For those of you who do not know, before Prop. 8 was narrowly passed, the California court had already held that same-sex marriages must me allowed for, and legally recognized.
The 3 cases that the court has agreed to hear rightfully claim that the ban, which passed on election day, took away constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of a minority group.
Essentially the logic here is that the slim victory for those wishing to ban equal marriage rights does not hold water because: Majority vote does not equate to Constitutionality.
All three cases claim the measure takes away the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group.
Essentially, those bringing suit are rightfully stating that voters alone cannot enact such a ban because it is facially unconstitutional.
For those of you who do not know:
- The Court did not have to hear any of these cases.
- The Court chooses to hear cases that they deem to be important.
- The Court had already previously declared same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional.
MY LOGIC-BASED PREDICTION: The California Supreme Court will overturn Proposition 8, thus re-granting equal rights to same-sex couple's wishing to receive the same 1,200 rights enjoyed by persons who are heterosexual. Rights that come with the contractually based agreement that is called marriage (figure represents state and federal rights combined, varies slightly by state).
Religious people claim that they MUST ban same-sex marriage, but they cannot give any valid reasons as to why this should be.
I will give a reader $100 if they can present to me a constitutionally sound, logic-based argument for banning same-sex marriage.
Hint: There isn't one.
1 comment:
Gay is not the new Black. This saying however is the new Gay Abomination.
Post a Comment