CA Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

[MichelleHeart]

Liberty through centralization. Hmm. Where have I heard this before?

...

Oh wait!

 

[Baptist]

I insulted you, but I didn't engage in an ad hominem attack, I didn't attack the validity of your premise through my insults. I attacked the validity of your premise by citing the 14th Amendment. I certainly see a need for insults, considering we are talking about you imposing your religious views through the state apparatus and denying people equal protection under the law.

If Tom Woods doesn't think the 14th Amendment applies to the states, than he is stupid and bigoted. He is stupid, at least in this case, because I bet he has read it, and it is very clear in it's application to state law as well as Federal law. He is also bigoted in that he supports applying his personal prejudices through the state apparatus.

The Founders didn't have a 14th Amendment. But the writers of the 14th Amendment did make it clear that it applied to the states. All states must provide equal protection under the law.

And the Founders were inspired by the Roman Republic and the Athenian Government model. But bathhouses have nothing to do with equal protection under the law, and bathouses were used by homos and heteros, so I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

I didn't say the Founders had a 14th Amendment. I asked why the drafters of the 14th Amendment didn't say that the 14th makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states. The Founders of our Constitution didn't just leave us a Constitution with no opinions on it. We have the Federalist Papers and many writings explaining their thoughts on what the Constitution means. Surely the drafters of the 14th Amendment debated or discussed the language of the amendment. There has to be some writing showing that the drafters of the 14th wanted the BoR to apply to the states. So I am asking you to point me to these writings.

Jefferson said that you have to look to the intent of the framers of the Constitution. If every generation gets to decide what it means, then the Constitution might as well be a blank piece of paper. Similarly, you also have to look at the intent of the drafters of each Amendment. What did the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment put it in the Constitution for? I argue that they did not mean the 14th to make the BoR apply to the states. If they did, show me where they stated this.

 

[RokiLothbard]

Calling somebody a bigot , just because they disagree with you about the 14th ammendment and the incorporation doctrine, is in fact an ad hominem. If you disagree you are just a dumbass. Sorry couldn't help myself.

Actually I find the whole question to be one of hardest, as a layman reading the constitution. I probably will look up Thomas Woods on the subject some time.

 

[07041826]

I disagree. The Bill of Rights applies to the feds not the states. Just because......

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then couldn't the states just nullify all of my natural rights at the state level, thus rendering the Bill of Rights useless? I do see that the 1st Amendment specifies Congress shall make no law, but the others are less specific.

 

[Reason]

i do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be. Mark my words, god will judge this country

lmao...

 

[low preference guy]

i do not care what any state says on the matter, there is no such as "gay marriage," and never can be. Mark my words, god will judge this country

poor brainwashed kid.

 

[South Park Fan]

Lol @ American Nationalist calling anybody a bigot.

 

[nate895]

poor brainwashed kid.

Who, exactly, did the brainwashing? I came to these beliefs on my own without being "brainwashed." I am not a member of a cult group that controls the flow of information, nor was I raised in the church of which I am a member. The fact is you are the one is brainwashed by the modern secular academic elite. There are answers to every question that has been raised. You simply refuse to see them. It is not that our little debate we are having here has not happened in the past, I don't know, 6,000 years, and the skeptics have raised the same questions over, and over, and over again, and the Christians have answered them over, and over, and over again. Yet we are sitting here after 2,000 years of Church History, and the skeptic pretends he is some sort of genius who has just come up with a brand new reason why we should hate Christianity and everything the Bible stands for.

Guess what? We've already debated homosexuality back in Roman times. The Church prevailed that time. The Church will prevail again, like it has time and again in history. It may take a few decades or centuries to once again prevail this time, but it will happen, and the secular philosophies of today, as the Greek philosophies of the past, will be consigned to the dust heap of history.

 

[RM918]

I really don't see the reason for outrage. If people want to be gay and everyone is able to properly consent, let them be gay. Government should get out of marriage period, but in the mean time why shouldn't gay couples get the same benefits? So long as they're not forcing anyone else to be gay, why should anyone care what they do?

 

[Southron]

This argument would make sense if a state judge ruled. However, it was in federal court. So yes, an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution.

What enumerated power is the state violating?

Seems to me this issue would fall to the states.

Judges can't just strike down parts of a constitution just because they feel like it.

 

[nobody's_hero]

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then couldn't the states just nullify all of my natural rights at the state level, thus rendering the Bill of Rights useless? I do see that the 1st Amendment specifies Congress shall make no law, but the others are less specific.

They could. Which is why it is up to the people of the states to keep checks on the states, just as it is up to the states to keep checks on the feds. Fortunately, states have Constitutions, too. Many are modeled after the U.S. Constitution, and some are better/worse.

Giving federal judges the power to strike out parts of state constitutions just doesn't sit well with me. I realize that this is indeed a good victory for homosexuals, just as D.C./Chicago rulings were for gun owners, and Arizona's . . . —well, we'll have to wait and see what happens there, but the Feds are already getting involved.

