and simple.

I am sure the 10th Amendment will surely be considered if this case ever makes it to SCOTUS, because it gives the State of California the power to govern the institution of Marriage.

Now,IF SCOTUS takes this case and there is not guarantee that they have to (they CAN refuse to hear the case) then I am sure they will have to determine if the State (through the referendum process) taking away a so called 'right' which was granted through a process of Judicial Activism in 2005, violates the US Constitution (aka 14th Amendment).

If you feel confident in the opposition's case of Prop 8, then you have nothing to worry about and I fail to understand why you are even arguing with OriginalWheelMan. If it is so much of a 'slam dunk' as you insinuate, what is the problem?bud

[C-Kwik]

ALL I AM TRYING TO SAY IS THAT I FEEL A REFERENDUM SHOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO BE OVERTURNED BY A COURT CASE. TO ME A REFERENDUM IS THE HIGHEST RANKING WAY A LAW CAN BE ESTABLISHED.

Well, that's your ideal, but we are arguing about this specific case. In which case you are criticizing this group for taking the actions they are when it is the only option available to them.

I'm sorry for yelling, but you don't seem to get the point. I don't care about gay marriage, the 14th amendment, or anything else, all I was ever trying to say is that the courts should not be able to overrule the people. Period. I do not feel prop 8 should have ever been on the ballot, but it was, and it passed. If this is a result of the system not allowing pre-ballot challenges then the system needs to change. I'm sick of this reaction based methodology. If you wait until something is a problem and react to it it is often to late. Look at off shore oil drilling.

I get the point. But your point was merely your own ideal which you tried to argue as the basis for what gay rights activists are doing is wrong. The reality was clearly pointed out to you several times. If you wanted to argue from an idealistic standpoint and that was your intent, then it should have been clear (which would have been easy enough to do simply by acknowledging the facts we provided you that explicitly explained that these decisions are not made prior to such a law being enacted). Either way, it is not something you can pin on them, which you did. There are rules and protocol put in place. EVERYONE has to follow them. THIS is what the case appears to be about. Whether or not the proper protocol was used. Its a grey area. And courts are there to decide the grey area as a matter of law/constitution.

And to be clear (again), I never brought up the 14th amendment. I pointed this out and even asked you to point out where I did. To be honest, I have no idea what the 14th amendment says as I am not making any case based on that.

The contention I made since I entered into this discussion was very specific and I've maintained that point each time I posted. Yet somehow, several of your responses to me brought up the 14th amendment. In fact, in my response to your first directed response to me, I questioned if your response was actually to my post as it made no sense in context because of this.

As for the oil drilling example, there are times when the courts will intervene and cause a law not to go into effect if there is a pending case. Doesn't look like they will in this case, but lack of such an intervention would not create an irreversible situation. I don't know when they enact such interventions, but I do know they can step in at times.

As for the my daddy fixing everything for me comment, I'm not even going to respond to that. Nice of you to take a few shots, after criticizing me for making them. Real adult of you there professor.

Sorry if you took this personally. The daddy fixing thing was meant to be impactful as I'm sure it was. The rest of the comments were not personal in the least. They simply provided reasoning as to how not to play the victim.

[sensibleS13driver]

C-Kwik - 14th= "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Originally used to outlaw racial inequal treatment, later segregation, and unequal treatment based on personal traits including sexual orientation.

YOU were the one that implied that the taking away of guns in DC violated the 14th Amendment, which it does not and has no bearing or similarity to this case. The DC gun ban violated the 2nd Amendment pure and simple.

So quote me. I never mentioned Heller and the 14th in the same post. Talk about broad interpretations, but let me rephrase.

In DC the people's vote violated the 2nd, in CA it violated the 14th. In Heller the court overruled the people, a principle that Originalwheelman claims to oppose. Yet he SUPPORTED the Heller ruling but would OPPOSE an equivalent ruling in CA- the whole point of this thread. Contradiction plain and simple.

[OriginalWheelman]

The daddy fixing thing was meant to be impactful as I'm sure it was.

Sure was impactful. I got a huge lol out of it. Go read my "why I'm voting for McCain" thread.

I was citing this as the court trying to overturn a referendum. I was not concerned with the specifics, lets go back.

First of all I am for gay marriage. I believe that gay people would have the rights to make the same mistakes as straight people.

However, what I don't like is how this was voted on by the people, and now they are trying to overturn it. Shouldn't this law be forced to stand unless a referendum overturns it? If this is overturned, it is a message that the gov can do what it wants whether the people say so or not.

This is what I wanted to discuss. You guys turned it into an argument about prop 8, which I am not informed on AT ALL, so I'm attempting to talk about it with the little knowledge of it I have. I don't follow California politics, I just read that in the news, and it bothered me that the court can even consider overturning a referendum. While I do agree that the masses are not always right (as I have said many times) I do believe a referendum should not be able to be overturned except by a referendum. If the system is not set up like this, we certainly can change it. This spiraled off topic because I tried to engage your arguments but none of them are about what I'm talking about. They are all about why prop 8 is unconstitutional. Like I said before, if it's unconstitutional it should never have been on the ballot in the first place. Why could they not review it beforehand? Like was said earlier, if it had been defeated, there would be no court case and there would be cheers of how "the people have spoken". Furthermore, it would have required another referendum to define it again if what I understand is correct. With just the information you have given me on this, and the little i learned in a quick Google search, I still don't agree with the argument that they had the right to begin with.

