Arizona's Gay Marriage Ban Likely to be Struck Down (appointed, law)

[Ponderosa]

The 9th Circuit ruled today that California's Prop 8 is unconstitutional. AZ's ban is virtually identical to CA's. Since AZ is in the 9th Circuit, the ruling applies to AZ as well and once a suit is filed, judges will have to strike it down. I would think a suit would be filed very, very soon.

[azdr0710]

it'll probably head to the SCOTUS, if they decide to hear it....the US Constitution mentions nothing at all about "marriage", so they may leave it to the states to decide the issue....which means the existing AZ and CA Props will stand???.....don't know....it's not over, though....

[Tiecuando]

I hope it is overturned.

[Valley Native]

I never was in favor of "protecting" traditional marriage ... it does not need protection. Marriage is a commitment between two individuals. The state & the feds do not need to be involved in personal commitments. If people want so desperately to protect marriage, they need to protect their OWN marriages ... not pass silly laws and call for more government interference.

But with that said, regardless of anyone's personal views on this subject, it still should be left to the will of the people. The voters approved the ban on same sex marriage in 2008, and the voters should always have the final say. Why even bother to vote if some arrogant judge or legislative body is going to overrule what the majority of the public says?!

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

But with that said, regardless of anyone's personal views on this subject, it still should be left to the will of the people. The voters approved the ban on same sex marriage in 2008, and the voters should always have the final say. Why even bother to vote if some arrogant judge or legislative body is going to overrule what the majority of the public says?!

My sentiments exactly.

[saffordpastor]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I never was in favor of "protecting" traditional marriage ... it does not need protection. Marriage is a commitment between two individuals. The state & the feds do not need to be involved in personal commitments. If people want so desperately to protect marriage, they need to protect their OWN marriages ... not pass silly laws and call for more government interference.

But with that said, regardless of anyone's personal views on this subject, it still should be left to the will of the people. The voters approved the ban on same sex marriage in 2008, and the voters should always have the final say. Why even bother to vote if some arrogant judge or legislative body is going to overrule what the majority of the public says?!

I am definitely against Gay marriage...however in our system the voters have a final say by their vote...we elect our Representatives to represent us...if they do not we throw them out...same with the Executive branch...and they appoint the Judicial branch.
It is my opinion that using propositions to govern is short circuiting the way this Constitutional Representative Republic was set up.

If the Supreme court strikes down a proposition....that is because they are doing their job....they are not just overruling the majority they are doing what they are placed their in office to do.

Now if the American people dont like the way they do it then it is our duty to replace them.

Even though I don't like Gay Marriage...and despise the 9th Circuit court...they are duly appointed judges and have a right to do what they did.

I would like to see a shakeup of the court but that will not happen unless the American people get enough of it and vote folks in that will appoint better judges.

The Proposition system is democracy......and we are NOT a democracy....true democracy is a recipe for tyranny by the majority.

[jimj]

The 9th circuit is the most reversed court in the country mainly because it's filled with activist judges that try to legislate from the bench. It's my understanding that the law they applied to strike down CA prop 8 was so vague it was a given.
My guess is prop 8 will stand after SCOTUS kicks it back.
Personally I subscribe to the idea that the 9th needs to be broken up.

[Ponderosa]

If it were up to voters we would still have slavery. Voters should never have the final say over civil liberty and human rights. We have courts to avoid the tyranny of majority rule. The legal basis for denying gay unions is thin. The courts keep ruling, as is the case in this decision, that there is no public purpose in banning gay marriage - it is a religious argument at best. It's pretty hard to defend discrimination on the basis of religious objection under our constitution. I think the SCOTUS will have to agree. For now though, it will take only a law suit to bring the issue back in AZ.

[Boompa]

Since both Arizona and California are in the 9th Cicuit, Californias ban on Same sex marriage will be struck down for the same reason Californias ban on inter racial marriage was struck down. The Supreme Court decided that States could not set the criteria for two adults marrying

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

If it were up to voters we would still have slavery. Voters should never have the final say over civil liberty and human rights. We have courts to avoid the tyranny of majority rule. The legal basis for denying gay unions is thin. The courts keep ruling, as is the case in this decision, that there is no public purpose in banning gay marriage - it is a religious argument at best. It's pretty hard to defend discrimination on the basis of religious objection under our constitution. I think the SCOTUS will have to agree. For now though, it will take only a law suit to bring the issue back in AZ.

First of all, the notion that we would still have slavery if left up to the voters is asinine. When the majority of the people have had enough of something, they will rightfully overturn it with their votes. Arizona wouldn't have the MLK day if not for voters having the final say. Steel jaw traps and cockfighting would still be legal in this state if not for the voters outlawing them. And do you think the current Legislature would even remotely approve the legalization of medicinal marijuana? The voters did two years ago. Those are just a few of many examples of why the final decision should always rest with voters, and no legislative or judicial involvement after that.

I don't personally favor same sex marriage, but I don't think we need to protect something that married couples could easily protect themselves. Even so, the majority of the voters obviously believed that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman, so that's how they voted, and that's why we have the law. Power to the people prevails.