Town Square

Post a New Topic

Prop 8 sponsors tell U.S. Supreme Court that defining marriage is a state right

Original post made on Jan 23, 2013

Supporters of California's ban on same-sex marriage told the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday that defining marriage is a states' rights matter and
that Californians' choice of a traditional definition in 2008 should be honored.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 6:52 AM

Comments (11)

Posted by No Legal Scholar, But..., a resident of Birdland
on Jan 23, 2013 at 8:36 am

I'm no legal scholar, but my basic understanding of the Constitution and our history tells me that the 14th Amendment trumps anything the states want to do if the court finds that due process has been denied. Yes, marriage is a state power, but so was slavery. I don't mean to invoke the American version of Godwin's Law so quickly, but come on. There was a reason the 14th Amendment was put in place. Historically, states have been the bigger violators of rights in our history.


Posted by still not right, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2013 at 9:18 am

'No Legal Scholar', if I understand your premise correctly, then pot should be illegal in all states because the feds consider it illegal.
The Defense of Marriage Act is not being upheld by the current occupier of the White House, which is federal law. The states legislators (not the voters) in several states have decided on their own to circumvent or ignore federal law, with obama and holder's approval. Is this what you are referring to as 'due process'?


Posted by AlamedaCountyNative, a resident of Foothill Farms
on Jan 23, 2013 at 9:45 am

My understanding of Prop8 is that the Constitution and Bill Of Rights do not apply equally to all citizens. Only those citizens who have the approval of certain churches have equal rights. I think this approach has been tried before


Posted by Indeed still not right, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2013 at 10:02 am

"Still not right" is right on the money. There are so many state sodomy laws still on the books, and it is a pity that the feds give my tax money for things like gun control when it should be enforcing extant sodomy laws that states are not enforcing. We want due process! This is nothing but tyranny by omission. Citizens in states with anti-sodomy laws are forced to live amongst the perverted ones because Obama and Holder refuse to honor the Constitution.


Posted by AlamedaCountyNative, a resident of Foothill Farms
on Jan 23, 2013 at 10:15 am

You are absolutely right! The Bill Of Rights and the Constitution should give full citizenship rights only to those people who think the way you do. I'm sure that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Why should those others have the same freedoms as you do. After all, they're different.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27 pm

What exactly is sodomy? Is the definition the same in all states?

What is so bad about not enforcing sodomy laws?

I say let everybody get married that wants to be married.

How does anybody know who engages in sodomy?


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm

I've lived in several countries and it doesn't seem to me that everybody is so torn up about sodomy.

I will never return to Argentina. I will visit the Basque Country just not Madrid. Also, I could live in the UK again but I prefer living in America. I like living here more than any other country in the world.

However, this is the only country that I've lived in where everybody complains about everything...never ends. I just love it!


Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of Birdland
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:57 pm

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

Time to apply the same hypocrisy that anti-2nd amendment zealots are using to promote gun confiscation: Redefine the 'outdated' Bill of Rights' so that it includes provisions for civil unions for 'special' couples (or threesomes or more) that all have the same parts and yet demand the same rights to marriage as normal, heterosexual couples.
After all, more than 200 years ago, no one envisioned the proliferation of people who could not procreate and produce their own offspring, demanding to be considered mainstream.


Posted by Cheryl Soledad, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 23, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Excuse me, but I'm a woman who is biologically unable to reproduce. Does that mean I should not be allowed to marry?

I have many female friends, moreover, who claim they have erogenous zones in many parts of their bodies. Does this make them abnormal? Boy, some couples must have a really boring sex life.


Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of Birdland
on Jan 23, 2013 at 1:10 pm

liberalism is a disease is a registered user.

Good for you and your friends Cheryl. I don't have time to explain further, but then you knew exactly what I mean in my previous post. I look forward to seeing pictures of you and your friends on the internet.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jan 23, 2013 at 1:14 pm

There are millions upon millions of people who choose not to "procreate".

And, they can marry if they choose to.

There are also people who become priests, rabbi's, etc. etc. etc. who choose to remain "celibate" and simply molest children of both sexes.

BUSTED!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 2,058 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 29 comments | 1,351 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 1 comment | 938 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 755 views