Hello:

So, the country IS going to live up to its promise after all. Cool.

excon

We don't know that yet. And this Judge Walker is an idiot. Im sure its going to go all the way to the supreme court. The judge blew it with this line;
" Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians".

No society has survived without morals of some kind. And this opens the door to everything becoming "legal" if you follow through with that statement.

Forgot the ref:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0804/Prop.-8-overturned-Why-Vaughn-Walker-ruled-against-gay-marriage-ban

Hello dad:

So, if I got a majority of people together who would say that guns are immoral, I could take away your rights? Nahh, I couldn't.

The real key here is, WHO is making the moral determination. Frankly, I think denying your fellow citizens the right to enjoy the very fundamental rights that YOU YOURSELF enjoy, is unbelievably immoral.

Besides, if you read the judges statement in its entirety, it belies what you purport. He does say, moral disapproval ALONE is no reason to deny rights, etc, and so on...

I might add, that this decision didn't just overrule Prop 8. It destroyed the argument entirely. It obliterated it. Even with the righty's on the Supreme Court, the decision, when it gets there, should be UNANIMOUS. It's about time.

excon

But it is going the way it should, this is ( or at least should be) a states right issue, with each state having their own laws on marriage as they do now, currently each state has the laws on age, if cousins can marry and more. So now in California gay cousins can now also marry.

But it is going the way it should, this is ( or at least should be) a states right issue, with each state having their own laws on marriage as they do now, Hello Padre:

Actually, no. Part of the decision included the idea that marriage is a fundamental right that is guaranteed to everyone under the Fourteenth Amendment. He goes on to say, as I have myself said on these very pages, rights cannot be voted upon.

If the ruling overturning Prop 8 is upheld at the Supreme Court, it will be incumbent on ALL the states.

excon

PS> I'm looking for the actual wording. I'm not off by much. I'll bring it here when I do.

But it is going the way it should, this is ( or at least should be) a states right issue, with each state having their own laws on marriage as they do now, currently each state has the laws on age, if cousins can marry and more. So now in California gay cousins can now also marry.
__________________


This will end up in SCOTUS . It is ultimately NOT a state's rights issue because of the "full faith and credit clause' . Fr. ; once a gay couple "marries" in one state ,no other state can deny them the right to marriage if they move there because a contract entered in one state has to be honored in all.

Actually, the appeal will prevent gay marriages but since it's going to the 9th Circus court that's just a formality at that level.

The finding states, “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”

Until 2 men or 2 women can procreate on their own I don't see how that's possible.

The finding states, “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”

Until 2 men or 2 women can procreate on their own I don't see how that's possible.Hello Steve:

That's easy. Procreation is NOT the barometer of a successful marital union.

But, you (and dad) DID hit upon the problems the conservatives are going to have. The proponents of Prop 8 brought the Bad News Bears legal team, against the Yankee's team the homo's brought. They LOST miserably at the district level. That means they're only going to be able to bring up on appeal, the errors of law the trial court made. Since their defense of the amendment was sooooo weak, the errors of law the judge made, if any, are inconsequential. The judge aimed his decision at swing Justice Kennedy. They will NEVER win on appeal, even at the Supreme Court.

Nope, for the first time in the history of this debate, all the hullabaloo the right wing has been throwing around needed to be PROVEN in a court of law. Needless to say, none of it could. NONE OF IT COULD BE PROVEN. That's because it's BUNK.

excon

What bothers me most is that it opens pandoras box. How far should a judge go in protecting "rights" when there has been clear and established definition based in law? Can we now say its OK for a bisexual to take both husband and wife? Seems to fit. Should there be any definition of marriage law? Does that extend to age of consent? Without clear definitions then there is nothing left. There is no law. How far can it go? Was there always the option of civil union thereby granting the same rights as married heterosexual couples? Yes. The law provided the remedy already. That is why a definition was established. So how far is too far?

Hello dad:

I just don't see the rush to marry your dog that you do. The same argument WAS made about letting women marry and black people too. None of the bad stuff happened.

Case in point. There ARE married gay people in some states. Can you show me ANYTHING that's happened there that would indicate women want to marry their horse? We already have animal cruelty laws on the books.

excon

I know full well the legal implications of the ruling, I just still don't see how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that they're 'identical.'

Hello dad:

I just don't see the rush to marry your dog that you do. The same argument WAS made about letting women marry and black people too. None of the bad stuff happened.

