radarrider: (Default)
[personal profile] radarrider
As most, if not all, of you reading this are probably already aware, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that the amendment to the California State Constitution, passed by the voters of that state as Proposition 8, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.  Specifically, it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.  It is also interesting to note that Judge Walker was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan.

This brings up an interesting issue, namely what happens when the Constitution of a state conflicts with the Constitution of the United States.  Clearly, the Judge ruled that the US Constitution takes precedence and I concur.

Full disclosure:  I did not support Proposition 8, nor would I have voted for it had I been a resident of California.  But it's not because of any opinion on whether or not two people of the same gender should or should not be allowed to enter into the legal relationship known as "marriage" as sanctioned by the states.

It's because of what Constitutions are supposed to do.  The way I see it, a Constitution's purpose is to describe the structure of a government, allocate certain specific powers to that government, and define specific limits on that government.  What a Constitution is not supposed to do is tell individual citizens that they cannot do something.*  It is up to the legislature to determine whether any actions should be proscribed and the executive to carry out the implementation of those laws.  Should a state legislature determine that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, that's their purview, subject of course to challenge on the grounds such legislation is in violation of the State or US Constitution.

*It has been argued that there is one provision in the US Constitution where a private individual is prohibited from a specific action.  That is the Thirteenth Amendment which essentially says one person cannot own another.  However, I interpret it as an effective enumeration of the right not to be owned by another and thus on the same level as most of the Bill of Rights which enumerates other specific individual rights.
Date: 2010-08-04 10:44 pm (UTC)

From: (Anonymous)
"What a Constitution is not supposed to do is tell individual citizens that they cannot do something.* It is up to the legislature to determine whether any actions should be proscribed and the executive to carry out the implementation of those laws. Should a state legislature determine that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, that's their purview, subject of course to challenge on the grounds such legislation is in violation of the State or US Constitution."

Well, the voters of California did pass and create a Law/Stature that stats that same sex marriages are not to be sanctioned by the State Of California. It does not say that persons of the same sex cannot be married simply that it will not be recognized/sanctioned by the State. Did I miss something in your above thoughts ?
Date: 2010-08-05 08:32 pm (UTC)

draconis: Default icon (Default)
From: [personal profile] draconis
Not only does it conflict with the US Constitution, but it also conflicts with the ruling of the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1967, the Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'". I really don't see how it could be any plainer than that.

This same ruling shot down the argument used by so many opponents to gay marriage -- that gays have the same rights as anyone else: the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. Loving v Virginia struck down this "equal application" argument, stating that the original law was not discriminatory because it affected both blacks and whites equally.

I was both shocked and appalled to hear my usually-intelligent mother-in-law make the argument that marriage is for children. Her second marriage occurred after her child-bearing years were over, and daughter Rhi and I do not (and will not) have children. It boggled my mind that she could not see these glaring inconsistencies in her position.

I am *SO* glad to see this piece of trash getting placed where it belongs -- out in the refuse pile with the rest of the garbage!

Profile

radarrider: (Default)
radarrider

August 2010

S M T W T F S
123 4567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
29 3031    

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 09:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios