Gay marriage ban is against constitution, says California Attorney General

Yeah, that's basically what we've been saying since the motion passed. Based on how our Constitution is set up, you can not amend to take away rights, only to expand rights, unless there is a widespread justification for doing so. For example in the 1920's, the right to buy alcohol was taken away via amendment because women made the case that their husbands were squandering their money on it and were becoming abusive. A decade later, that argument was repealed. Same thing here. Since there is no compelling evidence that allowing gay marriage is harming the masses in any way, the amendment process cannot be used to defeat it.

 

I have not read the article, but I am of the firm opinion that it violates the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. If only we had a court with the balls to actually hear the case and rule on it. It seems like the Supreme court is doing everything it can to keep from hearing a gay marriage case.

 

Now I read the article. This line stands out.

This really shows just how ignorant these folks are. They have absolutely no idea how our government works. If the Judicial branch was to bow to the whims of the people on everything it would completely undermine the checks and balances built into our system.

They also have no concept of the tyranny of the majority. Sigh.... I don't know what to say, I'm at a loss for words.

 

The big difference with prohibition is that it applied to everyone, so it did not violate equal protection. Laws must equally protect everyone unless it serves a legitimate government interest to do otherwise. Really the debate here is not about rights but protections. There is a set of protections that go along with marriage. There is protection from taxes, you can not be forced to testify against your spouse, the right to make medical decisions is protected, and there are many others. With the current marriage laws a subset of couple are denied these protections.. I have yet to find a find anything that remotely serves a government interest in denying these protections.

So I'm against these laws not because I am gay, but because I am an American and our government is violating the law.

 

That's exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent; tyranny of the majority. That's why judges can't bow to these people.

 

I know, I was just trying to draw an example of not being able to amend to take away rights without a lot of evidence cause the original poster said she wasn't sure how the courts and things work here.

 

Gotcha, I tend to geek out on stuff like this.

 

...for liberty and justice for all...

 

It's all good, I'm sure there's a better example but that's all that came to my mind at the time.

 

Yes however all is defined as: straight, rich, white, Christian men.

 

and i'm hoping that that will eventually change.
i'm hoping that obama would bring a change

 

"For All" as you said, only applies to the majority. If you are the majority, its not in your best interest to help the minority and that is why America advances slower than most other countries when it comes to human rights and equality. Its a dog eat dog country when compared to other places, such as socialist Netherlands or Sweden who enjoy many social services and rights Americans dont. I HEART socialism! Good thing im dutch, i want to move back to The Hauge with my aunts