Can someone explain the vote in California?

[Bob Hubbard]

I just finished reading the fourteenth amendment to the constiturtion, and The first paragraph, I will include in this post.
Using this amendment as a guide which all the country must be aware exist, my question is, how could the people of California have the legal right to go agaist what is stated in this amendment, and not allow gays the right to marry?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now I read "equaL protection of the laws" to mean, that all people must be treated equally .
When one class of people are singled out for different treatment under the law, that is against the constitution, and I it would appear that is exactly what happened in California, as well as a few other states.
It further states in this amendment that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of citizens"
Again, in voting as they did, they were changing the law as they wanted it too be, thereby, going against the constitution.
Am I missing something here?
The amendment states clearly what will be, and I don't understand any state allowing it's citizens to openly disregard the constitution.
Marriage is a priviledge to all who engage in it, and by having to obtain a license in order to marry, makes it a civil matter which is governed by laws.
So, the state of California, in direct conflict with the united states constitution allowed it citizens to officially break the law by voting to change it.
There has to be something wrong with this.
I would like to hear your coments on this.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

Where in the Constitution does it enumerate the right for gays to marry? Can anyone marry anyone they want to? Can a 49 year old man marry a 14 year old boy?

 

[Calabrio]

Any gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.
No discrimination.

 

[shagdrum]

That is a can of worms on this site. No need to rehash it. I would suggest going through this thread.

As for an explanation on the "rights" angle, try this article for starters. It makes a strong argument, IMO.

 

[TheDude]

Where in the Constitution does it enumerate the right for gays to marry? Can anyone marry anyone they want to? Can a 49 year old man marry a 14 year old boy?

Does the Constitution grant marriage just to straights as right?

A 14 year old isn't an adult and can't give legal consent, there are separate laws that forbid his/her marriage to an adult that have nothing to do with marriage.

 

[TheDude]

Any gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.
No discrimination.

 

[TheDude]

Marriage is a priviledge to all who engage in it, and by having to obtain a license in order to marry, makes it a civil matter which is governed by laws.
So, the state of California, in direct conflict with the united states constitution allowed it citizens to officially break the law by voting to change it.
There has to be something wrong with this.
I would like to hear your coments on this.
Bob.

Exactly, Bob. If the Church(s) made marriage legal and it was strickly a religious institution, then there might be an argument in allowing discrimination, ie not being allowed to marry the consenting adult of 'your' choice; might.

 

[Kbob]

Just more proof to me that our country is still mainly conservative, even in California.

 

[Calabrio]

Does the Constitution grant marriage just to straights as right?

A 14 year old isn't an adult and can't give legal consent, there are separate laws that forbid his/her marriage to an adult that have nothing to do with marriage.

We've been down this path dozens of times. It's simple logic.
Marriage is not just some broadly defined term for two people who like each other a lot. It is a specific relation, between two distinct parties with clear distinctions.

The legal system does recognize that there are fundamental differences between men and women. And in doing so, it is proper in many circumstances to make laws that treat the two differently.
There is no fundamental difference between people of different races, so it is not proper or accepted to treat them different. At least in principle.

Marriage is a formal and legal relationship between one man and one woman of legal age. It doesn't include donkeys, children, multiple partners, or people of the same sex.
If a homosexual wants to be married, they can follow the same rules that are in place for the rest of society.

The population is pretty widely in support of creating a new distinction, or legal arrangement, so that homosexual partners can share the same legal protections afforded to marriage. The gay activists repeatedly refuse this. That's their own fault.
That's because to the activists, this isn't simply about the legal protections, it's about a broader social agenda. The public has repeatedly rejected it.

There's nothing unconstitutional about any of this and it's really ignorant to think that it is. Furthermore, it's not "unconstitutional" if it's part of the state constitution.
There are no "new points" to be made concerning this issue. Not only is it constitutional, it's widely supported which means it's also very democratic.

 

[shagdrum]

Does the Constitution grant marriage just to straights as right?

A 14 year old isn't an adult and can't give legal consent, there are separate laws that forbid his/her marriage to an adult that have nothing to do with marriage.

Are you really going to reopen this issue? It has been discussed ad nausseum here. You wanna go through all this again? There is nothing new that is going to come of it.

