Hello:
So, the country IS going to live up to its promise after all. Cool.
excon
|
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...y-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.
Hello Padre:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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.
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.Quote:
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.
__________________
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.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.'
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Hello earl:Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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...
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.” )Quote:
From a legal perspective, the biological roles have NOTHING to do with constitutional law. You think it's the other way around.
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".
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 does that have to do with this topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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.
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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?
A bit off point here. We were discussing the "right" to be married. Not the rights conveyed by the marriage itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There is a license needed for having a baby? The state determines this? What did I miss?Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM. |