Is it possible to go to the US Supreme Court to argue a state constitution is unconstitutional?

This election will go down in history as one of the GREATS along with FDR and JFK’s elections…all that was fought for in the ’60′s etc. has come to fruition.
The huge downside of this election was the votes against homosexual marriage in the states that were mentioned above. If affects one of my friends in Florida. She and her partner were married in Vermont a few years ago. I’m so disappointed in the people that not only “banned” homosexual marriage but one state also won’t allow homosexuals to adopt. Good for Mass. and Michigan and their MJ laws and also Washington state for their end of life decision. Good moves on their part.
And the voters in SD used their brains on their abortion decision.

Yes, incredibly good news on the national offices. And did you notice that in his list of great challenges we face, “a planet in peril” was second. I think he really gets global warming!
Proposition 8 will last a very few years and then voters will reject it. We really are getting smarter and more liberal.
And good news on the abortion front! Yesterday was a very good day. But unfortunately not perfect.

The words of the late, great Mo Udall come to mind: “The voters have spoken…the bastards!”
Prop 102, AZ’s anti gay marriage admendment, also passed. I attended a meeting today where those assembled vowed to bring the issue up again in two years and again and again, if necessary. The general feeling was “We have enough people on our side to make this a ballot issue every two yaars (AZ has initiatives). Let the religious bigots bankrupt themselves fighting this every election cycle.” The right of marriage for gays and lesbians will eventuallly be a reality, even in Arizona. Keep hope alive.

Yes, having pres elect Obama is a great thing!
The outcome of prop 8 in CA is unfortunate. To respond to rmcq…yes, the issue will eventually go to the US Supreme Court….however, it would be best if it waited until after there have been a couple of changes in the justice.
Prop 8 will not last in CA…there are already at least 3 lawsuits about to be filed challenging prop 8.
Here in CT, our Supreme Court just ruled last month….that we must have same-gender marriage. The prejudice-supportive people mounted an effort to get the voters to approve a constitutional convention in hopes they could get direct initiatives (as exist in CA) into our constitution and then amend our constitution to outlaw marriage equality. Just as happened in CA. 60% of our voters voted “no”…thus derailing the attempt to outlaw marriage equality.
So, we now have marriage equality in MA and CT…..as well as CA for a short time….and, NY as long as the marriage is performed elsewhere.
I have little doubt that NY and NJ will both have same-gender marriage within a couple of years.
Peace!

News of LATimes.com: With more than 96% of precincts reporting in CA, the measure leads by a margin of 52% to 48%, prompting the Times to call the race. Opponents of the measue have not yet conceded defeat. All ballots have not been counted and they could continue through the night and in to tomorrow, according to SF Chronicle.
A legal challenge has already been filed in the Supreme Court of CA. A proponent for Gay marriage, said if voters were to approve an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not for men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our Constitution. Prop 8 suffers from the same flaw. It remeoves a protected constitutional right–the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of Californians.

The prop. to help ALL farm animals was passed, not just for chickens. The Humane Society should be commended for this. Not just farm animals, but all animals being grown for human consumption.
Prop 4 did not pass. It being families having to be informed of abortions for underage girls. At least they will be protected against being beaten up by family members and boyfriends. The right education in schools should be started as they have in England, so a lot of this won’t happen.

There was an scent of “Yes we can, but you can’t” as the results of both the election and the various referenda were announced. Florida voters also approved a marriage denial provision in our constitution. I expect that the wording of this article will become a problem in that it also effects (unintentionally) any unmarried adults who seek to support and care for each other. It is a blind and heartless attempt at controlling people’s lives unduely.
But Obama won. there is some hope. The words froma Wizard of Oz song keep roiling through my mind,
“You’re out of the woods You’re out of the dark You’re out of the night Step into the sun, step into the light
Keep straight ahead For the most glorious place On the Face of the Earth Or the sky
Hold onto your breath Hold onto your heart Hold onto your hope
March up to the gate And bid it open.”
My prayer and hope is that we find ways to open the gates for EVERYONE, and not just some.

