![]() |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Civil Rights Discuss California ban on same-sex marriage struck down at the Political Forums; WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on ... |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd |
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
What they SHOULD'VE done was to see if the proposition was constitutional BEFORE putting it on the ballot... Imagine how much money (especially in lawyer fees) could've been saved had the constitutionality of the proposition been answered before putting it up for the peoples' will... California...bass ackwards... ![]()
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd |
|
||||
|
Sarcasm in text is soooo easily interpreted...
Usually why I include some comment to make it so clear... Quote:
![]() Yeah. How often does that ACTUALLY get done cnredd? The miscegenation laws were on the books in the vast majority of states. (Possibly every state). Ballot measures typically get challenged AFTER they have already been approved. If it gets challenged before, it's typically because of some logistic technique (like some state constitutions evidently require state amendments to only deal with one specific issue). Quote:
Can you name me any state that does business like you discuss? Any state that struck down a law as "unconstitutional" BEFORE it was actually approved by vote? Your criticism applies to all 50 states. Not just "california"... Quote:
At the moment, I'm questioning the grounds by which somebody would appeal it to SCOTUS in the first place. We're talking about making the jump from a state decision, to the federal government saying that it can't recognize a specific issue as a "right". State / Federal rights are obviously invoked... Wasn't there already an attempt to do this with Massachusetts that got shot down? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state government to rewrite marriage laws to include same-sex couples. Since the decision, approximately 3,000 same-sex Massachusetts couples have 'married'. Robert Largess, Vice President of the Catholic Action League, along with eleven Massachusetts legislators launched the suit. Their initial challenge, heard at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, was lost.US Supreme Court Rejects Massachusetts Gay "Marriage" Challenge But as they say, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. "La-la-la-la-la! La-la" oh! Where was I? Seriously, there will be another fight to have a U.S. amendment. Hide and watch. But by then, enough ground will have been covered state wise, to throw it back to the SC. Then they will throw it back as a state responsibility, is my guess. For what it's worth.
__________________
Last edited by saltwn; 05-15-2008 at 06:16 PM. Reason: spel |
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
There is already talk about the upcoming state vote for a state amendment in November. I haven't seen any recent state amendment polls on the issue. I expect there may be more fights for U.S. amendments, but I think the Republicans have overplayed their hands on that one. From one vague statement I heard from John McCain, he won't fight against any Republican "gay" initiatives, but it sounded like he won't lead any fights either. And I think it's becoming painfully obvious to all involved that the Republican party is doing "lip service" when they make the "effort". Most people don't want a federal constitutional amendment anyways, but that balance would be affected if a state (say California) suddenly got gay marriage. I guess it's time for new polls to start making the rounds. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
A state doesn't doesn't have to "strike down" something that doesn't even GET to the ballots when people are smart enough NOT to propose something being on the ballot in the first place because of inevitable court challenges... I don't think they'll ever be a list of that, but it wouldn't surprise me if that happens a lot... ![]() Quote:
You don't think someone ever said "I want to get something on the ballot...and I KNOW it would pass on the public's vote...but I'm NOT going to propose it because opponents would lawyer-fee us to death in the court system and this would be tied up for years...not worth it." I would think that happens all of the time...And all of that going on in someone's head...It doesn't even NEED to be said out loud, so "legal requirement" doesn't apply here...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|