But, the 'equal protection clause' deals with civil rights, not social arrangements. In every question that the court has dealt with the equal protection clause, it's always been applied as a civil rights issue right down to the important Brown case and Brown 2. How do you think such a question ever got put on ballots in states if it was an OBVIOUS violation of the equal protection clause.
So, is same sex marriage a civil rights issue or a social arrangement issue? Be sure not to confuse a civil matter and a civil rights matter. They are 2 different things. This is where this judge believes it is a civil rights issue. There is no statement on which is which. There is no federal government stance on that question. So, it reverts to the states to make decisions.
again, I'm not arguing for or against same sex marriage. I am using it as a situation where the federal government doesn't specifically state it's 'total view' on a subject, so it can go back to the purview of the state.
Now, the federal government view WILL become clear when this case gets to the supreme court.
How do you think such a question ever got put on ballots in states if it was an OBVIOUS violation of the equal protection clause
I think, at least in California, if you get enough signatures on a petition, you can put anything on a proposition. They have a marijuana legalization issue on a forthcoming proposition despite the fact that its clearly against federal law. Missouri just had a proposition that allows people from that state to opt out of the federal tax penalty for not complying with Obamacare, despite it being against federal law.
So, is same sex marriage a civil rights issue or a social arrangement issue? Be sure not to confuse a civil matter and a civil rights matter. They are 2 different things. This is where this judge believes it is a civil rights issue. There is no statement on which is which. There is no federal government stance on that question. So, it reverts to the states to make decisions
I would argue its a civil right. Well, no. I would argue that the government has no right to define marriage for anyone, straight or gay. But since I have to accept that the government has the right to define a marriage, then I would argue its a civil right.
And I think that the judge did a fairly decent job of treating the issue fairly. Pro-Prop folks just could not mount a defense to their arguement that wasnt "Well, we just dont think its right." while the anti-prop people had a whole host of sociologists, economists, lawyers, psychologists, advocates, anecdotal references.
The statement mentions that California had no right to amend its state constitution because it had no rational basis to deny marriage to same sex couples. I think that alone is the most important (and most correct!) aspect of overturning prop 8, and if it survives challenges, will be the basis for a normalization of same sex marriages.
I personally dont know why the anti-prop side doesnt try to bring about more attention to the estblishment clause, since almost every arguement I know of stems from some religion being against it.
If it is going to be challenged, the pro-prop side had better figure out how to come up with a better arguement than "we just think its wrong."
Sorry if this is scattered, im at work, and ive cut, chopped, rewritten and reorganized this for the last hour.
So, is same sex marriage a civil rights issue or a social arrangement issue? Be sure not to confuse a civil matter and a civil rights matter. They are 2 different things. This is where this judge believes it is a civil rights issue. There is no statement on which is which. There is no federal government stance on that question. So, it reverts to the states to make decisions.
again, I'm not arguing for or against same sex marriage. I am using it as a situation where the federal government doesn't specifically state it's 'total view' on a subject, so it can go back to the purview of the state.
Now, the federal government view WILL become clear when this case gets to the supreme court.
Reply
I think, at least in California, if you get enough signatures on a petition, you can put anything on a proposition. They have a marijuana legalization issue on a forthcoming proposition despite the fact that its clearly against federal law. Missouri just had a proposition that allows people from that state to opt out of the federal tax penalty for not complying with Obamacare, despite it being against federal law.
So, is same sex marriage a civil rights issue or a social arrangement issue? Be sure not to confuse a civil matter and a civil rights matter. They are 2 different things. This is where this judge believes it is a civil rights issue. There is no statement on which is which. There is no federal government stance on that question. So, it reverts to the states to make decisions
I would argue its a civil right. Well, no. I would argue that the government has no right to define marriage for anyone, straight or gay. But since I have to accept that the government has the right to define a marriage, then I would argue its a civil right.
And I think that the judge did a fairly decent job of treating the issue fairly. Pro-Prop folks just could not mount a defense to their arguement that wasnt "Well, we just dont think its right." while the anti-prop people had a whole host of sociologists, economists, lawyers, psychologists, advocates, anecdotal references.
The statement mentions that California had no right to amend its state constitution because it had no rational basis to deny marriage to same sex couples. I think that alone is the most important (and most correct!) aspect of overturning prop 8, and if it survives challenges, will be the basis for a normalization of same sex marriages.
I personally dont know why the anti-prop side doesnt try to bring about more attention to the estblishment clause, since almost every arguement I know of stems from some religion being against it.
If it is going to be challenged, the pro-prop side had better figure out how to come up with a better arguement than "we just think its wrong."
Sorry if this is scattered, im at work, and ive cut, chopped, rewritten and reorganized this for the last hour.
Reply
Leave a comment