Marriage is actually for one man and one woman and the people have spoken.

The issue of SS marriage is on the right side of history and we’ll continue the journey for equal rights and Human Injustices with President Obama in January of 2009. The issue is not one of religion, it is one of the rights of every American under our Constitution.

Yes,”the people have spoken”. It is unfortunate that those that have “spoken” feel it is their business to discriminate on the basis (mostly) of a religious conviction. Not everyone interprets or believes in the same thing. Why shoud religion have anything to do with a legal situation?

ck,
I knew what you would say before you said it. Are we not both predicatable? Nonetheless, I believe the FL vote has cut out far mor epeople than they intended. And why should one group enjoy more rights than another. It invalidates the unity of the Constitution and the intents of our ancestors. Granted they probably never envisioned an issue like marriage for all people. But this marriage denial movement (it does nothing to preserve marriage – hence the busy divorce courts) is but one of many changes they could not have anticipated in particular.

jestrfyl, it seems the politicians who wrote that insane proposition that passed, acted like most politicians …didn’t think of all the people that would be denyed rights, only of the ones that they wanted to be denyed (gays and lesbians). Don’t you just love “democracy” when it comes to this kind of thing?

Prop 8 uses California’s state constitution to deny a right (to get married) to a smallish subset of the population. One thing the federal constitution is for is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. That’s something people in the majority often don’t appreciate unless they are wise enough to realize how easily they could be in the minority (cknuck, e.g., atheists e.g., Jews e.g., Mormons e.g., on and on).
I’m no lawyer but I hope a court can use that or something else to invalidate 8.

According to some of the websites I’ve read, the margin of victory effectively came from the unprecedented turn out of African Americans to support Obama. As a group, they are much more against gay marriage than other populations in California, and had they voted in numbers in line with historical trends, then Prop 8 would have failed. Since it’s ridiculously easy to get Props on the ballot in California, they should force the religious bigots to bankrupt themselves fighting equality, like Sinsonte said, until there’s not a Mormon with a penny left. Why not put a measure to overturn Prop 8 on the midterm election ballot, when fewer voters, particularly among African-Americans, are expected to turn out? It seems it’d be much more likely to pass. (Then, the haters, can put Prop 8 back on the ballot in 2012 and yank marriage away again.)
It just shows the stupidity of letting civil rights issues be determined by the ballot box. Alabama just got enlightened enough to remove it’s anti-miscegenation clause from it’s constitution a few years ago. Thank God for the judicial activists on the Supreme Court who rendered it meaningless decades ago.

Well, they gave us a Jim Crowe law–Gay people can thank them later. The intolerant religious right refused to allow a civil unions compromise or encourage it, instead they forced the issue, won a minor temporary victory. I was for civil unions with the same rights, instead of traditional marriages that Churches will soon be forced to perform, when the discrimination is invalidated by the high court.
Now, the issue will go the the United States Supreme Court. This is no more a states rights issue than was segregation, racism, hate crimes, freedom of religion, educational equality, etc.
Mr. Sulu, you are wealthy, put your money where your mouth is and take it to the Supreme Court–put up or shut up…..”make it so.”

Do we know how the Court would go? Obviously, Scalia and Thomas would go against us, and almost certainly Alito. It’s hard to say about Roberts, he’s a W appointee but he’s done pro bono work for gay rights before. Kennedy consistently comes down on our side; I think he knows where history is going and wants to be on the right side, but he is still a fairly conservative justice. Souter, Stephens, Ginsburg and Breyer are supposed to be the liberals so I guess they’re on our side but I don’t know enough about them individually to be sure how they’d go. Assuming they’re pro-equality, that’d be 5-4, or 6-3, depending on Roberts.
The last thing we want is a precedent against us, that would set us back decades. We’d basically have to wait until my grandparents’ generation dies off, and possibly the boomers, if we had to wait for the electorate to evolve on this issue. We can’t stake it on whether or not Kennedy’s drawers are riding up his crack the day he makes his decision.

