[excon]

Hello:

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

excon

[cdad]

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

[excon]

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

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[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,

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[cdad]

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?

[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

[speechlesstx]

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.'

[cdad]

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?

[excon]

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

[cdad]

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.

[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

[cdad]

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.

[excon]

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

[earl237]

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?

[cdad]

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.

[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 earl:

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

excon