 

[TheDude]

We've been down this path dozens of times. It's simple logic.
Marriage is not just some broadly defined term for two people who like each other a lot. It is a specific relation, between two distinct parties with clear distinctions.

The legal system does recognize that there are fundamental differences between men and women. And in doing so, it is proper in many circumstances to make laws that treat the two differently.
There is no fundamental difference between people of different races, so it is not proper or accepted to treat them different. At least in principle.

Marriage is a formal and legal relationship between one man and one woman of legal age. It doesn't include donkeys, children, multiple partners, or people of the same sex.
If a homosexual wants to be married, they can follow the same rules that are in place for the rest of society.

The population is pretty widely in support of creating a new distinction, or legal arrangement, so that homosexual partners can share the same legal protections afforded to marriage. The gay activists repeatedly refuse this. That's their own fault.
That's because to the activists, this isn't simply about the legal protections, it's about a broader social agenda. The public has repeatedly rejected it.

There's nothing unconstitutional about any of this and it's really ignorant to think that it is. Furthermore, it's not "unconstitutional" if it's part of the state constitution.
There are no "new points" to be made concerning this issue. Not only is it constitutional, it's widely supported which means it's also very democratic.

I wasn't aware that the laws of marriage differentiate between a man and a woman, at least I thought that concepts like women being more like property in regards to marriage died out long ago, or at least in this country.

Where does the Constitution state that marriage = 1 man and 1 woman? I know Bush tried to amend the Constitution so it would read as such.

Why create a new distinction, when in this supposed scenario, a gay-union(or other name) would be exactly the same as a hetero-marriage, from a legal standpoint? Those (you mentioned) against gay-marriage rights, but pro-union would essentially be making a stink over the use of a term and nothing else, like it's a copy-write; that doesn't come off as asinine to you? It's really nothing more than "separate but equal" thinking, ie 'you can drink from a public water fountain, just not this public water fountain, ya queers.'

This says otherwise:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Considering the above, the "the majority wanted it, end of story" stance is a slippery-slope argument.

 

[TheDude]

Are you really going to reopen this issue? It has been discussed ad nausseum here. You wanna go through all this again? There is nothing new that is going to come of it.

I know you're indifferent over a group of people who just had their rights taken away, but if you can't stand the "ad nausseum", simply step out of the conversation.

 

[Titan]

As noted by many the gay marriage issue has been beat to death in other threads.

But to address the issue of Prop8 from one Californians view you must realize this issue was voted on before. Some 61 million voters rejected it. Unhappy with this outcome and end run was made through four judges in San Francisco who overturned the results of the election.

So, there a lot of folks who just plain don't like four judges tossing out the opinions of 61 million voters, as well as the folks who used this vehicle to push their agenda down other peoples throats.

Many also don't care if gays tie the knot, just don't call it "Marriage", don't go redefining words, come up with your own. You want homosexuals called
gay/lesbian, call wedded homosexuals anything other than married and you will find alot of the oposition gone.

Frankly I'm tired of the whole thing, it's like being shadowed by a pushy dog.

 

[shagdrum]

Fine. We'll do this.

I know you're indifferent over a group of people who just had their rights taken away, but if you can't stand the "ad nausseum", simply step out of the conversation.

There is no right, repeat, no right that was taken away from anyone. You cannot even point to one. Since you don't want to read it, I will post the article I linked to that you should have read that explains why there is no right being "denied" or "taken away".

The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them "rights"-- especially "equal rights."

Some local election campaigns in various states are using that tactic this year, trying to get special privileges through affirmative action quotas or through demands that the definition of marriage be changed to suit homosexuals.

Equality of rights does not mean equality of results. I can have all the equal treatment in the world on a golf course and I will not finish within shouting distance of Tiger Woods.

When arbitrary numerical "goals" or "quotas" under affirmative action are not met, the burden of proof is put on the employer to prove that he did not discriminate against minorities or women. No burden of proof whatever is put on the advocates of "goals" or "quotas" to show that people would be equally represented in jobs, colleges or anywhere else in the absence of discrimination.

Tons of evidence from countries around the world, and over centuries of history, show that statistical disparities are the rule, not the exception-- even in situations where discrimination is virtually impossible.

