It starts tomorrow, a landmark decision in the making

[Miles]

Starting tomorrow, Monday, Jan. 11, 2010, a District Supreme Court will decide to hear arguments for overturning California's Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman. As WorldNetDaily says,

• "A victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the case could set a precedent for federal courts to overturn every law and amendment in the country currently protecting the traditional definition of marriage."

Just slightly less important to WND and its Right wing followers is the fact that the court is even willing to hear the case, because as they (ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum, anyway) see it,

• "This case is as much about whether our government is of, by, and for the people as it is about marriage, . . . Just imagine how it would change our democracy if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists."
  
  "In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make social policy choices through the democratic process. . . . If a handful of activists can void a constitutional amendment adopted by 7 million Californians, we have forfeited the very core of the American democratic system – especially in this case, where the people of California affirmed something that predates America itself."
  
  source

So, whatcha think. Is the Federal Court wrong to consider to arguments seeking to overturn a State Constitutional amendment voted in by its citizens. and in particular, this one?

Oh yes, if you can, be sure to watch history being made on Youtube.com when the "televised" proceedings begin tomorrow.

[faith]

How and why would it matter? As Christ said, render unto God what is Gods and unto.....

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a peice of paper or a legal definition but a God given right and definition. It won't change anything if men and women are allowed to say they are married to a partner of the same sex.
Because truth does not change because of a law.

Love Faith.xx

[Miles]

How and why would it matter? As Christ said, render unto God what is Gods and unto.....

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a peice of paper or a legal definition but a God given right and definition. It won't change anything if men and women are allowed to say they are married to a partner of the same sex.
Because truth does not change because of a law.

Love Faith.xx

How it would matter is that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry in California, and then possibly all 50 states. Why it would matter is that they could avail themselves of all the benefits now exclusive to heterosexual marrieds.

[JoeyKnothead]

As long as some dude ain't asking me to get married, I don't care who marries who.

I hope the court overturns a clearly discriminatory law. If the majority can inflict tyranny over the minority, we're all in trouble.

(edit for clarity)

[Nilloc James]

The moment a majority can repress a minority something has failed.

The best answer here: What would Jesus do?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2:

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a peice of paper or a legal definition but a God given right and definition.

Not when the government gets involved and allows privileges to one group it denies to another.

It won't change anything if men and women are allowed to say they are married to a partner of the same sex.
Because truth does not change because of a law.

Can you show you speak truth above where you declare a god has defined what is marriage?

[cnorman18]

Starting tomorrow, Monday, Jan. 11, 2010, a District Supreme Court will decide to hear arguments for overturning California's Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman. As WorldNetDaily says,

• "A victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the case could set a precedent for federal courts to overturn every law and amendment in the country currently protecting the traditional definition of marriage."

Just slightly less important to WND and its Right wing followers is the fact that the court is even willing to hear the case, because as they (ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum, anyway) see it,

• "This case is as much about whether our government is of, by, and for the people as it is about marriage, . . . Just imagine how it would change our democracy if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists."
  
  "In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make social policy choices through the democratic process. . . . If a handful of activists can void a constitutional amendment adopted by 7 million Californians, we have forfeited the very core of the American democratic system – especially in this case, where the people of California affirmed something that predates America itself."
  
  source

So, whatcha think. Is the Federal Court wrong to consider to arguments seeking to overturn a State Constitutional amendment voted in by its citizens. and in particular, this one?

Wrong to consider it? No. That's the job of the Judicial Branch. If "the people" passed an amendment reinstituting slavery, it would be examined by the Court and overturned - and rightly so.

Would the Court be wrong to overturn the Amendment? That would depend on the reasoning behind the decision. If the Court finds that the Amendment is in conflict with the Constitution, which it certainly could, that would be the correct decision.

The fact which makes this argument moot is that the Court gets to decide. If this District Court decision is appealed to the US Supreme Court, the decision of the Supremes will be final. There is no appeal from that decision; and I suspect that if an amendment to the United States Constitution were passed and ratified - fat chance - then that would be overturned too.

[ChaosBorders]

There is no appeal from that decision; and I suspect that if an amendment to the United States Constitution were passed and ratified - fat chance - then that would be overturned too.

A state law/amendment can be overturned because the constitution supersedes it, so if it is found to be in conflict with the constitution, then the constitution takes precedence. But if an amendment to the United States Constitution is passed and ratified, it is no longer in conflict with the constitution because it is part of the constitution. Pretty sure at that point the Supreme Court can't overturn it. (In fact, they'd theoretically have to uphold it against any laws trying to violate it.)

Fortunately, I don't think the odds are very good that the U.S. as a whole would ever pass such an amendment.

[Lux]

No, the Federal Court is not wrong to hear the arguments against this particular amendment. Majority or no majority, the amendment is discriminatory.

[faith]

How and why would it matter? As Christ said, render unto God what is Gods and unto.....

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a peice of paper or a legal definition but a God given right and definition. It won't change anything if men and women are allowed to say they are married to a partner of the same sex.
Because truth does not change because of a law.

Love Faith.xx

How it would matter is that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry in California, and then possibly all 50 states. Why it would matter is that they could avail themselves of all the benefits now exclusive to heterosexual marrieds.

Hi Miles,

I was referring to the faith side of the reason for marriage...
So it would not matter about same sex marriage.
I am not against them having the same rights for their possessions.
I don't know anyone who would be.

Faith. xx