NEWS: Prop. 8 Challenge Filed in Federal Court!

*
*
I hope that they are successful!
*
*

What- wrote:

*
*
I hope that they are successful!
*
*

I think they will.

Everyone should realize that this lawsuit is over entirely different issues than the ruling that was issued yesterday.

The California Supreme Court ruling upholding Prop. 8 yesterday was over procedural issues of how the proposition came about.

Prop. 8 changed "equal protection" rights under the California Constitution -- but the U.S. Constitution remains the same as far as "equal protection" rights are concerned.

NOW the exact same argument will be made with regard to the U.S. Constitution that was made with regard to the California Constitution last year when the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the California Constitution.

The exact same arguments that prevailed last year (before the California Constitution was changed by Prop. 8) apply exactly the same to the U.S. Constitution.

Cheers!

I agree that gays married previously should have equal protection of those after Prop 8. All the marriages should be annulled by the State.

Curtis Lowe wrote:

I agree that gays married previously should have equal protection of those after Prop 8. All the marriages should be annulled by the State.

Do you know what an ex post facto law is?

It is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

Applying Prop. 8 to same-sex marriages that occurred before Prop. 8 became law would be an example of an ex post facto law.

And ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited (for very good reason) by the United States Constitution.

In other words -- THAT WOULD BE BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

What- wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you know what an ex post facto law is?
It is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
Applying Prop. 8 to same-sex marriages that occurred before Prop. 8 became law would be an example of an ex post facto law.
And ex post facto laws are specifically prohibited (for very good reason) by the United States Constitution.
In other words -- THAT WOULD BE BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I disagree. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, these people were never really married in the first place. It is the same as a man who marries a dog because a judge got paid enough to perform the ceremony. The man may have a piece of paper that says he is married to the dog, but they are not really married.

Curtis Lowe wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, these people were never really married in the first place. It is the same as a man who marries a dog because a judge got paid enough to perform the ceremony. The man may have a piece of paper that says he is married to the dog, but they are not really married.

Wrong. They were married by law.

It was legal, they are legal marriages.

Can a dog enter a legally binding marriage contract?

You homophobic bigots can't figure out the difference between legal and illegal can you... what a shame.

Cubster wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. They were married by law.
It was legal, they are legal marriages.
Can a dog enter a legally binding marriage contract?
You homophobic bigots can't figure out the difference between legal and illegal can you... what a shame.

Can a brother and sister? Two guys and one woman? 3 women and one man?

Cubster wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. They were married by law.
It was legal, they are legal marriages.
Can a dog enter a legally binding marriage contract?
You homophobic bigots can't figure out the difference between legal and illegal can you... what a shame.

Cubster if you & What- do not agree with something it is definately illegal or unconstitutional, according to you 2 everytime.

BoatsNHoes wrote:

<quoted text>
Can a brother and sister? Two guys and one woman? 3 women and one man?

Slippery slope.

Polygamy = illegal
Incest = illegal
Homosexuality = LEGAL

Still haven't figured that out have you.

roadkill0 wrote:

<quoted text>Cubster if you & What- do not agree with something it is definately illegal or unconstitutional, according to you 2 everytime.

So in other words, you don't know the difference in LEGAL and ILLEGAL? Glad we could clear that up.

Curtis Lowe wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, these people were never really married in the first place. It is the same as a man who marries a dog because a judge got paid enough to perform the ceremony. The man may have a piece of paper that says he is married to the dog, but they are not really married.

Your disagreement is completely and totally baseless -- same-sex marriage did legally exist in California (and same-sex marriages was performed).

Also, in case you didn't know same-sex marriage still exists in like 5 States (and MANY Countries).

Cubster wrote:

<quoted text>
Slippery slope.
Polygamy = illegal
Incest = illegal
Homosexuality = LEGAL
Still haven't figured that out have you.

Oh i've figured it out but that doesn't mean it makes sense. All three are wrong so why is one treated differently.

BoatsNHoes wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh i've figured it out but that doesn't mean it makes sense. All three are wrong so why is one treated differently.

Because it's legal and the others aren't.

If the gays can marry so should the other sexually deviant critters.

Well the politicians, preachers, and lawyers are making a mint kicking it around like a football.
If this ever gets cleared up where do they go from there?