[C-Kwik]

At least male-female marriage has a reason besides "because we want to be recognized".

Please elaborate. I'd like to hear the reasons...

Gays have the same rights of marriage that I have so I don't see how they are being subjected to discrimination. Obviously you feel different and that is your right.

That's an argument of convenient circumstances. Sure, everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. But not necessarily to marry the person that they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with. You might have a case based on such a technicality if the reasoning behind marriage wasn't based on love. I've seen you make this same argument before. And essentially what it says is that we should allow discrimination of an indiscriminatory emotion. Or more clearly, we should be told who we can and cannot love...

[C-Kwik]

C-Kwik - 14th= "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Originally used to outlaw racial inequal treatment, later segregation, and unequal treatment based on personal traits including sexual orientation.

Thanks. Irrelevant to the points I'm making but nothing wrong with more knowledge.

This is what I wanted to discuss. You guys turned it into an argument about prop 8, which I am not informed on AT ALL, so I'm attempting to talk about it with the little knowledge of it I have. I don't follow California politics, I just read that in the news, and it bothered me that the court can even consider overturning a referendum.

And that's fine, but you can't claim naitivity when two people explained to you why the case is being fought at this stage. When you choose to ignore valid information that is presented to you, naitivity no longer exists. It becomes ignorance.

While I do agree that the masses are not always right (as I have said many times) I do believe a referendum should not be able to be overturned except by a referendum. If the system is not set up like this, we certainly can change it..

Perhaps we can change it, but the ideal of such a system is such that it will be harder to pass a law that is won by a small majority. Notice there are 2/3rd's vote required among many legislative branches. This is to prevent a small majority from enacting laws that are detrimental to large minority or beneficial only to the small majority.

This spiraled off topic because I tried to engage your arguments but none of them are about what I'm talking about. They are all about why prop 8 is unconstitutional. Like I said before, if it's unconstitutional it should never have been on the ballot in the first place. Why could they not review it beforehand? Like was said earlier, if it had been defeated, there would be no court case and there would be cheers of how "the people have spoken". Furthermore, it would have required another referendum to define it again if what I understand is correct. With just the information you have given me on this, and the little i learned in a quick Google search, I still don't agree with the argument that they had the right to begin with.

Am I understanding you correctly? Or did you completely ignore everything that was explained to you? If I'm reading this correctly, you still seem to believe that the case is still about whether or not the intent of the amendment is constitutional or not and that the case was not decided before becoming a ballot initiative. Both were covered quite clearly earlier in this thread. If this is the case, please reread the thread more carefully. Make sure you look over the links provided. If I read this wrong then I apologize.

And as far as I'm concerned, with respect to this thread, whether gays implictly or explicitly had the right to marry before Prop 8 is irrelevant to this court case. The question still is; was Prop 8 technically qualified to be on the ballot without a 2/3rd's vote from the legislative branch.

[OriginalWheelman]

Am I understanding you correctly? Or did you completely ignore everything that was explained to you? If I'm reading this correctly, you still seem to believe that the case is still about whether or not the intent of the amendment is constitutional or not and that the case was not decided before becoming a ballot initiative.

Hm, that would matter if the United States was a Democracy. Thankfully it is not. Do you forget that the people are subverting the Supreme Court? Do they deserve no credit?

Anyone with a grasp of the history of the 14th Amendment knows that this doesn't fly in its present form.

It wouldn't matter even if the vote was 99% to 1% and there was one gay couple in California.

Not if the California amendment is federally unconstitutional. Like I said, most scholars see this as a clear affront to the 14th Amendment. You said subvert first, and you are incorrect, it has never seen the SCOTUS.

TBH you guys have me so damned confused I think I know less about prop 8 now than when we started.

[Cold_Zero]

The Problem is this, Due Process of Law, which these guys are arguing is a very slippery slope. And can be used to justify the courts striking down any law that makes anything illegal. I guess we need to be prepared for what comes next if the courts keep interpreting Due Process of Law as guaranteeing fundamental fairness in regards to the State 14th Amendment and Federal Gov 5th Amendment. Instead of interpreting Due Process of Law in its classical sense of respecting the Laws of the Lands.

[audtatious]

Please elaborate. I'd like to hear the reasons...

Having children and raising them with their biological parents. Of course, divorce throws that out the window and is further showing there is a breakdown of what marriage really is regardless. Same sex couples cannot procreate.

That's an argument of convenient circumstances. Sure, everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. But not necessarily to marry the person that they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with. You might have a case based on such a technicality if the reasoning behind marriage wasn't based on love. I've seen you make this same argument before. And essentially what it says is that we should allow discrimination of an indiscriminatory emotion. Or more clearly, we should be told who we can and cannot love...

It's a point of irritation that I throw up and IS technically correct. There is emotion in both forms of relationships. One leads to expanding the species and one does not. Granted, that's more the traditional perspective as divorce is too easy of a choice in today's environment which is somewhat making the word marriage useless anyway. Again, I'm on the fence with the whole situation due to gay family members but that does not mean I won't argue one side or the other. I definitely do not dislike the individual regardless of gay or straight.