122 replies to this topic

[luvtoteachlaw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by starchild Luvtoteachlaw, thanks for the detailed info. Is it possible that CA may set a precedent by successfully correlating this issue to a 1st Amendment violation? (not holding my breath, just wondering)

No problem. Most of the time the process of how something is done is almost as important what is being done when it comes to the law.

I have never seen any First Amendment implication with respect to gay marriage. First Amendment generally deals with freedom of speech (which includes freedom of expression, like flag burning), freedom of press, and freedom of religion. None of those issues are generally present in this situation.

The constitutional issues raised in this case are usually due process and equal protection of the law (14th Amendment). The best legal argument here, in my opinion, is that when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Loving vs.Virginia (a case where a VA state law prohibited interracial marriages), they struck down the state law based on the idea that there is a fundamental right to marry across racial lines. The recognition of this fundamental right to marry could be expanded to include marriage between same sex couples. The Court has to be careful, however, because it is not a good idea to have a rule that anyone should be able to marry anyone they so choose. You can't have people marrying their relatives or adults marrying children or people engaging in polygamy.

[starchild]

Very interesting, thanks. We'll see what happens with this!

[rodent]

OK, just wanted to make sure people weren't laughing at the chicken prop. it was pretty important, too. If I got to be the decider for one prop, of course I'd pick prop 8. but, it doesn't take away from the fact that prop 2 passing was great.