heyzeus wrote:But all I need is from the state. By what constitutional authority can the state demonstrate its compelling interest to define a class of citizens (homosexuals) and by definition withhold from them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy? I'm asking in earnest, because the inevitable Supreme Court case on this issue will be entirely based upon that question.
The 10th Amendment basically says that anything not in the US Constitution the states & the people in those states can regulate.
There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding marriage (or about discrimination by sexual orientation).
The people are allowed to amend the state constitution by popular vote (in California, anyway).
+50% of people in California decided to vote for this, so now it's law in California.
heyzeus wrote:But all I need is from the state. By what constitutional authority can the state demonstrate its compelling interest to define a class of citizens (homosexuals) and by definition withhold from them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy? I'm asking in earnest, because the inevitable Supreme Court case on this issue will be entirely based upon that question.
The 10th Amendment basically says that anything not in the US Constitution the states & the people in those states can regulate.
There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding marriage (or about discrimination by sexual orientation).
The people are allowed to amend the state constitution by popular vote (in California, anyway).
+50% of people in California decided to vote for this, so now it's law in California.
The Fourteenth Amendment states:
"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."
Ironically, the very next section goes on to privilege "male inhabitants", but let's forget about that for now.
heyzeus wrote:But all I need is from the state. By what constitutional authority can the state demonstrate its compelling interest to define a class of citizens (homosexuals) and by definition withhold from them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy? I'm asking in earnest, because the inevitable Supreme Court case on this issue will be entirely based upon that question.
The 10th Amendment basically says that anything not in the US Constitution the states & the people in those states can regulate.
There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding marriage (or about discrimination by sexual orientation).
The people are allowed to amend the state constitution by popular vote (in California, anyway).
+50% of people in California decided to vote for this, so now it's law in California.
The Fourteenth Amendment states:
"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."
Ironically, the very next section goes on to privilege "male inhabitants", but let's forget about that for now.
Yet the 14th Amendment did nothing to allow women or non-whites to vote - so there's obviously interpretation there.
Ultimately it will be struck down. Next year, 10 year, 50 years? I have no idea, but there is no basis other than moral/religious which this is based on. Not sugar coating it, it's just plain old fashioned bigotry. Nothing more, nothing less. And that won't survive.
jim wrote:Ultimately it will be struck down. Next year, 10 year, 50 years? I have no idea, but there is no basis other than moral/religious which this is based on. Not sugar coating it, it's just plain old fashioned bigotry. Nothing more, nothing less. And that won't survive.
Definitely agree there. They just need to wait for a few old people to die off & then another state prop will pass that removes the language that was just added.
I'd be really surprised though if this came down from the US Supreme Court - I bet they don't touch this at all, and just lob it back to the states, just like many other controversial issues.
I just don't see the controversy. This only pertains to the state, not churches. Untold amounts of blood have been spilled for churches to be able to say they do not recognize this. States, different matter.
paskal wrote:Yet the 14th Amendment did nothing to allow women or non-whites to vote - so there's obviously interpretation there.
Yes, and those interpretations fluctuate with a changing society. Discrimination that was once viewed as perfectly acceptable is now rejected. For example, anti-miscegenation laws are now considered unconstitutional. I fully expect the same to happen here although I don't know when.
Why can't people grasp the concept that church and state or two completely different things? There are plenty of things that it's perfectly legit to believe in that shouldn't be made into laws.
The funny thing is, it's this group that gripes the most about gov't sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. To me, this is the absolute last place I want gov't sticking their nose in.
