Agree and disagree - sm

While I agree with your assertion that our constitution does not "require" same-sex marriage, I disagree that the 14th Amendment would prohibit it.  Marriage (either heterosexual or homosexual) is not a right in any case; it is a custom (both religious and/or social).  However, I do believe that the 14th amendment would allow same-sex marriage by virtue of the clause that reads, "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."  

As marriage is a social custom, any citizen should be allowed the privilege of engaging in marriage as he or she is inclined.  On a traditionally religious level, I can see where same-sex marriage would be considered morally wrong and even reprehensible, but your church (my church) is not being required by law to conduct the ceremony or sanctify the marriage.  Socially, however, marriage provides certain financial protections to spouses that are not afforded to couples who are not recognized as legally married.

As far as the children needing a mother and a father, I have seen children raised by heterosexual couples who would have been better off had they been raised by wolves, as well as children with only one parent who could not have been better adjusted and prepared for life as an adult.  I, personally, believe that the sex of the parent the crux of the parenting issue.  I believe that is more of a responsibility and maturity issue.  

I do, however, support your right to voice your opinion, and I respect your point of view. 

and let them be as miserable as the straights - anon

My 2 cents on this issue - Backwards Typist

A judge is not to supposed to make laws. They are only supposed to interpret the law.  By Judge Walker giving this decision, he has made law.

Prop 8 was voted on by the people.  They decided against same-sex marriage, not a court. If one judge can overturn the will of the people, just what are we in for in the coming years?

The judge should not have been on this case in the first place. It was a biased decision since he shares the same lifestyle.  He should have recused himself since this issue is too close to his own lifestyle.

As for the legal eagles on the case, they are the new style 'ambulance chaser'  ( do anything to make a name for themselves and get rich off the backs of others).  Although I have worked for 2 attorneys in my earlier days, I feel most legal eagles are no better than vultures, swoping down to pick the bones. How many class action suits have you been involved in?  In the past 10 years, DH and I have gotten at least 10. If you read the fine print, after seeing the millions of dollars awarded in the case, who gets the pie? The latest class action was against an investment firm. The lawyers get over $11 MILLION but when figured out, DH would get around $12, depending on how many people decide to be included in the suite.  The highest recovery per share was $0.0946 and the lowest was $0.0007.  Not worth the paper they're written on and definitely not worth the time to fill out all the paperwork.

Don't get me wrong....I feel same sex partners should be allowed to be covered by insurance, allowed in an ICU as family and be able to make decisions on behalf of the partner, and should be able to be named in a will without family contesting it.  I just don't believe in the marriage end of it. 

Excellent post, Backwards Typist - Agree and Disagree

I also cannot say I am for same-sex "marriage" in a religious setting as most of the tenets of many religion forbid same-sex relations.  I do feel that protections under the law are in order and  could support some sort of "civil union." However, it would still be, by definition, a marriage with civil ceremony in lieu of religious ceremony.  

As far as the adjudication of this particular case, I am not familiar with all the specifics, but it appears that the judge overturned a proposed law to ban same-sex marriage (prop 8) as contrary to the 14th amendment as opposed to creating a law mandating same-sex marriage.  His actions, on the surface, appear to be well within jurisprudence.

A true democracy (where the will of the majority is sacrosanct) is inherently unfair to the minority.  It is like a country made up 2:1 of wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  The constitution and judicial branch, in theory, are for the protection of the sheep.  

I do agree that there is too much legislation and not enough constitutional interpretation coming from the bench these days.  You are absolutely correct in your assertion that it is not the job of the judicial branch to enact laws.

You are right.. "A judge is not supposed to make laws". - ..and he did that. Many people feel

He did not make law. He found Prop 8 unconstitutional. - He did his job and thats all he did. nm

I disagree. He MADE law -look into it more!.nm - Candlelite

The judge did not MAKE a law... - Agree and Disagree

If Prop 8 is unconstitutional, then would it be - Backwards Typist

"stimulus, TARP, health care, financial reform, etc." - aren't Constitutional issues.nm

I would think they are. - Backwards Typist

You are still no making any sense. - sm

Could you please clarify this question? - It makes no sense to me. nm

The judge was not declaring the vote itself unconstitutional. - Agree and Disagree

It is the result of the vote, which in effect bans same-sex marriage, which was declared unconstitutional.  The vote itself was both legal and necessary.  However, just because something is voted on and carried by the majority of voters does not make it constitutional.  

At one time, it was illegal for blacks to vote, own property, eat in white establishments, and marry (hence the jumping the broom ceremonies carried over from slave traditions, which were not recognized legally as marriages).  The majority voted for these laws and thought that this was the right thing to do at the time.  Repeated challenges to the constitutionality of these laws eventually brought about change, but would you say that they were originally right because they were law and voted on by the majority?

Virtually anything with support can be voted into law.  The fact that may become law does not make it constitutional, and one of the purposes of the judicial branch is to make this distinction.

The voting itself is in no way unconstitutional; that is a right as well as a privilege and obligation.  However, human nature being what it is, many voters are caught up in the emotion of what they believe is right and the logic of whether the actual enforcement of a law will infringe upon the rights of others plays very little, if any part, in influencing what side of an issue they come down on.  This is how laws that are not for the good of all as much as to the detriment of some are passed.  It is the duty of the judicial branch, using case law, precedent, and constitutional law to ratify or nullify the actions of the legislative branch.

I apologize if anything in my post led you to feel that the act of voting in itself was in any way unconstitutional.  I believe that the people's right to vote is sacrosanct and in no way meant to imply that these people were not within their rights by voting (either way) on this proposition.  I only sought to convey that the judge, according to my reading of the decision, did not act contrary to the constitution when rendering his decision.

Thank you, Backwards Typist, for your interesting and thought-provoking comments.  I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion with you.

The judge put in his personal opinion to go above - the people. He was wrong and MADE law.nm

Nothing could be further from the truth. - Try reading the decision.

Actually, I disagree too.. You are stating YOUR opinion - HappyDuck

Here is a link to the 136 page full text of the ruling. - sm

My 2 cents - although - its probably only worth a penny.

So what about constitutionality? Doesnt that matter - to you at all? nm

I guess I didn't make that clear - sorry - its probably only worth a penny