Arguments for US Supreme Court Ruling Prop 8 Unconstitutional?

[Bezukhov]

The question is why should the government be involved with the licensing of marriages at all. Implicit with the power to confer any license is the power to deny said license.

Because the gov't has an interest in promoting certain kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. This is so because certain kinds of relationships tend to produce better citizens than others.
and I'll reiterate that fags have the same rights to marry as anyone else.

I hope you were being sarcastic. If not...
What sort of bullshit are you talking about? Since when has denying marriage licenses kept people from procreating without one? Taking your logic to it's ultimate conclusion it would also be in the governments interest to force sterilizations on those they deem unfit to have children. Or perhaps take away their breathing licenses.

 

[jillian]

The question is why should the government be involved with the licensing of marriages at all. Implicit with the power to confer any license is the power to deny said license.

Because the gov't has an interest in promoting certain kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. This is so because certain kinds of relationships tend to produce better citizens than others.
and I'll reiterate that fags have the same rights to marry as anyone else.

It has NOTHING...ZERO..., NIL... NADA... to do with RELATIONSHIPS. It has to do with PROPERTY RIGHTS.

And government has an obligation to govern such property rights.

There are over 1,000 rights and obligations conferred by marriage.

As for the term "fags"... I'm thinking someone needs to evaluate why he's so homophobic. I find that most people who are overly offended by gays feel threatened by them.

 

[goldcatt]

The question is why should the government be involved with the licensing of marriages at all. Implicit with the power to confer any license is the power to deny said license.

Because the gov't has an interest in promoting certain kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. This is so because certain kinds of relationships tend to produce better citizens than others.
and I'll reiterate that fags have the same rights to marry as anyone else.

I hope you were being sarcastic. If not...
What sort of bullshit are you talking about? Since when has denying marriage licenses kept people from procreating without one? Taking your logic to it's ultimate conclusion it would also be in the governments interest to force sterilizations on those they deem unfit to have children. Or perhaps take away their breathing licenses.

A marriage license from the State has nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with little things like inheritance rights and property ownership. But I'm pretty sure the troll wasn't talking about children, but about the fact that he believes homosexuals are and should remain second class citizens.

 

[Bezukhov]

The question is why should the government be involved with the licensing of marriages at all. Implicit with the power to confer any license is the power to deny said license.

Because the gov't has an interest in promoting certain kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. This is so because certain kinds of relationships tend to produce better citizens than others.
and I'll reiterate that fags have the same rights to marry as anyone else.

It has NOTHING...ZERO..., NIL... NADA... to do with RELATIONSHIPS. It has to do with PROPERTY RIGHTS.

And government has an obligation to govern such property rights.

There are over 1,000 rights and obligations conferred by marriage.

As for the term "fags"... I'm thinking someone needs to evaluate why he's so homophobic. I find that most people who are overly offended by gays feel threatened by them.

Another one who hasn't a clue. "Obligations to govern such property rights"? If property needs to be "governed" lets dispense with the whole notion of property all together. I'm guessing that whatever rights that are granted by marriage are conferred by the State. If that is the case it makes a mockery of the notion that all should be equal before the law. And the only obligations that marriage should impose is on the two people involved.

 

[The Rabbi]

The question is why should the government be involved with the licensing of marriages at all. Implicit with the power to confer any license is the power to deny said license.

Because the gov't has an interest in promoting certain kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. This is so because certain kinds of relationships tend to produce better citizens than others.
and I'll reiterate that fags have the same rights to marry as anyone else.

I hope you were being sarcastic. If not...
What sort of bullshit are you talking about? Since when has denying marriage licenses kept people from procreating without one? Taking your logic to it's ultimate conclusion it would also be in the governments interest to force sterilizations on those they deem unfit to have children. Or perhaps take away their breathing licenses.

Some people are utterly clueless. You seem to be one of them.

 

[Sculpt]

Very nice, well thought-out post . . . which will be utterly lost on this bunch of kneejerk, talking-point parrots, I'm sorry to say.

Thank you, Cecilie, appreciate it! After I read the first two replies to my post, I was thinking that was going to be the level of depth of the forum members here. But I'm glad I came back, as I see there are some folks here who want to dive into the issue(s).

 

[Sculpt]

The great assumption I will hand you is that one can "be" a "homosexual",

Charlie Bass?

Huh? You talking about the former Congressman, or a TV show rumor? I don't get the relevance. You'll have to explain that one.

Consider this, in actuality, the law is not saying anyone in that minority can't do, what anyone in the majority, can do.

Except enter into a legally binding contract with another adult of their choosing...

There's two issues -- binding contract, and marriage. I'm in favor of any necessary civil union laws, which deal with individual rights that have nothing to do with homosexuality, let alone Same-sex Marriage. To me, the Same-sex Marriage component is a small group of citizens who are seeking to use the state to force everyone else to accept legal same-sex marriage. When the state backs something, they force behavioral obedience to it. Based on your forum name, Proletarian, I would gather you know how serious, extensive and intrusive, that really is. It's not something to be embraced impetuously. If the majority votes for it (same-sex marriage), as a citizen, I won't like it; but so what; I'll have to abide by that law. The point is, that goes both ways, doesn't it?

See: Loving v Virginia

Marry someone of their own race? We've heard it all before.