Case in point. There ARE married gay people in some states. Can you show me ANYTHING that's happened there that would indicate women want to marry their horse? We already have animal cruelty laws on the books.

excon

So what your really saying is that if a foregoing problem is already addressed in case law it should be enough ? How about the bisexual taking both husband and wife? Are you saying that can't happen either? Its based on the same premis. Sure there were a lot of naysayers to the black/white marriges. But they were out of their league because of the fact that it was for blacks and others that the 14 amendment was created. Racial hatred had to be stamped out. And rightfully so. But this is on a different level. This is totally based on sexual behavior. Its about the choices that people make. So who is to say what flavor is the "bad" one. All Im saying is that if you have a definition and it has been established. And its not about race. They why change it? Lets face it. Race can be picked out of a crowd. But a persons sexual choices can not. So how far should it go? Should a man or woman take as many spouses as they can now afford? Or would we be impinging on their rights if we deny them?

Are you saying that can't happen either? Its based on the same premis. This is totally based on sexual behavior. Its about the choices that people make. Hello again, dad:

Polygamy is already illegal. Frankly, under the First Amendment's religious freedom clause, I believe that polygamy IS legal... But, I digress.

You hit the nail on the head again, though. It IS based on sexual behavior. The judge found that homosexual behavior in the context of a marriage, is no more harmful than heterosexual behavior is, IF it is at all. His job wasn't to decide the MORAL implications of that marriage. His job was to decide the LEGAL implications and whether the state has a legitimate interest in limiting gay marriage. That's why he said that immoral behavior ALONE is not a compelling state interest.

But, more importantly, the case is based on equal rights.

In terms of the "choices" people make, I hope you're still not in the camp that believes that everybody is heterosexual, but that some people CHOOSE to be homosexual. I can't imagine why you believe that, since I'm CERTAIN you didn't CHOOSE your sexual orientation, so I'm not even going to try.

excon

Hello again, dad:

Polygamy is already illegal. Frankly, under the First Amendment's religious freedom clause, I believe that polygamy IS legal... But, I digress.

You hit the nail on the head again, though. It IS based on sexual behavior. The judge found that homosexual behavior in the context of a marriage, is no more harmful than heterosexual behavior is, IF it is at all. His job wasn't to decide the MORAL implications of that marriage. His job was to decide the LEGAL implications and whether the state has a legitimate interest in limiting gay marriage. That's why he said that immoral behavior ALONE is not a compelling state interest.

In terms of the "choices" people make, I hope you're still not in the camp that believes that everybody is heterosexual, but that some people CHOOSE to be homosexual. I can't imagine why you believe that, since I'm CERTAIN you didn't CHOOSE your sexual orientation, so I'm not even gonna try.

excon

No, I believe people are born gay for those that truly are. Some do choose it but it's a minority. Just like any other behavior even celebacy is a choice. But when it comes to the act of sex that's where the real choice begins. And that is what Im meaning by it. Heck any internet search engine could tell you there is something for everyone.. lol.

Hello again, dad:

So why would you want to restrict people to a sexless marriage? Why would make any difference to you? That, again, was one of the issues that was totally DEBUNKED in the trial. The rightwing proposition that heterosexual marriage will be harmed by gay marriage just ain't true. At least they couldn't prove it in the TRIAL where they were supposed to prove it.

excon

Hello again, dad:

So why would you want to restrict people to a sexless marriage? Why would make any difference to you? That, again, was one of the issues that was totally DEBUNKED in the trial. The rightwing proposition that heterosexual marriage will be harmed by gay marriage just ain't true. At least they couldn't prove it in the TRIAL where they were supposed to prove it.

excon

Could you quote me on that? I didn't say anything about sexless marriages. I was referring to choices people make. From one extreme to the other.

Could you quote me on that? I didnt say anything about sexless marriages. Hello again, dad:

No, but you DO advocate AGAINST gay marriage, and you admit that gay people aren't interested in sex with the opposite gender, so it's logical to presume that you believe homosexuals shouldn't have a sex filled marriage like you do. What other conclusion could one draw from that?

But, let's not get bogged down with the minutia. You have a religious and cultural bias against gay marriage. You're not alone. You might be interested to know that in 1967 when black people were finally able to legally marry white people, 70% of the country DISAPPROVED of it. Then, as now, we recognized that fundamental Constitutional rights weren't up for a vote.

excon

I don't think it is right that one judge can overturn the will of millions of people. Why should some overeducated elitists who don't live in the real world be allowed to force their views on the majority of hard-working, tax-paying citizens?

Hello again, dad:

No, but you DO advocate AGAINST gay marriage, and you admit that gay people aren't interested in sex with the opposite gender, so it's logical to presume that you believe homosexuals shouldn't have a sex filled marriage like you do. What other conclusion could one draw from that?

But, let's not get bogged down with the minutia. You have a religious and cultural bias against gay marriage. You're not alone. You might be interested to know that in 1967 when black people were finally able to legally marry white people, 70% of the country DISAPPROVED of it. Then, as now, we recognized that fundamental Constitutional rights weren't up for a vote.

excon


Its very simple. No I don't believe in gay marriage. But I also believe that what people of consenting age do behind closed doors is their own business. Its really that simple. Elevating it beyond civil unions which gives them the rights you say they are lacking. To me isn't the right thing to do.

