It Aint About Who's Doin Who...., ...it's a states rights thing.

[SCShamrock]

Ok, if I have any of this wrong please inform me.

First, powers not specifically granted the federal government rest with the states...right?

The voters of the state of California said they didn't want gay marriage.

Homosexual Federal judge throws out the ballot initiative known as Prop 8, citing unconstitutionality.

Now how is it one judge can overrule to will of millions of voters?

Since this will be appealed (and it WILL go beyond the 9th), doesn't that mean, since the SCOTUS will almost definitely be decided by a tie breaker, that again, ONE person will decide for the millions of voters of California, which is an affront to the US Consitution? Will this not also make that one decision something of a mockery of our entire governmental process?

I'm all ears.

[Jillian]

I have the same feelings. If the subject being voted on does not fall under fed jurisdiction (or I would suppose, something crucial to the protection of our country), why shouldn't the vote of the people have the power to decide?

Again I always become irritated w/this subject because it isn't at all about equality or gay rights. It is about stubborn political egos.

The easy compromise is providing gay couples civil unions (they can then have their ceremonies just like heteros do), yet protecting "marriage" for heteros. Most conservatives I know agree to this.

As a conservative Christian I feel homosexuality is as wrong as an adulterous affair--no worse, no better--a sin is a sin. However, under the constitution I feel we should offer them civil liberties. The example I think of, is if either of the partners became sick and couldn't see their partner or make decisions for their partner in the hospital.

...just my 2 pence!

Jillian

[Jillian]

I never really answered your post...I agree, as it stands, marriage is a states' rights issue so if the judge rules it unconstitutional...does he/she mean it is unconstitutional in regards to the California state constitution or was he/she referring to the US Constitution?

Doesn't the US Constitution defer to states in regards to this issue? If so, then how does California law interpret the legitimacy of propositions? I guess I'm wondering if the SCOTUS should or will hear this case?

What a tangled web...

Jillian

[MacEoghainn]

I believe the Judge ruled that Prop8 violated the "Equal Protection Clause under the 14th amendment of the Constitution (I'm willing to bet the people who wrote that amendment would consider the Judge's opinion pure unadulterated pelosi). The problem with the Judge's logic is that Prop8 does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Two heterosexual males or two heterosexual females can't get married to each other either.