Grounds to strike down Prop 8

ib1yysguy

ib1yysguy

Junior Member
14th Amendment

"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."

Equal protection.
 
ib1yysguy said:
14th Amendment

"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."

Equal protection.
Click to expand...


I don't see it happening in my lifetime and I'm fairly young.
 
Yeah, that's been tried and failed before. However, with a few strategic changes in the SCOTUS, it could work. I don't think it will be likely though because only the lefties will retire while Obama holds the office.
 
I'm pretty sure the equal protection principle is all about the fact that an interest group cannot take away rights that have been granted to a minority group by court order, otherwise nobody would be safe.
 
I think it will be hard for even this scotus to avoid the real equal protections implecations of this.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I'm pretty sure the equal protection principle is all about the fact that an interest group cannot take away rights that have been granted to a minority group by court order, otherwise nobody would be safe.
Click to expand...


Gays don't qualify as a particularly protected class under equal protection jurisprudence. Laws that discriminate against gays are typically only subject to rational basis review as least by the Supreme Court. Laws subject to rational basis review almost always pass.
 
Dungheap said:
Gays don't qualify as a particularly protected class under equal protection jurisprudence. Laws that discriminate against gays are typically only subject to rational basis review as least by the Supreme Court. Laws subject to rational basis review almost always pass.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment says "minority." I think gays clearly qualify.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, that's been tried and failed before. However, with a few strategic changes in the SCOTUS, it could work. I don't think it will be likely though because only the lefties will retire while Obama holds the office.
Click to expand...

The thing that prevents the feds from getting involved is DOMA.

If the Democrats repealed DOMA, it could happen. It would all depend on Anthony Kennedy though.
 
ib1yysguy said:
The 14th amendment says "minority." I think gays clearly qualify.
Click to expand...

14th Amendment

"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."


Where does it say "minority?"
 
Dixie said:
Someone please tell me what "rights" gay people are being denied?
Click to expand...

The right to marry the consenting adult they love.







And no, children and animals don't count, because they can't give consent. Please, please, please don't bring up that retarded point, because I know you will anyway.
 
Dixie said:
14th Amendment

"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."


Where does it say "minority?"
Click to expand...

My mistake. It says "person." Guess gays don't qualify there either, huh?
 
Watermark said:
The right to marry the consenting adult they love.

And no, children and animals don't count, because they can't give consent. Please, please, please don't bring up that retarded point, because I know you will anyway.
Click to expand...

No one can marry within the same sex. They are not being denied any right that others have. I loved Ronald Reagan, couldn't have married him, it's illegal. I loved my Dad, couldn't marry him, it's not legal... You love Barack Obama, but you can't marry him. No one has the 'right' to marry the consenting adult they love, so how is this a 'right' being denied? It doesn't qualify under the 14th Amendment. Sorry!
 
ib1yysguy said:
My mistake. It says "person." Guess gays don't qualify there either, huh?
Click to expand...

Gays qualify as people, but they have not been denied some 'right' that others have. As far as I know, they can marry the opposite sex, just like you and I. They can't marry the same sex, because that is not "marriage" by definition. They also can't marry animals or inanimate objects, it doesn't mean they are being denied a 'right!'
 
Dixie said:
No one can marry within the same sex. They are not being denied any right that others have. I loved Ronald Reagan, couldn't have married him, it's illegal. I loved my Dad, couldn't marry him, it's not legal... You love Barack Obama, but you can't marry him. No one has the 'right' to marry the consenting adult they love, so how is this a 'right' being denied? It doesn't qualify under the 14th Amendment. Sorry!
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan didn't love you. Do you understand "consenting adults"? Clearly not. Ronald Reagan would not consent to marrying you. Therefore, he would not be a "consenting adult".

And I'd like to point out that serious critics of same-sex marriage shy away from the "they're not being denied any rights because they can marry withing their own sex just like everyone else" argument because it's exactly the same as the "they're not being denied any rights because they can marry withing their own race just like everyone else" argument the interracial marriage guys used.
 
I wonder if the courts can come up with any rational for somehow ignoring the jurisdiction stripping clause in DOMA?

I know they found some way to when it came to the Military Commissions Act stripping jurisdiction from the courts in adjudicating the Guantanamo bay captives.
 
You can not offer one citizen a legal contract and then force other citizens to have to spend lots of money and time to get the same protections under the law.

A marriage a cheap and easy way to construct a legal agreement between to citizens. When you tell other citizens they are not the right sex to obtain the same easy and cheap legal protection you have given one citzen rights the other is denied.


Married men and women dont have to prove its a "traditional" marriage to obtain this finacial solution to their needs so why should we make other citizens unable to obtain this solution to their financial needs?
 
people. Listen up. the ONLY way to invalidate prop 8 on a federal level is to remove government interference over marriage of any kind. On the state level, you will have to wait until the 9th circuit is willing to hear a case that it violates the 14th, but that will only happen AFTER you get government out of marriage. welcome to libertarianism 101.
 
Desh said:
You can not offer one citizen a legal contract and then force other citizens to have to spend lots of money and time to get the same protections under the law.

A marriage a cheap and easy way to construct a legal agreement between to citizens. When you tell other citizens they are not the right sex to obtain the same easy and cheap legal protection you have given one citzen rights the other is denied.


Married men and women dont have to prove its a "traditional" marriage to obtain this finacial solution to their needs so why should we make other citizens unable to obtain this solution to their financial needs?
Click to expand...

In California gay couples have all the same financial rights as married heterosexual couples. They are allowed the hospital visits etc. They obviously just can't legally be called 'married'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top