I don't think it is right that one judge can overturn the will of millions of people. Why should some overeducated elitists who don't live in the real world be allowed to force their views on the majority of hard-working, tax-paying citizens?Hello earl:

I can't say it any plainer. Constitutional rights aren't up for a vote. That's why they call 'em RIGHTS.

excon

Judge Walker may have made an interesting debate point about gay marriage .But his ruling is flawed and I predict it will be overturned.

Since the people of California had also recognized same sex civil unions ,they had balanced competing interests through the ballot. The Judge is denying them that right .
He fails to show in his ruling how
14th Amendment rights are being denied and instead creates a new right... the fundamental "right " to marry.
The parallel between this and inter-racial marriage is flawed. Interacial marriage is between one man and one woman, where the skin color of the one male and one female are of a different color. Because of the color of a person’s skin, they were treated differently under the law. This, of course, is unconstitutional.

His dismissal of gender difference is bunk. Marriage was a religious institution long before it was co-opted by the state and federal government. Where in our Constitution is marriage a right?Throughout history "marriage "has been defined specifically by the gender difference.
Regardless of what he thinks of it ,the truth is that gender differences are biologically scientifically confirmed ,and not the construct of evolving social mores or judicial fiat.

Bottom line ;the people of California amended their Constitution to say that every adult has a “right” to marry someone of the opposite sex, and NO Californian has a “right” to marry someone of the same sex.There is no 14th amendment argument ,and no US Constitution violation.

His dismissal of gender difference is bunk. Hello again, tom:

We can argue about the other stuff, and I'm sure we will, but I found THIS ruling to be VERY interesting - and truly, true. You disagree. I don't know why.

It's hard to argue that the roles of married partners hasn't changed SIGNIFICANTLY, in just our own lifetimes. In fact, PRIOR to that change, with few exceptions, women were stay at home moms. Now, they're not. In fact, because of that, a mans role in our society changed significantly too. These changes WEREN'T minor - not even CLOSE. As those changes became endemic, we learned that men's TRADITIONAL roles could be well played by women, and that a mom's traditional role could be well played by men. That was NEW. Today, women run Fortune 500 companies, and men take care of babies.

THOSE are the facts. Recognizing that the distinct roles we USED to play, are becoming virtually indistinguishable today, is nothing more than stating the truth. It's NOT bunk. It IS stuff the right wing WISHED had never happened, but you can't deny that it did.

Now, I don't know if that is reason enough to make gay marriage legal. But, I wanted to address your assertion. The issue, in my view, is equal rights for gay people. That stands on its own merits.

excon

His ruling ignores biological fact. The sociological roles of the genders are an interesting academic exercise that has zero role in deciding constitutional law. Since the dawn of humanity, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.In order for the judge to reach his ruling, he had to basically tell Californians that they should ignore this reality.

The judge demonstrates no proof of equal rights violations with his thesis of the evolving roles of the genders. The biological differences have not changed since we were lower primates.
Gay couples can enter into legal, protected civil unions as can hetero couples in common law statutes. So where is the bigotry ? Where is the violation of equal protection ? You can't find it.
What is needed is statutory assurances that all types of one couple unions are treated equally ,not that all types of one couple unions are consolidated into one institution.

His ruling ignores biological fact. The sociological roles of the genders are an interesting academic exercise that has zero role in deciding constitutional law. Where is the violation of equal protection ? You can't find it. Hello again, tom:

From a legal perspective, the biological roles have NOTHING to do with constitutional law. You think it's the other way around.

I can't find it?? Dude! Separate but equal, is by its very nature unequal. If you want TRUE equality, you eliminate the differences. Unequal is what the Fourteenth Amendment is all about.

But, you Constitution loving right wingers want to CHANGE the Fourteenth Amendment, don't you? I thought you guys were STRICT constructionists. I thought you liked it the way it WAS.

excon

PS> You don't have to answer the last part. I was just ranting...

From a legal perspective, the biological roles have NOTHING to do with constitutional law. You think it's the other way around.


The judge certainly thought gender differences relevant (heterosexual marriage being "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage.” )

Tell me ; what is constitutional in his reasoning ? He essentially becomes the sole arbiter of what is good and right about gender roles ,child rearing ,and marriage itself. Forget what the majority of Californians think . Judge Walker has deemed it "beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant".


I can't find it?? Dude! Separate but equal, is by its very nature unequal. If you want TRUE equality, you eliminate the differences. Unequal is what the Fourteenth Amendment is all about.

Brown v Board was decided as it was because SCOTUS correctly determined that there could not be an instance where legal segregation could result in equal access.

