tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1677108722778516534.post3501470614235440754..comments2023-09-27T03:58:56.646-06:00Comments on Bessemer Opinions: Prop 8 Update UpdateJoehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10842576168520693461noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1677108722778516534.post-11828210138092804062009-05-27T18:48:22.863-06:002009-05-27T18:48:22.863-06:00OMG, to put this so delicate of an issue before th...OMG, to put this so delicate of an issue before the same U.S. Supreme Court that involved itself in a purely political state's rights issue as how the votes should be counted in the 2000 election in the one state of Florida...?!!!?!!! No, nada, not now for sure! As someone who has some small education in the history of Constitutional law, then NEVER in the history of our nation, with the possible exception of the Watergate tapes (an 8-0 decision in favor of the public, in spite of past decisions)has the Supreme Court considered hearing any state's law(s) on marriage. Even today the laws of many states in regards to, "marriage," would defy logic. Only when the Massachusetts' Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriage did that state's other, numerous "discriminatory," regulations related to marriage also go by the wayside. The issue of, "privacy," and its relation to same-sex relationships did however get struck-down by the Supreme Court in cases that involved Texas and Georgia. Those two(2) cases however came under the assumption that the U.S. Constitution does not allow for an invasion of privacy. This was also the very same reason that Roe vs. Wade was decided as it was. Nevertheless, to assume that the, "right to privacy," will include any state's, "right," to define or regulate marriage, then it will most likely fail. I do not know what the constitution of California allowed prior to the amendment that nullified same-sex marriage; but, one would think that now it most certainly prohibits future same-sex marriages. I do not believe that every political/legal issue should be subject to a, "majority," vote of the public. Nor do I believe or agree with any state that prohibits rights granted to some but denied to others. I'm just not sure that I want THIS court to decide what could eventually become Federal law, over-which no state could have precedence.Bhamdanielnoreply@blogger.com