I'm just cautious, that's all I'm saying. I realize it was a good outcome, but the method used to obtain it is . . .

Exactly, Michelle. This is what gives me cause for caution.

 

[bobbyw24]

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage Issue

So an amendment to the California Constitution was ruled unconstitutional?

Why does this not make sense?

Are Judges > Constitutions?

Congressman Ron Paul does not believe that the issue of gay marriage is a matter to be decided at the federal level. He has said that the effort of a federal official to change the definition of marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." He stated further, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages." The issue of gay marriage is one to be decided at the state-level by the citizens of the state, as the people of California did when they passed Proposition 8. Ron Paul supported the Defense of Marriage Act to ensure that the US Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause continued to allow one state to refuse to recognize the same-sex marriages of another state.

Paul also co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. Had this legislation passed, today's headlines might have been different.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=255902

 

[Baptist]

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then couldn't the states just nullify all of my natural rights at the state level, thus rendering the Bill of Rights useless? I do see that the 1st Amendment specifies Congress shall make no law, but the others are less specific.

See Nobody's_Hero post

They could. Which is why it is up to the people of the states to keep checks on the states, just as it is up to the states to keep checks on the feds. Fortunately, states have Constitutions, too. Many are modeled after the U.S. Constitution, and some are better/worse.

07041826, Everyone here on the RPF, including myself, will agree philosophically with you that all the rights in the Bill of Rights are natural and that NO level of government should infringe upon them. However, if the Constitution is what you hold as the highest authority, then yes legally states are allowed to infringe upon our natural rights. But as Hero pointed out, all states have Constitutions that include a Bill or Rights that almost mirror the federal BoR.

Giving federal judges the power to strike out parts of state constitutions just doesn't sit well with me. I realize that this is indeed a good victory for homosexuals, just as D.C./Chicago rulings were for gun owners, and Arizona's . . . —well, we'll have to wait and see what happens there, but the Feds are already getting involved.

Yeah, and I just remembered something to the guy who called me bigoted. If the citizens of California voted to allow gay marriage, and a federal judge interfered and said that allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional, I would take the exact same position that I do now-- that it's not a federal matter and states can do what they want. My posts in this thread have nothing to do with gay and anti gay, but respecting the rule of law which is the Constitution.

 

[erowe1]

This is why we need to get more momentum behind Ron Paul's We the People Act.
http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdr12D:@@@D&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

 

[erowe1]

This warms my Libertarian heart.

How is this ruling "Libertarian"?

 

[demolama]

Libertarians are for any source of freedom. They don't care if it comes from the states, the federal government, or the world government as long as they receive the freedoms they are entitled. This is where libertarians split with like minded individuals who also desire the same results but want it done in a way that does not have unintended consequences.

The unintended consequence for this ruling is the destruction of yet another barrier of federalism. Soon states will have no constitutions, no bill of rights, no government what-so-ever, just 50 administrative bodies to enforce national blanket laws for people in rural Maine to urban California.

Liberty is only easily obtained when the government is as close to the people as possible. You have a better chance of voting a horrible authoritarian out of state government than you would DC. DC some 3000 miles away has no clue what is good for the farmers in Idaho. Why should I be willing to give the federal government more power to have an effect on the lives of those people in Idaho?

Whats next... should we go after a sovereign country to enforce similar equality? Where does it end? Tyranny always rides on the back of a horse named equality in order to consolidate power.

 

[Ricky201]

Meh...

Can we just buy a huge shredder and get rid of the marriage certificates already?

 

[LibertyVox]

Libertarians are for any source of freedom. They don't care if it comes from the states, the federal government, or the world government as long as they receive the freedoms they are entitled. This is where libertarians split with like minded individuals who also desire the same results but want it done in a way that does not have unintended consequences.

The unintended consequence for this ruling is the destruction of yet another barrier of federalism. Soon states will have no constitutions, no bill of rights, no government what-so-ever, just 50 administrative bodies to enforce national blanket laws for people in rural Maine to urban California.

Liberty is only easily obtained when the government is as close to the people as possible. You have a better chance of voting a horrible authoritarian out of state government than you would DC. DC some 3000 miles away has no clue what is good for the farmers in Idaho. Why should I be willing to give the federal government more power to have an effect on the lives of those people in Idaho?

Whats next... should we go after a sovereign country to enforce similar equality? Where does it end? Tyranny always rides on the back of a horse named equality in order to consolidate power.

I don't think Libertarians have the same opinion about the ruling, most will have their opinion based on their understanding of the liberal principles enshrined in the constitution.

Now, in general I do agree with you. I agree that local polities should have more control over what they want to do and the reason being this:

If the citizens of California voted to allow gay marriage, and a federal judge interfered and said that allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional, I would take the exact same position that I do now-- that it's not a federal matter and states can do what they want. My posts in this thread have nothing to do with gay and anti gay, but respecting the rule of law which is the Constitution.