This is not the same with civil unions. The same legal privilages apply to both marriage ,civil union ,and common law. There is nothing in Brown v Board that says separate but equal is an unconstitutional principle. Just that it didn't work in segregation .

Separate but equal in education didn't work because it really wasn't equal.One side had high quality, clean schools and the other had low quality, run-down schools.;and it was a literal separation.

This is different. From a legal perspective marriage is a title that implies privilages . If the privileges are the same in civil unions and common law , then the title's, although different, are legally indistinguishable.

He essentially becomes the sole arbiter of what is good and right about gender roles ,child rearing ,and marriage itself. Forget what the majority of Californians think . Judge Walker has deemed it "beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant". This is not the same with civil unions. The same legal privilages apply to both marriage ,civil union ,and common law. Hello again, tom:

He didn't deem anything. You forget, there was a trial. Your side, the side that thinks homosexual gender roles in marriage, are BAD, was required to PROVE it in court. Yes, for the first time in homophobic history, the hysterical side (your side) was required to PUT UP, or SHUT UP. Guess what? They couldn't prove ANYTHING. They called TWO witnesses, and those witnesses were anything but credible. Their testimony was a mockery to expert evidence. I'll bring it up, if you like. I'd be embarrassed to hear it, if I were you.

From a legal perspective, that was a GRAVE error on their part. Findings of fact, which is when the judge finds a witness incredible, AREN'T usually subject to review on appeal. Therefore, the judges FACTUAL finding will stand. Therefore, the losing side has nothing really to appeal on.

In terms of civil union being the same as marriage, the FIRST question one would ask is, if they're the SAME, WHY are they called different things. The LOGICAL conclusion to that question, is they're NOT the same. Civil union, apparently doesn't measure up to marriage. Yes, there's a lot in the name. In fact, it's EVERYTHING. It's what YOU have. Consequently, it's what EVERYBODY has a RIGHT to have. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment says. It couldn't be clearer.

excon

what the majority of Californians think .
What does that have to do with this topic?

What does that have to do with this topic?

In California there is part of the state constitution that allows for the initiative process. And it can become the "peoples" law. That is what the Porposition process is about. It can also overturn laws or amend them.

Ex ,simply stated ,the law was "defended " by a state legal dept run by Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger... both of whom opposed the State Constitutional Amendment . Like Eric Holder ,it was their duty to defend the law ,and like Eric Holder ,if they choses to lamely defend the law instead of vigorously defending it, someone like Elana Kagan was assigned to do so.
Judge Walker ruled that proposition 8 fails to advance any "rational basis" in singling out gays for denial of a marriage license.
But Walker provides no "rational basis" for identifying marriage as a constitutional right. You need a license to get married. That puts marriage in the realm of 'privilage ' and not rights'. Licenses are given if provisions for the licenses are met. The people of California made the decion that the marriage license is for heterosexual couples only while at the same time made provisions to satisfy the legal rights of all. It is only because marriage is a privilege and not a right that issues like age ,familial relationships ,polygamy etc can be added as restrictions. As you argue often ,rights are absolute.

Hello again, tom:

So, like a drivers license, the state can pick who get's it. Nahhh... Let's say the people of the state decided by referendum to DENY drivers licenses to blonds. According to you, that would be constitutional, but it wouldn't be. Not even close.

Since there are RIGHTS attached to marriage - actual real hold 'em in your hand, RIGHTS, it's NOT a privilege. I can't even imagine HOW you could consider it so - unless you're running out of arguments - and you are.

excon

It can also overturn laws or amend them.Hello again, dad:

But, it CAN'T remove a right... Even if 98.9% of California voters decided to VOTE guns out existence in their state, they couldn't do that... You DO understand that, don't you?

excon

Hello again, dad:

But, it CAN'T remove a right... Even if 98.9% of California voters decided to VOTE guns out existence in their state, they couldn't do that... You DO understand that, don't you?

excon

I was answering someone else's question about why it matter that it was up for vote of the people. In this case I don't believe it's a right. I believe it's a definition. As there was already remidies in place.

I dont believe its a right. I believe its a definition.
Believe that all you want. Marriage conveys RIGHTS. I've been married for 43 years and have used some of those rights many times and will continue to do so. Want me to list some of them? Okay, I will.

1. The right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, and the right to choose funeral arrangements not specified by a will;
2. Joint insurance policies (health, life, and auto) and the ability to include a spouse on employer-provided benefits;
3. Social Security, Medicare, and Disability benefits;
4. Welfare and public assistance;
5. Inheritance rights, including inheriting joint property without taxation;
6. Visitation rights in hospitals and prisons;
7. Spousal privilege, which is the right to refuse to testify against a spouse in court;
8. Filing joint tax returns;
9. Joint parental rights, which include applying jointly for adoption, adoption of a step-child, and custody of children upon the death of a spouse;
10. Joint leases;
11. Spousal veterans’ benefits, wrongful death benefits, and family and medical leave benefits;
12. Immigration and residency benefits for partners from other countries;
13. Domestic violation protection orders;
14. Public safety officers’ death benefits; and
15. Credit protections.

