Tag Archive: Prop. 8

Hi all,

According to this story posted on yahoo and written by the associated press, stated that U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips (in federal court) struck down the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy signed into law by Ex-president Bill Clinton in early 1990’s.  And it is a current debate with current President Barack Obama who made a promise to repeal it (which is yet to be seen).

According to the article, it was struck down because it violated the 1st and 5th amendments.

You can read the Bill of Rights here, but to state the 1st and 5th amendments:

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

5th: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now if you read my previous blog posting on prop. 8 in California you will see how I feel 5th amendment applies to the repealing of prop. 8.  But let us apply it to DADT.  Now unlike gay marriage with previous case law such as straight and interracial couples, there is not previous rulings that would guide this decision one way or another, that I know of.  But just like repealing prop. 8 it does violate the part about not being deprived of life liberty or property with due process of law.  Because gay are deprived of the life and liberty of serving in the military while being openly gay.  To some gays just like straights, to them the military may be their life and would want a career in the military.  Due proess is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law (from wikipedia) and this part of the 5th amendment of the constitution is violated by DADT.  It is because that this principle of law is that gays serving in the military is that all legal rights are owed to every person because serving in the military is not being afforded to people who are gay (bi, lesbian, etc.).  Therefore DADT, is unconstitutional.  According to the ruling, the 1st amendment is violated by DADT.  I can reasonably see the part about “….to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  I feel that that this is violated because supporters of gay rights that the government was never really readdressed this grievance against again an entire group of people who are just wanting to serve their country.

On different but somewhat practical note the article suggests that this is a threat towards national security.  Reason being that (especially) in a time of war and with our military being somewhat depleted with being in 2 wars that the military shouldn’t be picky of whom they let into the military.

I feel that DADT should be struck down for all the reasons that were stated above and that the military of all places because any person should be able to serve in the military of the country they love so dearly.  It should be struck down and not be in effect any longer.


Pages looked at:





Hi all,

This is going to be a challenging and something that we do not normally think about.  Heck,  the truth that lies in this blog is definitely contrary to what we think of the first amendment in the sense of religion.  Now I am not arguing that there should be only one religion practice or that there should be an official religion in America.  To quote the first amendment from wikipedia says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.  Also, not stated specifically, the framers of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights desired that there should be a separation of church (meaning any religion) and state (government) which should be observed and practiced at all times.  But here is something to think about as I get into this blog entry:  Does our currency (bills and coins) say “IN GOD WE TRUST”?  Is that same phrase in our courtrooms above the judge or else where in the courtrooms?  Did we at some point swear on the bible in court?  More likely than not, does a president at the end of their state of union address say “God bless America”?

I bet your wondering why Steve thinks that there is a relationship between government/politicians and religion.  Although in this mid term elections, the economy, the job market, health care, etc. will have a HUGE impact on the election.  But religion may be the big issue.  According to this fox news online article, it throws out 3 different subjects that have high religion based roots tied into the issues that was brought into the realm of government (though the bulk of the article focus’s on the first listed issue).  They are:

1. The ground zero Mosque

2. Gay Marriage

3. The President’s religion

The 1st issue stems from the president’s remarks as he was speaking to a Muslim audience around the time of the high holy month of Ramadan in the Muslim religion.  Though he did not specifically say “I support the mosque being built there” he pretty much gave the OK in not so may words in a vague way by saying as long as it complied with the law.  He later flip-flopped saying that he’s “not questioning the wisdom of the law”.  After this, politicians came out with their views for or against (mainly against).  Going back to the first amendment, where as we defined that congress should not endorse and get involved with religion (or against religion either), this seems to be popularizing the concept of condemning the religion of Islam.  Think about it, there has been a widespread suspicion of Muslims in America because of 9/11 (WHICH DONE BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WHO HATE AMERICA FROM THE MIDDLE EAST) and does not describe the moderate American Muslims in the United States. This brings about the sediment that the government is anti-Muslim and in President Obama’s position in the government in the Executive branch of government as Pro-Muslim (endorsement).  I feel with this stance regardless of the position of the politician, this should not be in the government spotlight or the focus of it’s attention.