Anonymously graded tests do not show the same results from one group to another. In many countries there are minorities who completely outperform members of the majority population, whether in education, in the economy or in sports, even when there is no way that they can discriminate against the majority.

Putting the burden of proof on everybody except yourself is a slick political ploy. The time is long overdue for the voting public to see through it.

Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay "marriage."

Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.

The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.

But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval. ​

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

For all that think same sex couples in California had nothing taken away from them in this election, will you please read the paragraph above and explain it to me word for word.
Don't add your own interpretation to it, just explain what the words in this clause mean.
I fully understand english, and what I read in the paragraph above is that ALL PEOPLE SHALL BE AFFORDED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
Equal protection means equal treatment.
Plain and simpple, if same sex people want to get mareried, and call it marraige, by this clause in the nation's constitution, they distinctly have that right.
If same sex couiples don't have the right to marraige, then according to this clause, neither do hetrosexuals have the right.
This clause says nothing about marraige being between a man and woman.
What it does say is ALL citizens shall be afforded equal protection.
The last time I checked, gays were considered citizens if they were born or naturalized in this country.
Equal treatment remember?
Bob.

 

[Titan]

Equal Protection does not mean equal treatment.

It does not mean redefining the meaning of words in use for centuries.

It means those who are not gay have rights also.

 

[shagdrum]

Don't add your own interpretation to it, just explain what the words in this clause mean.
I fully understand english, and what I read in the paragraph above is that ALL PEOPLE SHALL BE AFFORDED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
Equal protection means equal treatment.
Plain and simpple, if same sex people want to get mareried, and call it marraige, by this clause in the nation's constitution, they distinctly have that right.
If same sex couiples don't have the right to marraige, then according to this clause, neither do hetrosexuals have the right.
This clause says nothing about marraige being between a man and woman.
What it does say is ALL citizens shall be afforded equal protection.
The last time I checked, gays were considered citizens if they were born or naturalized in this country.
Equal treatment remember?
Bob.

As Titan pointed out; equal protection, not equal treatment.

And the only side of this debate "adding their own definition" is the side promoting gay marriage.

Marriage has a specific definition that has been understood for centuries. What is being asked is that marriage be redefined to include homosexuals.

You are right that the clause doesn't say anything about marriage being between a man and a woman, that is because it doesn't say anything about marriage at all. So, weather you realize it or no, you are assuming marriage is a right guaranteed under the equal protection clause as well as assuming that marriage is not, by definition, between a man and a woman.

While an argument can be made that marriage is covered under the Equal Protection Clause, there is no basis to assume that marriage is not, by definition and historical precedent, between a man and a woman.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

'historical precedent, between a man and a woman."


The fact that it is, or may be a historical precedent, between a man and a woman, does in no way give society the "right" to discriminate when it comes to same sex marraige.
For arguement sake, we will omit "equal treatment", and use the words"equal protection" as stated in the clause.
Same sex couples are being denied equal protection as it is put fourth in the fourteenth amendment.
Again that amendment provides for equal protection of all citizens.
What is your definition of "protection as it applies to this caluse?
What is it that is being protected by this clause?
My understanding of this clause is all citizens are protected under the laws of this nation, and it is against any state to adopt laws contrary to the meaning of this clause.
Just because marraige has always been considered between a man and a woman, there is no fact of law that states it MUST be between a man and woman except, what the state of California has recently voted for.
The fourteenth amendment says THAT is against the constitution.
The judges in the state of California that over ruled the original vote of the people a few years back, were applying the laws and rules of the constitution when they overturned the voters referendum.
They were well aware that the rule of the constitution, particular too the fourteenth amandment had been abridged by the voters, and they had a constitutional duty to over rule.
It will happen again because the voting public, even though they may want it this way, acted in an illegal manner by trying to over rule a mandate from the state courts.
This case is far from over and,it will only be setteled when the united states surpreme court finally rules on it.
That body must uphold the meaning and word of the fourteenth amandment.
They took an oath to uphold the constitution, and it would be an impeachable offense to do otherwise.
Bob.

 

[Titan]

What protection is being denied gays by stating marriage refers to a union between a male and a female?