In this case I dont believe its a right. Hello again, dad:

Here's where that empathy thing comes into play. Imagine for a minute, that you had some. Picture for a moment, when YOUR turn comes up at the marriage license office, and they tell you that they're NOT going to give you a license, because they don't like you...

Really, it doesn't matter WHY they turn you down, but if they DID, and they turned down nobody else, wouldn't you feel like your rights have been violated?? You might not, because you want your reaction to my question to FIT your political agenda... But, I would sure feel that way.

excon

Hello again, dad:

Here's where that empathy thing comes into play. Imagine for a minute, that you had some. Picture for a moment, when YOUR turn comes up at the marriage license office, and they tell you that they're NOT going to give you a license, because they don't like you...

Really, it doesn't matter WHY they turn you down, but if they DID, and they turned down nobody else wouldn't you feel like your rights have been violated??? You might not, because you want your reaction to my question to FIT your political agenda... But, I would sure feel that way.

excon

So from the sounds of it your aganst the states right to make a legal definition ? And since its not the states business then anyone should be able to marry so long as the rules and registration follows. Like when a person has a baby. There should be no license to it? That way the state has no say in it?

Its not about emapthy. Its about rights correct? Then there has been remedy made through civil union. So where does the rights come in? Somewhere along the lines of getting a drivers license?


By definition gay/lesbian is an alternative lifestyle. So the civil union route gives them the rights like married couples (heterosexuals) and the law can define what a marriage can be. So where is this big rights problem your asking about? Do you just not get that part?

Believe that all you want. Marriage conveys RIGHTS. I've been married for 43 years and have used some of those rights many times and will continue to do so. Want me to list some of them? Okay, I will.

1. The right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, and the right to choose funeral arrangements not specified by a will;
2. Joint insurance policies (health, life, and auto) and the ability to include a spouse on employer-provided benefits;
3. Social Security, Medicare, and Disability benefits;
4. Welfare and public assistance;
5. Inheritance rights, including inheriting joint property without taxation;
6. Visitation rights in hospitals and prisons;
7. Spousal privilege, which is the right to refuse to testify against a spouse in court;
8. Filing joint tax returns;
9. Joint parental rights, which include applying jointly for adoption, adoption of a step-child, and custody of children upon the death of a spouse;
10. Joint leases;
11. Spousal veterans’ benefits, wrongful death benefits, and family and medical leave benefits;
12. Immigration and residency benefits for partners from other countries;
13. Domestic violation protection orders;
14. Public safety officers’ death benefits; and
15. Credit protections.

A bit off point here. We were discussing the "right" to be married. Not the rights conveyed by the marriage itself.

Like when a person has a baby. There should be no license to it? That way the state has no say in it?

There is a license needed for having a baby? The state determines this? What did I miss?

There is a license needed for having a baby? The state determines this? What did I miss?

Comparative argument. If the state holds no interest or definition then it would hold the same ranking. To get married wouldn't require a license if you string it along to its end. So in asking if it should be or not as in a "right" without definition.

and the law can define what a marriage can be. So where is this big rights problem your asking about? Do you just not get that part?Hello again, dad:

I think I DO get that part. You don't. In its simplest terms, you have the RIGHT to call what you have with your spouse, a MARRIAGE. If you HAVE that right, so does EVERYBODY ELSE.

If it's NOT, as you say, about what it's CALLED, and ONLY about the rights it bestows, would you be happy if the law decided that NOBODY is married, and EVERYBODY is civily unioned? No. You wouldn't. Why is that?

That's because it IS about what it's called.

So from the sounds of it your aganst the states right to make a legal definition ? I don't know about that legal mumbo jumbo you said. What I am unequivocally against, are laws that contravene our Bill of Rights. If the state decided to pass a law "defining" an illegal search as a doughnut, it would, nevertheless and forevermore, BE an illegal doughnut/search.

excon

Hello dad:

I just don't see the rush to marry your dog that you do. The same argument WAS made about letting women marry and black people too. None of the bad stuff happened.

Case in point. There ARE married gay people in some states. Can you show me ANYTHING that's happened there that would indicate women want to marry their horse? We already have animal cruelty laws on the books.

excon

Animal cuelty laws have nothing to do with this argument. If that were the case then the civil union argument would also be valid as it did provide a remedy. And those states your siting still have marriage laws on the books. So again the state is taking an interest. Who's to say what the future will hold if allowed to continue.

It doesn't bother me at all that you think I made a weak argument. Coming from someone who thinks Walker made a sound argument that's amusing .