The next issue is on Gay Marriage.  How does gay marriage involve religion you may ask?  Let me first say that there are many religious or non religious people (in any religion) as well as non theists and agnostics may support or not support gay rights/marriage as their conscious takes them.  But we will focus on Prop. 8 in California for the argument of this section.  The thing of it is that the MORMON CHURCH were the primary group who funded the proposition.  Now unlike the government involving itself in religion.  This time it is religion is forcing at least one of it’s beliefs onto the government.  One of the view points that the Mormon Church (not that, I feel, all Mormons believe this) that it [gay marriage] is immoral and that the government should uphold it’s right to its belief (as if looking for legal validation which is ridicules).  Many people, though not all, who identify as conservatives or religious people agree with this proposition which was passed by voters, overturned, and currently being appealed.  Much of the money in support of prop. 8 came from the Mormon church.  Now it is not illegal for the church to spend the money where it wants, but to use it to support it’s involvement into government to pass certain laws and proposition is unconstitutional by the first amendment as well as being immoral to repress a group of people that may even be Mormon’s themselves.

Now for the 3rd point about the President’s religion.  Regardless of what you think, he is in fact Christian.  As much as politicians lie, and they do, I do feel that they would not lie about something as personal as their religion.  In fact, if I’m not mistaken, that all our presidents that were elected were some denomination of Christianity.  Now I am not saying that it is unconstitutional to do that and vote for someone based on their religion, but citizens of any state are usually prone to elect someone based on their platforms and some may take religion into account.  For example, Nevada there are many Mormon’s that live in the state and that’s a main reason why he’s elected because he is Mormon himself.  This kind of leads me to my theory of religion and government.

My theory is that Politicians, especially before the more secular thinking that our day and age is that Politicians use religion and god as a way to legitimate themselves and/or administration.  Some leaders especially in the far past would be like, “Oh such and such god chose me, here is proof, and are you going to go against the god(s).”  Nowadays in America, god and religion is invoked to win the religious card and many platforms are more likely to fit with more conservative ideology (since many religious people are conservatives), to win votes.  Many conservative religious people are against gay rights or against abortion or take whatever platform.

I leave you with a few questions:  How can you see religion in our government?  Are they really seperated?  How is it being used for certain politicians or parties for their advantage?  In what ways can government and religion can be further seperated?





Hi all,

I read an article from Arizona’s news article online from AZCentral.com about the latest development from gay marriage and prop. 8 in California.

The main update really pertains that the Pro Prop 8 (prop 8 defenders/ supporters, the defendants in the January trial, etc.) side of the aisle during the trial are in fact appealing the decision, which is to be expected, had extended the block preventing gay marriage until roughly the New Year or so.  The motion was filed and the appeal process on this case is to begin on December 6, 2010.  They essentially ask “why rush until this is resolved?” and the block was extended.

As even stated that many top officials such as the state attorney (who was on the plantiff side arguing the case) as well as the govenator agreed with the Judge’s decision overturning the evil proposition.  To quote part of the article (giving some perspective to both sides), it says, “Plaintiffs’ lawyers and San Francisco city officials maintain the Proposition 8 campaign no longer has a legal right to even pursue an appeal to defend a state law that California’s top officials refuse to defend. In Monday’s court papers, Proposition 8 lawyers said it was particularly important for them to be allowed to appeal Walker’s ruling and defend the law when ‘elected officials refuse to do so.'”

I do feel that, as much as I disagree with it, that Prop. 8 supporters have every right to appeal this decision, but it isn’t necessary to block marriages of same sex couples until the decision has been made.  I feel that since the law that voters pass has been revoked and that Judge Walker did give a week for an appeal TO BE FILED, that same sex couples should be allowed to marry and whatever happens with the appeal’s decision should be taken care of then.  I do admit that the appeal’s decision to extend it has some logic in the sense, if the Judge Walker’s decision is appealled then no gay couple can marry, then nothing changes.  But I still strongly feel that gay couples should marry asap.

If you want to see my blog that I did for a class of mine from the Summer 2009 on the gay rights movement, look at lawandorderking.blogspot.com .