The State of Californiia didn't say marriage should only be between a male and a female, the PEOPLE of California asserted that this was how society saw things at this time.

As a resident of California it really ticked me off when four San Francisco judges overturned the election results. If gays want things there way don't have judges spitting in the faces of voters. That was one of the issues involved with Prop8.

 

[shagdrum]

The fact that it is, or may be a historical precedent, between a man and a woman, does in no way give society the "right" to discriminate when it comes to same sex marraige.

The definition of marriage is at the heart of this matter. You cannot simply gloss over it; to do so is to demonstrate that you are incapable of any reasonable discussion on this issue.

You are assuming a very broad definition of marriage, where as that vast majority of society understands marriage as I have spelled out.

If marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, then marriage is, by definition, unable to be between two people of the same sex.

What the pro-gay-marriage side of the debate is trying to do is to redefine marriage to allow for gay marriage. That is highly presumptuous.

Same sex couples are being denied equal protection as it is put fourth in the fourteenth amendment.

Again, marriage is a "right" and a "privillage" that can, by definition, only be exercised between a man and a woman. Anything between two people of the same sex is incapable of being marriage.

Just because marraige has always been considered between a man and a woman, there is no fact of law that states it MUST be between a man and woman except, what the state of California has recently voted for.

Actually, precedent is a "fact of law". Besides, this argument is, as Sowell put it in his article, "Putting the burden of proof on everybody except yourself". It is shifting the burden of proof.

Due to the precautionary principle, the burden of proof falls on the side those pushing for gay marriage. That was discussed in this thread (which you participated in).

It is on you to prove that marriage is not, by definition, between a man and a woman; not the other way around.

The judges in the state of California that over ruled the original vote of the people a few years back, were applying the laws and rules of the constitution when they overturned the voters referendum.

No they were not. That may have been what they said they were doing, but if you read the ruling, it was clear that they were re-interpreting the constitution. The 14th Amendment, nor any other amendment or constitutional ruling allows for the redefinition of marriage to allow for gay marriage.

That body [the SCOTUS] must uphold the meaning and word of the fourteenth amandment.
They took an oath to uphold the constitution, and it would be an impeachable offense to do otherwise.

Yes, and if they ruled in favor of gay marriage, they would not be upholding the meaning and word of any part of the constitution, they would be making up the law.

Your interpretation of the constitution if full of unfounded and baseless assumptions that inherently change the meaning of the constitution.

There is no constitutional basis for your argument. You have not shown that marriage is simply a right that can be exercised between any two people regardless of sex. You have to do that before you can claim some infringement of rights under the 14th Amendment.

 

[The Rev]

If they're gay they're gay let them do whatever they want.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If they're gay they're gay let them do whatever they want.

I couldn't agree more with your statement but, it is the religous right that feels they need to get involved.
They worry about their precious little children being brainwashed to the fact that everyone in the world isn't like mommy and daddy.
Bringing children into this strickly adult situation is wrong, and all it does is teach children hate.
Now the word marraige is "defined" by who?
Unless the definition came straight from the almighty, it doesn't hold water.
Apparently it is man's definition, and that can be, and is subject to change.
Some of us may not live to see the day when same sex marraige is as common as hetrosexual marraige.
You say never?
I for one , never thought I would live to see a black president of the united states but, we are soon to have one so, to those against same sex marraige, I do belive the day will come when you will have to eat your words.
One point that I feel I should make is this.
When I posted my feelings about black people, the same people that chastyzed me for that, are the same ones on this thread demeaning same sex people who want to marry.
You are guilty of moral injustice of these people.
You can't be called racist but, I think homophobe would fit to describe you.
Bob.

 

[Joeychgo]

I'll make this simple...


Each state has the right to set its own rules on the matter.

Equal protection does not mean 2 men may marry if a man and a woman are allowed to marry, because they are not similarily situated.

Where equal protection comes into play is when 2 similarily situated people were not treated equally. For example, not allowing asians to marry when whites can marry. That would be equal protection.

2 men (or 2 women) are not the same as a man and a woman. Hence, the 2 are not similarily situated...

IF, for example, they permitted 2 men to be married, but not 2 women, then the equal protection clause would come into play. Otherwise, no.