I'll say it a little differently . State issuance of marriage licenses is a conferred benefit by the State . It is not a right. The State may decide who receives and gets the benefit of a State license and the priviliges that implies much like it can put limits on who receives any other state benefit. State laws provide rules for those who wish to get married in their state... and those laws vary considerably.

Wondergirl is correct in citing just a few of the benefits the state grants married couples. California already dealt with that in making the same benefits available to same sex unions ,and common law arrangements. Are you arguing then that California is also denying equal protection to common law couples ? Of course not because it isn't happening. And until you can prove to me that same sex civil unions denies gays equal protection then the argument is lame.

Other states have not made those provisions in their laws. In fact most don't .Even your most liberal leaning ones don't have civil union privilages . I would say there is a more compelling argument in taking on those states because the issue of equal access is legitimate there .

But not in California where the people ,through the intiative process amended their constitution to strike a fair and reasonable solution to the competing arguments.

Perhaps in some near future the minds of the people will change ,and that change will be reflected in the will of the people . Anything less than that is a justice like Walker "deeming " a result on the people of the state.

So the real beef is calling it a "marriage."

Does a "civil union" include ALL the rights obtained in a "marriage"?

So the real beef is calling it a "marriage."


Of course . I never denied that .


Does a "civil union" include ALL the rights obtained in a "marriage"?


If not it should .

if not it should .
I'm guessing it doesn't. I will check, librarian-style.

Marriage is not equal to a civil union.

From now.org (as well as other sites) --

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.

A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal.

To read more from this site, see Equal Marriage NOW: Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions (http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html).

of course . I never denied that Hello again, tom:

If it's about what it's called, in terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, I'll repeat what I said earlier to dad. If you have the RIGHT to call what you have with your spouse, a MARRIAGE, and you do, so does EVERYBODY ELSE.

excon

But marriage is not honored by all states, in those where gay marriage is allowed, it is not honored in other US states.

Nations where having more than one wife is allowed, that is not honored here in the US if they would move here.

So calling it marriage is not a magic wand that makes it any better status.

A couple judges have now reversed what millions voted for in Arizona and California. Arizona voted for the enforcement of existing federal immigration law ; and California changed their constitution to recognize marriage as a traditional bond between a man and woman as it has been for 2,500 years in the West.

Both were reversed by these black robed, unelected ,appointed for life oligarchs because they deemed the will of the people bigoted, comparable to the racism of the Jim Crow South.

It is nonsense ,and no clearer example of the Imperial Judiciary exists today.

71% Think Prop 8 is Unconstitutional - Source: Fox News!

FOXNews.com - Did Judge Make Right Call In Gay Marriage Case? (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/)

Lol Which lefty blog suggested their readers should troll and vote ? I've seen that done plenty times on right wing blog sites so I understand how that works ,as I suspect you do too.

Really ? You are citing an unscientific web poll ? Then pan someone else's sources ?

Too funny!

You sound like a freeper.

A couple judges have now reversed what millions voted for in Arizona and California. Both were reversed by these black robed, unelected ,appointed for life oligarchs because they deemed the will of the people bigoted, comparable to the racism of the Jim Crow South.Hello again, tom:

Good thing the Constitution, which you purport to LOVE, created a 3rd branch of government, which you apparently HATE. How do you deal with your schizophrenia?

excon

PS> A reminder, if EVERY SINGLE voter voted to remove a Constitutional right, say about your GUNS, it would be illegal. I don't what's so hard about this.

PS> A reminder, if EVERY SINGLE voter voted to remove a Constitutional right, say about your GUNS, it would be illegal. I don't what's so hard about this.

So if nobody in your 'country' likes one of its rules and wants it gone or changed, they can't do anything about it?

Sounds abit like a dictatiorship to be honest

PS> A reminder, if EVERY SINGLE voter voted to remove a Constitutional right, say about your GUNS, it would be illegal. I don't what's so hard about this.

What I find funny about the fact that you keep throwing this out there is that gun ownership is one of the most restricted rights we have. And at the same time it is the only right that protects all others. Are you saying there should be no gun laws whatsoever? Or are you comfortable with the state/government making a legal definition as to where you can carry and who can own them?

so if nobody in your 'country' likes one of its rules and wants it gone or changed, they can't do anything about it?

sounds abit like a dictatiorship to be honestHello albear:

Our Constitutional RIGHTS are not RULES. In fact, what the Bill of Rights does is tell the government what RULES it CANNOT MAKE concerning the FREEDOM of its inhabitants.

That sounds like a free country, and it is.

excon

so if nobody in your 'country' likes one of its rules and wants it gone or changed, they can't do anything about it?

sounds abit like a dictatiorship to be honest

There are remidies in place. But no one (single) entity is suppose to rule over the other as supreme. Our government is set up with different branches to address grievences.