Gay Marriage/Prop. 8 update

Hi all,

I wanted to share an update on the prop. 8 and gay marriage update.  Here is a story posted on yahoo from the Associated Press (AP) talking about the latest news.  According to the article, to sum up, is that the Judge who overturned prop. 8 (California’s amendment banning gay marriage), gave a week for appeal process.  During this time, gay marriage will resume as of next Wednesday, August 18, 2010 provided that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals does not block it.  May supporters of same-sex marriage, including myself, feel that this is a step towards achieving equality for a group of minorities in this country.

Before I continue with my understanding of this issue, I want to give a perspective of the Court system.  It is apart of the check and balance system that after the legislative and/or executive branches does anything with the legal system, through the harms of the citizens, the judicial branch (through lawsuit(s) of those harmed), it can be corrected. For example, lets say all laws making texting and driving illegal were repealed tomorrow.  Then, someone texting while driving harms or kill someone.  Then, the victims can sue the person responsible and the city and state for injury and to ask for such laws to make texting and driving illegal again.   Now you can parallel the logic to where it can apply such as Obamacare, AZ immigration law, etc…so on and so forth.

To explain the how the lawsuit was based on this case with the case law involving the GBLTQ community the claim (in terms of those harmed) the plaintiff’s argument is that under the 14th amendment (and under the logic that state laws and amendments that are in conflict with the federal equivalent, you defer to the federal government laws and amendments), that under the federal constitution, Prop 8 that adds a state amendment banning same sex marriage violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution’s 14th amendment that states “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (wikipedia).”  To this end, the judge in this case bought this argument agreeing that this amendment discriminated against gays because it denies gays the liberty of equal protection of the laws of marriage.  It is reasonable to say that there is president that minorities of any kind can marry considering that it is on the books that at least interracial marriages were legalized in America.  This is the logic allowed for the plaintiffs in this case to successfully get Prop. 8 overturned.

But I do admit that there is concern for overturning Prop. 8.  I’m sure your asking yourself, “if Steve is hailing the ruling, what possible problem could he have?”  Well the thing is that this proposition is hideous and hate filled from religious institutions and people who are more narrow minded, it is the idea that a voter- approved law that can be so easily overturned.  If voter approve measures are overturned, no matter how vile, disgusting, and hideous measures are that are approved, then what kind of democracy can we have faith if the voter approved measures are overturned?

I do admit that either side has a concern regarding this specific case while going to the appeals process involving this case.  But I do feel that this decision should be upheld because I do feel that this does discriminate against the gay community and it does violate the 14th amendment which is deferred to considering Prop. 8 is in conflict (as a state amendment) with the federal amendments in the Constitution (which is the law of the land in the US).


Articles I looked at:



Plus my general understanding of the judicial system and the checks and balances system.

Prop. 8 overturned

Hello everyone,

In this section, I will be talking some about the ruling in the Prop. 8 trial.  I will just be stating the section of the 14th amendment, how the ruling applies to that and my opinion on that section of the 14th amendment as well as the ruling.

The text that was cited in this regarding the “equal protection” section of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.  Of the few different sections, but the equal protection clause states”

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  –From wikipedia.com and US constitution

The main part of this ruling mainly comes from “….nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” as well as (IN MY OPINION) the part “…nor shall any  State deprive any person of life, liberty, property without due process of law…” .

From wikipedia due process is defined as “Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.”

Meaning that the government is honor bound to see that all the rights of each (legal citizen obviously) are respected and are protected by due process.  With the ruling, as seen by his honor, U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, says that it violates the equal protection laws. In a the Fox News article that I looked at and echoed in a similar CNN article (and others), “‘Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,’ the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.”

I do admit that I am a full supporter of gay rights, including marriage myself, so I am in agreement with his honor’s ruling on the subject.  I feel that Prop. 8 in California is discriminated against the GBLTQ community and making straights superior to the gay community.  It is depriving the gay community of liberty and a piece of life that straights have and seems to want such life and liberty preserved for them (whether or not all  straights feel the same way and there are many straight persons who support gay rights as well).  I feel that by not having the gay community the same privileges as straights you are not only abridging the privileges of the gay community you are also saying that straights are better just because of stupid excuses as straight relationships are traditional, natural, religion said so.  But face it, you are just saying that they are not equal, inhuman, and second class citizens.  It’s BS!

I had a class in the summer of 2009 looking at gay marriage/rights.  Please feel free to take a look:  lawandorderking.blogspot.com. Please feel free to comment here and there.