That is just the application of the US Constitution and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

In California, they amended THEIR constitution. They are constitutionally allowed to do this if they choose, provided they remain within the bounds of what I just explained.

One more point. homosexuality is currently (legally) considered a "lifestyle choice". Color of skin, ethnicity and sex (male or female) are not choices.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'll make this simple...


Each state has the right to set its own rules on the matter.

Equal protection does not mean 2 men may marry if a man and a woman are allowed to marry, because they are not similarily situated.

Where equal protection comes into play is when 2 similarily situated people were not treated equally. For example, not allowing asians to marry when whites can marry. That would be equal protection.

2 men (or 2 women) are not the same as a man and a woman. Hence, the 2 are not similarily situated...

IF, for example, they permitted 2 men to be married, but not 2 women, then the equal protection clause would come into play. Otherwise, no.

That is just the application of the US Constitution and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

In California, they amended THEIR constitution. They are constitutionally allowed to do this if they choose, provided they remain within the bounds of what I just explained.

One more point. homosexuality is currently (legally) considered a "lifestyle choice". Color of skin, ethnicity and sex (male or female) are not choices.

Joey, I need to take issue with what you posted with regard to the 14th amendment, and it's provisions.
No where does it state that man or woman or same sex couples are to be treated differently, but what it does speak, loud and clear is that ( and here is the buzz word) all CITIZENS , nothing about marraige or whatever, all CITIZENS shall be afforded equal protection.
I take CITIZENS to mean all people who were either born here, or naturalized here.
Citizens are what it clearly states, and not some vague meaning of the word marriage.
It says nothing about a state changing laws to circumvent the constitution, which is exactly what California did.
People, regardless of what gender they happen to be should, and by the 14the amendment are guaranteed that they shall be protected equally, and I take that to mean, the same applies to all citizens , with no special dispensation for any group of people
A hetero relationship is no different than a homosexual rerlationship except the hetero relationship can pro-create.
If same sex couples want to marry, so be it, the constitution guarantees that right to them as well as straight people.
You say the contex is not the same, but that is where you are wrong.
you are looking at the 14th amendment as the right of man and women to marry, when in fact it is not about man and woman but, all citizens that are protected by this amendment.
I am certainly not a constitution scholar but I know what I read, and I am right on the mark with this one.
It is very plain, in black and white.
Now if you want to put some "spin" on it and interpret it to your liking, that is your perogative but, it still does not change the true and intended meaning of the amendment.
Bob.
It says nothing about a state changing laws to circumvent the constitution, which is exactly what California did.

 

[Calabrio]

A hetero relationship is no different than a homosexual rerlationship except the hetero relationship can pro-create.

this is a waste of time if you refuse to acknowledge the statements already made.

A heterosexual relationship IS different than a homosexual one because the parties involved are different and distinguishable. And with that, a union defining a specific partnership between those two entities has been created.

In our society, marriage is specifically that... one man and one woman.
That's it.

A marriage isn't just any two people who really are fond of each other, it's a specific thing.

And everyone is not entitled to redefine this institution as they see fit. It is also perfectly justifiable for a population to formally make it law DEFINING this one, specific kind of social contract.

MARRIAGE IS ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

If the state of California passed a law saying that two homosexual men couldn't spend time together, then that would be unconstitutional. But can have a very specific legal definition.

GEEZ... this is so tiresome, to have to repeat these SAME ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN because some people are too stubborn to read/understand them.

Next, we'll have to ask- if you don't define marriage in specific terms, what else can it mean? If you love your dog, can you marry it? What if you love a family member? How about a child, is that ok? And what about multiple women? Why is it "constitutional" to make polygamy illegal?

If same sex couples want to marry, so be it, the constitution guarantees that right to them as well as straight people.

They don't have a "RIGHT" to be married to another man.
And if they wish to marry someone of a different gender, that ability is open to them. I, being a heterosexual, am unable to marry someone of the same gender JUST AS a homosexual can't do so either. We're both being treated the same.

It would be unconstitutional to say that he couldn't be gay. Or that he couldn't associate with another homosexual. But to say that you need to redefine a kind of contract so that it includes something entirely different is moronic.

I am certainly not a constitution scholar but I know what I read, and I am right on the mark with this one.

Nope, 100% wrong.