Are you saying there should be no gun laws whatsoever? Or are you comfortable with the state/government making a legal definition as to where you can carry and who can own them?Hello again, dad:

I'm consistent in my support for the Constitution. I don't like the government whacking away at THAT right, any more than I like 'em whacking away at the ones we've been discussing. The Constitution says you may own and carry a firearm. That's the only legal definition I need.

excon

Hello albear:

Our Constitutional RIGHTS are not RULES. In fact, what the Bill of Rights does is tell the government what RULES it CANNOT MAKE concerning the FREEDOM of its inhabitants.

That sounds like a free country, and it is.

excon

That's not the way you make it sound

Sounds like a prison with the illusion of freedom,

The cage is so big you can't see the bars

Hello again, albear:

I have no idea where you get that. ALL my posts deal with freedom and the Constitution. But, that's OK. I'm misunderstood by LOTS of people here. However, you can make up your own mind. Here are the Bill of Rights. Certainly doesn't sound like a prison to me. I've been there, and this ain't it.

Amendment I - 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.

Amendment II - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III - No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

excon

Ex what the Constitution did not create was a judiciary superior to the other branches;nor is there anything making the judiciary the final arbiters. That was a usurpation early in the Republic that has not been challenged .

Indeed I think the will of the people should have weight on these matters. There is no basis for the courts to decide that Arizona cannot enforce legal laws .And ,there is no provision that makes the California prop 8 amendment to their state constitution unconstitutional.

There is a growing movement in this country to amend/repeal the 14th Amendment. The sole reason for this is the court using sole disgression in a dictatorial manner to reshape our society .

It is the court's abuse of the system that's the real problem.

That was a usurpation early in the Republic that has not been challenged .Hello again, tom:

Could that be because you remained silent when the black robed usurpers ruled in your favor?? Could be. Nevertheless, you always admonish me for arguing the way the law SHOULD be, instead of the way the law IS.

Besides, you're not saying, are you, that our civil rights ought to be left up to the whim of the public and/or the legislature?? I think you ARE saying that, which is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

excon

Neil Steinberg's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times mentions this: "Despite the changes we've seen, marriage still has worth, and withholding it from gay people based on nothing is mere religious oppression. It's odd -- in some American colonies before the Revolutionary War, clergy were not allowed to perform wedding ceremonies; that was the realm of judges. The colonists, with fresh memories of the monolithic Church of England, did not want to let state religion get its foot in the door. So if you know your history, marriage in the United States is not a religious realm being intruded upon by the government, but a governmental realm that has been shanghaied by religion."

"marriage in the United States is not a religious realm being intruded upon by the government, but a governmental realm that has been shanghaied by religion."

From "some American colonies" to the entire history of marriage in the United States. That's quite the leap.

From "some American colonies" to the entire history of marriage in the United States. That's quite the leap.
Colonies. This was pre-United States.

I'm quite clear on what "colonies" means. I'm also quite clear that "some colonies" doesn't define the history of "marriage in the United States."

Hello again,

What DOES the history of marriage have to do with it?? Ok, you want history? Here's the only history that's important here. When WE, as a nation, recognize that what we have HISTORICALLY done, was WRONG, we fixed it. THAT is a history to be PROUD of.

But, to continue to do the wrong thing, because we always have, isn't a sentiment I could latch onto.

excon

The Puritans, no less!

From historycooperative.org --

The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite. In early Massachusetts, weddings were performed by civil magistrates rather than clergymen. They took place in private homes, not in church buildings. No one wore white or walked down the aisle. Even later, when it became customary for ministers to preside at weddings (still held in private homes), the clergy’s authority was granted by the state, not the church.

Massachusetts’ founders insisted on civil unions, not as a reluctant compromise with the state, but as a direct outgrowth of their religious beliefs. Puritans were dissenters from the Church of England, which like the Catholic Church treated marriage as a sacrament. In England, the king was "defender of the faith," bishops sat in the House of Lords, and the Church of England had legal authority over all religious matters, including marriage. Puritans strongly opposed this system. They wanted to adhere strictly to the Bible in shaping their forms of worship, but as they read it, the New Testament offered no precedent for bishops, ecclesiastical courts, and royal control over religion. What’s more, they held that the Bible sanctioned only baptism and communion as sacraments, since these were the only sacraments that Jesus took part in himself.

Marriage remained important to Puritans (it was often used as a metaphor for the divine love between believers and God), but they wanted to remove it from the realm of sacred authority, leaving only the sacraments under church control. This radical change was impossible to achieve in England, where the unified church and state used its power to persecute dissenters. But when they migrated to Massachusetts, the Puritan founders were free to shape their new society according to their beliefs. As a result, Massachusetts had no bishops, no ecclesiastical courts. The state [civil government] regulated all aspects of the marriage process, from "publishing the banns"–an announcement of the intent to marry that was an early predecessor to the marriage license–to the marriage ceremony, the giving of dowries, property and inheritance rights, and in rare cases, divorce.