very interesting

You’re right nnmns, and a lawyer for the pending law suits against prop8 by some gay people is using it, along with more. He pointed out that it has become more than an attempt to block a minority group, by the tyranny of a majority, that incidently was financed by other large groups outside CA, mormon temple people included; it’s more than SS marriage it has turned into a fight for equality that our government protects its citizens with in our constitutions in states, as well as our country. An ammendment can’t do what they all paid for. It’s time for every state to be told by The Supreme Court of our land what other minorities have attained in civil rights is relevent to the GLBT, too.

I am so happy we live in a country where we can vote on issues its a blessing.

Yes, it is a blessing that we can vote in this country, period, cknuck.
But when that vote takes away the rights from a particular group of people, then that isn’t equality.

cknuck, At one time a black person couldn’t marry a white person. It took a LONG time for that to leave the books in some places…Is that wrong too? That was deemed “wrong” by a lot of folks who called themselves Christians. As for man never having the right to marry another man or woman to woman…that is not the opinion of everyone, anymore than the old debate over interacial marriage. Some religions discourage marrying out of a religion..Jew to Catholic (which happens a lot)but it happens and all is well. I know it is hard for some to accept, but there really is no reason that the same rights given to same gender relationships as to heterosexual ones. It’s hard to let go of the old Bible thing, but that book can cause more harm than good. It has caused a lot of pain for a lot of people.
Group marriage is still practiced in some countries…so that is legitimate in fact, depending on the country, just not this one. Besides any man who would want to support several wives would need a bunch of money!! In fact, there are some places in this country where folks are living in multiple wife marriages. No one is bothering them. Not the cult FLDS situations.

correction: sorry folks…I forgot to finish sentence…
“I know it is hard for some to accept, but there really is no reason that the same rights given to same gender relationships as to heterosexual ones can’t happen.”

Two adults making a commitment to eachother. Every adult, regardless of gender has that right and it should be recognized by the state.

pagan the interracial card proves nothing concerning same sex because it is tow different things. One is one man one woman, the other is something else

IMO, cknuck, I don’t see a difference.

pagan that’s sad but totally understandable.

Not sad really, cknuck, just the way I see things. )

Thank goodness the good people of California recognized that there is no need for “same sex” marriage. They understood quite well that the purpose of marriage was for procreation and the raising of children. Since same sex roommates cannot procreate they are not eligible for this institution. If there are children in this “relationship” then the Florida Supreme Court (Daniello v Florida) deems it a substandard relationship. Homosexual activists call this a “ban”?! Nosiree it is setting the court STR8 on how things work in this world.

Don should all couples who aren’t able to have children have you knocking at their door with a petition from the government to immediately pack their clothes, sell their home and start hunting for people that they can procreate with? What about love and devotion, you have heard of these words haven’t you in Florida?

Don says,”….purpose of marriage was for procreation and the raising of children. Since same sex roommates cannot procreate they are not elegible for this institution.”
That is such a close minded definition of marriage.
And I guess all heterosexual couples who choose not to have children or can’t have children for some reason are really NOT married. right?
After all it is only for “procreation.”
Guess the fact that preventing 2 adults, who happen to be of the same gender and wish to get married, are not being treated equally as guaranteed by our “forefathers and foremothers” isn’t a problem. That “institution” should be open to all adults. Heterosexuals don’t “own” it, and soon the sooner some of those heterosexual realize it, the better off this world will be. Some just need to get their heads out of the sand…or wherever, and the sooner the better.

Right on Don the truth at last. In the midst of all of these lies about marriage it is refreshing to see someone with the guts enough to tell the truth.

Not sad really . It is right on Don the truth at last. In the midst of all of these lies about marriage it is refreshing to see someone with the guts enough to tell the truth. Overall it is a great post. I really appreciate it……
===================================================
SHELLY KANE
real estate