Obama administration joins fight to overturn Prop. 8 same-sex marriage ban that voters approved State, National, International, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Mar 1, 2013 at 9:19 am
The Obama Administration called on the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to overturn California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, saying that it violates gays' and lesbians' right to equal treatment.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, March 1, 2013, 7:43 AM
Posted by Chemist, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 9:19 am
The Obama administration does not believe that there are any rights that belong to the states or local communities. The Constitution says that anything not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government does not fall under their jurisdiction. Whether you support Prop 8 or not, it is time for states and local governments to stand up for THEIR RIGHTS. It is time for Pleasanton to stop taking orders from outside of Pleasanton; whether the orders come from ABAG or Obama.
Posted by Citizen, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 10:02 am
This POTUS is the most dangerous enemy of our Country. We voted in a way that he doesn't like so he will try to change that with his kangaroo court. BO has done more than any one person in history to divide our community and turn our Country into a socialist state. How far do we let him go before we take our Country back?
Posted by Jaclyn M., a member of the Pleasanton Middle School community, on Mar 1, 2013 at 10:22 am
Like it or not, same sex marriage will eventually become legal. The precedents that are cited as far as women's rights and civil rights draw too much of a correlation to what the same sex marriage folks are crying about.
If you ask me it IS discriminatory and unfair in the grand scheme of things. Being totally honest though I do disagree with the concept and principal of a union between same sex individuals as it does go against by beliefs but that is where it ends. Beliefs are just that, personally held moral or ethical notions of what we hold true, not what society or the law of the land or what the Constitution of the United States deems to be what is right, fair and Constitutionally protected.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
Posted by George Wallace, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 11:13 am
Without all this socialist intervention and ripping our states rights from us, there'd still be states that we could travel to to buy a slave or two. By the same token, some states could have remained predominantly white, enforcing their own segregated policies and allowing all shopkeepers and restauranteurs to serve only white folks. Ah, those were the days....
And now we're expected to give gay people equal rights? Alas, next they'll be sending us to Maoist re-education camps.
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Mar 1, 2013 at 12:33 pm
It's about time. All Americans have a right to pursue their dreams and if it means members of the same sex choosing to marry one another, then who are you to say no?
LGBT citizens pay taxes and serve their country in the US military. I would say that citizenship means various benefits for all Americans, not a select few. If you can't live with that, then go back to where your ancestors came from.
Posted by liberalism is a disease, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 4:10 pm liberalism is a disease is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Speaking strictly from a lawyers perspective, I can't wait to make some money off the fools that think marrying someone of their same gender makes them equal. The one thing they will have in common is their ability to get divorced once they figure out they are not compatible. Bring it on.......
Posted by Dave, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Mar 1, 2013 at 10:00 pm
With all the emphasis on gay marriages, perhaps one should start to question why polygamy is still illegal and is not facing the same pressures to become mainstream. Polygamy is still secretly practiced in Utah and its neighboring states. In fact, it's estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 polygamists live in that region.
Polygamy is practiced today, typically, by members of splinter groups that broke off from the LDS Church. The so-called "fundamentalist" Mormons have long sought to have polygamy decriminalized. In fact, in July of 2011, a lawsuit was filed in Salt Lake City that asks for polygamy between consenting adults not to be considered a crime, challenging Utah's ban on plural marriages. It's even possible that state's law could end up being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even Utah's attorney general was moved by the filing to suggest that the United States may be in for a broader discussion about polygamy along the lines of the state-by-state debate over same-sex marriage.
So why arenít the same people that push for gay marriages equally concerned about truly making all people equal?
Posted by Guest, a resident of another community, on Mar 2, 2013 at 10:01 am
Dave the number of LGBT people that COULD get married if it were legal would far out weigh the number of men who want to marry more than one woman. Secondly that is Utah...last time I checked we're still the state of California. We're not a Mormon state.
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore, on Mar 2, 2013 at 10:02 am
I think folks that wanna be married should have renewable contracts. Every 3 yrs. couples can renew their marriage license. The state can then tax the couples and use the funds to help children and and the elderly receive improved medical care.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Mar 2, 2013 at 10:40 am
[removed] SSM is not fundamentally a states rights issue, it's an issue of individual liberty -- using the Constitution to ensure that governments treat those persons similarly situated with at least minimum decency and consistency.
The Constitution provides protection to individuals against incursions on their RIGHTS, fomented by over-reaching governments at ANY level. Here, the 14th Amendment Equal Protection argument goes that the government (here CA, per Prop 8) has violated the RIGHTS of gay people to be treated equally under its laws.
So, the Obama Administration, by siding with that argument, is promoting the RIGHTS of a significant minority of the US population, not to be oppressed by their government. They are saying, sensibly, that everyone should be FREE to marry the person of their choice. More FREE than they are today. Note that they are doing the exact same thing with regard to DOMA, which is a federal law. If they were worried about consolidating power at the federal level, they would not oppose DOMA.
If, in fact, you are worried about the loss of RIGHTS in our culture, you should applaud the President's action. It is pro-individual rights. If there's something else driving your anti-Obama agenda, kindly acknowledge it.
Posted by Parser Tongue, a resident of another community, on Mar 2, 2013 at 12:34 pm
I think the phrasing of the headline is interesting and suggests the politics of its writer, as it goes more than halfway toward making an argument in favor of Prop 8. Otherwise, what purpose does the language "that voters approved" serve?
Every law, regardless of whether it was enacted by the legislature or by referendum, Must be consistent with the principles set forth in the US Constitution. For example, if the people (or the legislature) decided to make some denomination the Official Religion of the State of California, it would be tested by (and run afoul of) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The will of the majority is important, but it does not trump the Bill of Rights (or the later Amendments)!
The argument being made here is that Prop 8, however it was enacted, violates the Constitution's provision for Equal Protection of the law, by defining marriage in a way that a significant minority of the population may not marry the person of their choosing. The Prop 8 partisans will have to prove that some legitimate state interest is promoted thereby -- either that it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose, or, more correctly here, that a "compelling state interest" is served by the exclusion of same-sex couples from this fundamental right.
But either way, HOW the Prop came to be law -- by the people's reps or the people directly -- is of very little consequence. So the inclusion of that final phrase is curious, indeed.