District Judge Finds Proposition 8 Unconstitutional: Opinion Analysis

[Heracles 417]

We're a republic, not a true democracy.

What you are is a country run by the courts rather than the will of the people. Basically, anyone can line a judge's pocket and get them to rule as they please. It's one of many reasons organized crimes has done and does so well here.

It's funny though, considering most here cherish the legal system and think of it as some beacon to humanity. Ironically, in my personal experience, the most common ridicule I hear from those residing in first world countries involves the legal system. Nevertheless, to each his own and may the best approach [system] win I guess.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Heracles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What you are is a country run by the courts rather than the will of the people. Basically, anyone can line a judge's pocket and get them to rule as they please. It's one of many reasons organized crimes has done and does so well here.

It's funny though, considering most here cherish the legal system and think of it as some beacon to humanity. Ironically, in my personal experience, the most common ridicule I hear from those residing in first world countries involves the legal system. To each his own and may the best system win I guess.

Oh come on. Don't tell me that in Australia, legislation that goes against the Constitution is never challenged in the courts. Our Three Branches of government were established by our Constitution. I suppose it's hard to respect such a system when you don't have that high of regard for the Constitution in the first place. Thank God our Founding Fathers had enough insight to protect us from mob rule.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Edited August 4, 2010 by El Buscador

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What? The fundamental principle is that if two consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized by the government, then such a right applies to everyone, not just a man and woman pair. And obviously, that's the legal opinion of the judge who has a lot more extensive knowledge about constitutional law than you can ever pretend to have.

Fundamental Principle or two consenting adults? Oh that's ####### and you know it. Marriage has always been between and man and a woman in the modern western world and you know it. It never said "two being who wish to become one."

Just because someone is a judge, doesn't mean they don't have a personal opinion or bias on the issue. Marriage is a black and white awarded contract issue. Nothing more, nothing less. As it stands, that contract is between two parties of the opposite sex. It falls within the confines of not discriminating against demographics and as long as you meet that minimal criteria and sign an oath affirming it's a legitimate marriage, then that contract will be awarded.

For that contract to change, the law has to change, not some judicial opinion on the matter.

[Heracles 417]

Oh come on. Don't tell me that in Australia, legislation that goes against the Constitution is never challenged in the courts. Our Three Branches of government were established by our Constitution. I suppose it's hard to respect such a system when you don't have that high of regard for the Constitution in the first place. Thank God our Founding Fathers had enough insight to protect us from mob rule.

You're turning all Slim on me regarding this topic. If the system [approach] is so great, then surely more first world countries would have implemented it, rather than just the US.

Under the widely used Parliamentary system, the elected state and federal government has the authority to change or implement laws to reflect the times. Once a parliament votes on an issue there, it becomes law. As such, if the majority of their voters want to allow gay marriage, then it becomes law. If the majority do not, it doesn't - end of story.

What sort of a civilized first world country disregards the will of the people and relies on the judiciaries alone? The founding fathers are not the ones paying the bills in 2010, neither are the judiciaries. The Constitution technically allows me to own Ballistic missiles [2nd Amendment], then surely I should be able to own them and have judiciaries support me on this right?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Heracles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fundamental Principle or two consenting adults? Oh that's ####### and you know it. Marriage has always been between and man and a woman in the modern western world and you know it. It never said "two being who wish to become one."

Just because someone is a judge, doesn't mean they don't have a personal opinion or bias on the issue. Marriage is a black and white awarded contract issue. Nothing more, nothing less. As it stands, that contract is between two parties of the opposite sex. It falls within the confines of not discriminating against demographics and as long as you meet that minimal criteria and sign an oath affirming it's a legitimate marriage, then that contract will be awarded.

For that contract to change, the law has to change, not some judicial opinion on the matter.

By Traditionalist logic, women should have never been given the right to vote and blacks could still be sold as slaves. It's amusing that your logic keeps you going back to the laws prohibiting interracial marriages just some 40 years ago. Many of those laws had been on the books for a long time.

Tradition is the living faith of dead people, and traditionalism is the dead faith of living people. ~ John Bradshaw

Edited August 4, 2010 by El Buscador

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm not sure why the government became involved in marriage in the first place.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not sure why the government became involved in marriage in the first place.

Property issues.

[Heracles 417]

If someone gay wants to get married, that is their choice and not mine. What I don't agree with is the will of the people being disregarded for the opinion of a court.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Heracles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Another thing, Paul. Where is your, "it's not in the Constitution" argument in restricting marriage to that between a man and a woman? You conveniently switch gears into traditionalism as the logic for why it should be restricted to between a man and woman when you have no rationale for why it must be that way, just that it's always been that way. Brilliant.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Property issues.

But can't that be handled on the civil side?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're turning all Slim on me regarding this topic. If the system [approach] is so great, then surely more first world countries would have implemented it, rather than just the US.

Under the widely used Parliamentary system, the elected state and federal government has the authority to change or implement laws to reflect the times. Once a parliament votes on an issue there, it becomes law. As such, if the majority of their voters want to allow gay marriage, then it becomes law. If the majority do not, it doesn't - end of story.

What sort of a civilized first world country disregards the will of the people and relies on the judiciaries alone? The founding fathers are not the ones paying the bills in 2010, neither are the judiciaries. The Constitution technically allows me to own Ballistic missiles [2nd Amendment], then surely I should be able to own them and have judiciaries support me on this right?

Bullsh!t. Most developed countries have adopted their constitutions after the United States, to protect the rights of the few, from the will of the many. Maybe you would like to live in a true democracy where the majority can set forth laws regardless of whether those laws inhibits the rights of others, but not me. That's what makes this country great.

Edited August 4, 2010 by El Buscador

[The_Dude 1,142]

If someone gay wants to get married, that is their choice and not mine. What I don't agree with is the will of the people being disregarded for the opinion of a court.

What is right isn't necessarily what is popular. If you had polled americans in 1964 regarding the civil rights bill, there was more support against it than for it. Do you think it's right to deny people fundamental rights because they dont' like them or what they do?

I'm not sure why the government became involved in marriage in the first place.

To prevent bumming.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But can't that be handled on the civil side?

Children complicate things because they are no longer considered property.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Another thing, Paul. Where is your, "it's not in the Constitution" argument in restricting marriage to that between a man and a woman? You conveniently switch gears into traditionalism as the logic for why it should be restricted to between a man and woman when you have no rationale for why it must be that way, just that it's always been that way. Brilliant.

I didn't switch anything.

Marriage is a contract. A state contract at that. Not a federal contract. There is nothing constitutional about marriage.

If you want there to be, then so be it, and make it so by amending the constitution or changing federal law.