And certainly this is not the first time a Federal Judge has ruled over a State's High court decision.
My problem is that the invoking of State's rights overwhelmingly comes from those folks who love big government, love the ironclad FedGov, love spending, love mass murders and wars (present company at RPF excepted) and only when they have no other way they use the facade of state rights, the-evils-of-trampling-fedgov.

My personal prefernce would be the Federal Judge making a ruling if a case is petitioned in the Fed supreme court based on the powers enumerated to the fedgov in the constitution, but not enforcing the federal writ.

As an example, some states permit its residents to be licensed growers of marijuana, but this is against the federal law. Most of the times nothing happens but at times the federal law is enforced by federal agencies and the licensed marijuana grower has his business rolled up.

I recognize there are many advantages of living in a decentralized system. The more the better. It gives breathing room for the country's survival since there is much more wiggle room for social and political adjustments. If one place fails in something, the others can avoid the same mistake. Or they can replicate a success.

It also avoids secessionist humdrum. Some laws or policies in some places maybe seen as backward and may be discriminatory, but people can then move into another state where the society is more tolerant and enlightened. And I ave always believed in the social and intellectual fecundity in flux. Including human flux.

But even so: I believe that such policies should be then further decentralized not only to states but to the city level. And I agree with this quote of yours:

Liberty is only easily obtained when the government is as close to the people as possible.

...with a cautionary caveat that the converse can be EQUALLY true. Loss of liberty can occur easily when liberty is applied selectively. Thus my advocacy for things to be decided at at least District of not city levels. There would be much less problem for those who would wanna move (or be forced to move) from one city to another than from one state to another.

But I do believe the Federal govt. is the moral face of a republic. I feel we are fortunate that our constitution is very liberal and moral for the most part. So I still applaud the over-turning of the decision by the Federal Supreme Court. I just wouldn't want it to be enforced at gun point.

 

[TonySutton]

After reading the the decision, I am curious how many people here actually read the decision.

The proponents of Prop 8 did a rather shabby job of defending their position, imo.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Liberty is only easily obtained when the government is as close to the people as possible. You have a better chance of voting a horrible authoritarian out of state government than you would DC. DC some 3000 miles away has no clue what is good for the farmers in Idaho. Why should I be willing to give the federal government more power to have an effect on the lives of those people in Idaho?

Expanding, if I may:

Generally, bottom-up, grassroots solutions do have a greater chance of exacting REAL changes in society. I don't know that they're always easier, per-se (as it is very easy to get 51% in the U.S. Congress and since Thor's Hammer, I mean, Speaker Pelosi's Gavel, is very powerful, I have no doubts that she can very easily "give" the people liberty while simultaneously getting whatever else she wants to help herself to in the same process).

Government generally reflects society, although it adapts retardedly and often waaay after the people have sent it the memo. What I'm saying is: If you are a gay person living in California, your problem is that 70% of the people there don't think you have the right to marry, not that the State of California government says you can't get married. The government is only doing what the people have commissioned it to do. You have to get the people to change their orders.

Education is the key. Just as it is with us in the Ron Paul minority versus the world (it sometimes feels like), there is much educating to do. Otherwise, if by say, some fluke (rather than principled-voter-participation, comprised of people will a full-on understanding of economic and individual liberties, combined with a dedication to be eternally vigilant in the defense of liberty, peace, and prosperity[—oh! how nice it would be to have such a breed of voters]) Ron Paul had won the 2008 election, then the people's fundamental understanding of freedom would not be present in the equation, only their votes. The consequence is that all that would be accomplished during a Ron Paul administration would be undone by some idiot successor, as the voter's overwhelming dedication and understanding of liberty would not be there, obviously, having let some idiot take Ron Paul's place.

Have we not seen this occur with the Federal Court system? How many times throughout the course of history have rulings upon rulings been overturned, returned, appealed, denied, retried, flip-flopped, reversed, turned inside-out, corkscrewed . . . (BOP-IT!!!! )? As soon as another team gets their turn at the frankenstein machine of power, the judge who ruled in this case will be gone, someone new will reverse him, and we'll be right back to square one.

In this regard, this ruling is no more worth celebrating than Chicago/D.C. gun rulings. I say, give it five years. Someone will fart and change the direction of the political winds, and we'll probably be right back where we started. We aren't making any headway, we're just getting fool-lucky every now and then. The philosophy of liberty just isn't there, and it won't be unless we take to the airwaves with the message.

Instead, keep it local, and build outward (not upward). Local communities do not change nearly as swiftly in their principles as the folks from Washington, D.C. (if they ever possess any "principles" to start with). If local communities do change their values, it is usually due to gradual acceptance of new principles that they themselves wish to seek, and not that which is forced upon them, regardless of morality/immorality of the issue at hand.