Hello again:

Looks like the mean, homophobic, anti-constitutionalists are at it again. Here's the deal. IF the ruling is NOT appealed, it applies only to those states within the Ninth Circuit. If it IS appealed to the Ninth Circuit, no matter what happens there, it WILL be appealed to the Supreme Court, where the ruling will effect the entire country...

So, since they KNOW they'll lose at BOTH venues, they're NOT going to appeal it, simply to punish gays and lesbians living OUTSIDE the Ninth Circuit.

I'm STILL having difficulty with the Constitution loving wingers who constantly want to CHANGE it, even though the think they don't. I don't know what's going on with them.

As an aside, Glenn Beck says, "progressivism is the cancer that is destroying the Constitution". I'm progressive to the extreme. I don't think I want to destroy the Constitution. There isn't a contributor to this board who argues the constitutionality of events MORE than I do.

Do YOU think I want to destroy the Constitution??

excon

Not being Glenn Beck I can't defend what he says nor divine what he means.

The judge said that the appeal needs to be made by the people who lost the case. In this case that would be the state of California.

As I already pointed out. The State of California's AG Brown was neither interested in defending the case ;nor will he likely attempt an appeal. In this case ,he is letting his own opinion dictate his course rather than his oath to serve the people of the state(indeed the judge's ruling is full of his own personal opinions also making it ripe for repeal... if only attempted ).


This was the same thing that happened in the DOMA case. The US justice dept did not want to defend the law.

The judge said that the appeal needs to be made by the people who lost the case. In this case that would be the state of California.

As I already pointed out. The State of California's AG Brown was neither interested in defending the case ;nor will he likely attempt an appeal.Hello again, tom:

That's not exactly right. In fact the State of California REFUSED to defend it, so they didn't. The group who sponsored prop 8 in the first place defended the suit. I can't for the life of me find their name. But, whoever they are, it's up to THEM to appeal - not the state.

In fact, since the ruling, Jerry Brown is urging the appeals court NOT to grant a stay and wants gay couples to be allowed to marry right now.

excon

PS> I'll come up with their name, though. Don't you worry. It's THAT group that has standing to appeal. Nobody else - because it's THEIR suit that the judge ruled against.

Hello again, tom:

That's not exactly right. In fact the State of California REFUSED to defend it, so they didn't. The group who sponsored prop 8 in the first place defended the suit. I can't for the life of me find their name. But, whoever they are, it's up to THEM to appeal - not the state.

In fact, since the ruling, Jerry Brown is urging the appeals court NOT to grant a stay and wants gay couples to be allowed to marry right now.

excon

PS> I'll come up with their name, though. Don't you worry. It's THAT group that has standing to appeal. Nobody else - because it's THEIR suit that the judge ruled against.

I haven't looked much but here are some places worth checking to see who is behind it.

Ref: Bill sponsers

Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Home Page (http://www.protectmarriage.com/)

Which leads to these people.

Engage (http://www.engagedc.com/)

That is only part of the trail.

On a side note. Jerry Brown is an idiot and he was a horrible Governor. A terrible mayor of Oakland. And he was too entrenched with political family and cronies to get any real things done except what he was told to do.

Why where men given penises "ill tell you why " to reproduce with women " its been the answer from the start of time men should not be with men!

Here is something I found interesting. And disturbing at the same time.

Proposition 8 Contributions (http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/)

The name of the case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Clearly it was the duty of the state to defend the constitution of the state. Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit,Schwarzeneggersaid that he supported the lawsuit .None of the state officials named in the suit sought to defend the law in court even though it was their job.

That left a group led Senate leader Dennis Hollingsworth and the Alliance Defense Fund , and a rival group, the Campaign for California Families to act in defense of the law. Except that Judge Walker also denied standing to the Campaign for California Families.
Here we had a law suit against the state ,and no proper government defendant.Even Imperial County ,in an attempt to at least have some government representing the state was denied standing by the judge.

Now the judge ,after giving standing to the Alliance Defense Fund to defend prop 8 is saying he doesn't think they have standing to appeal ? This is a travesty .

So, when are the gays going to support Polygamy, people marrying Children, their Pets, etc. Fair is fair. Can't discriminate against those groups either.

So, when are the gays going to support Polygamy, people marrying Children, their Pets, etc. Fair is fair. Can't discriminate against those groups either.Hello again, smoothy:

If you're allowed to smoke cigarettes, why shouldn't you be allowed to burn your neighbors house down? Fair is fair. Can't discriminate against the stuff you burn.

excon

PS> I can match silly, with silly.

Who lives in the neighbors house... ;)


I've actuially had a few neighbors over the years that though has crossed my mind if only for a moment.