A state law not recognizing the marriage of one man and one woman of a different "race" is not the same thing as the state not recognizing same-sex marriage -- anymore than it's the same as not recognizing adult polygamous (multiple spouses) and incestuous (brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter) marriages. Those are all "adults choosing who they will marry"; but those are all different. I see you want to say the first two are the same, but I doubt you'd say all of these are the same. You're just drawing lines wherever if fits your fancy without stating any reasonable rationale.

In a representative democracy the majority draws those lines, such as lines on polygamous, incestuous and same-sex marriage; as they do on adult-child, adult/animal, adult/inanimate marriage, and so on.

How do you legally define a person as a homosexual

Um... they're homosexual.

Commrade, I just went into depth how legally defining someone as homosexual is not possible. Again, I guess it's just because you want it to be so, makes it so. You have anything of substance to say on the subject?

...let alone for that distinction to afford one special rights?

Since noone's asking for special rights accept bigots like you, Charlie, that's a stupid question. It indicates that you're retarded.

You may have misunderstood me. Or maybe I was unclear or misspoke. I would not think the state forcing everyone to accept same-sex marriage to be a special right for any group. Obviously, if the state was forcing that on everyone, everyone would expect the state to force everyone to accept their own same-sex marriage -- sexual attraction/behavior, or "groups", is irrelevant to that issue. The context of that section was the issue of forming a legally defined group.

Again, I don't get the Charlie thing... I'll assume you are labeling me Charlie (even thought you don't know who I am) to mean I'm a part of some group. And you are calling me a "bigot". That's quite ironic, as you are obviously the one being intolerant of whatever group/creed/opinion it is you are wanting to label me as. Don't be so cryptic, Pro, I'm here to read what you have to say. How often have you noticed when one doesn't have an argument, they start insulting?

There is no genetic test for "homosexual"

Nor for Christianity, yet all religions are expected to be treated equally.

What specifically is your point? Adults should have freedom of thought, belief, speech and assembly. I've never stated, nor insinuated, anyone who labels them self "homosexual" should be treated differently based on that identification. I would be vehemently against it. Or on the flip-side, what special rights do you think christians have?

Thoughts?

You're an idiot who's parroting the entire 'case' presented by your ilk in Loving v Virginia.

Again, you're labeling me with "your ilk", and spewing insults. Have you read the dictionary definition of bigot lately, Pot?

Ironic... I must admit, I had to look up Loving v Virginia to know what it was. I can't be "parroting" arguments for Loving v Virginia, because I've never heard them. And it wouldn't matter if anyone was, because it's irrelevant. One could use the same arguments for court case against slavery, in a case against parental rights. That's supposed to prove parental rights for their children are the same thing, or identically unethical, as an adult owning another adult? Who's parroting here, Pro? If you have an opinion to offer, lay it out so we can understand what you saying. Labeling isn't much of an expostulation, is it?

Please, Pro, don't assume I think I'm right. I'm trying to learn from your position.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The great assumption I will hand you is that one can "be" a "homosexual",

Charlie Bass?

Huh? You talking about the former Congressman, or a TV show rumor? I don't get the relevance. You'll have to explain that one.

I'm not buying it...

When the state backs something, they force behavioral obedience to it.

Fail. Recognizing or even granting privileges based on a given relationship does not force people to conform to it. It merely rewards those who do while effectively punishing and discriminating against those who do not.

Based on your forum name, Proletarian, I would gather you know how serious, extensive and intrusive, that really is.

How does my not owning the mans of production, but selling my labour and liberty, have anything to do with this subject?

A state law not recognizing the marriage of one man and one woman of a different "race" is not the same thing as the state not recognizing same-sex marriage -- anymore than it's the same as not recognizing adult polygamous (multiple spouses) and incestuous (brother/sister, mother/son, father/daughter) marriages.

Seeing as I see nothing wrong with any of the above, and all have been observed (even preferred, in the case of incestuous relations in 'royal' families) you fail to make any point whatsoever. well, accept arguing my case for me.

In a representative democracy the majority draws those lines,

Fail. In the Republic, the majority cannot vote upon the rights of the minority, so long as they do nothing to harm another person.

Commrade,

You are not not my comrade, punk.

I just went into depth how legally defining someone as homosexual is not possible.

Really? Where? I didn't see it.

Again, I guess it's just because you want it to be so, makes it so

. You have anything of substance to say on the subject?

are you speaking to yourself now?

You may have misunderstood me

I doubt that.

. Or maybe I was unclear or misspoke.

More likely, you're just ignorant and stupid.

I would not think the state forcing everyone to accept same-sex marriage to be a special right for any group.

That's not a coherent sentence. That's, like... half of a sentence...

Again, I don't get the Charlie thing... I'll assume you are labeling me Charlie (even thought you don't know who I am) to mean I'm a part of some group.

And you are calling me a "bigot". That's quite ironic, as you are obviously the one being intolerant of whatever group/creed/opinion it is you are wanting to label me as.

That was almost humourous.

Don't be so cryptic, Pro,

I've never been cryptic. I'm known more for being quite blunt. Ask around.


I'm here to read what you have to say. How often have you noticed when one doesn't have an argument, they start insulting?

What specifically is your point? Adults should have freedom of thought, belief, speech and assembly. I've never stated, nor insinuated, anyone who labels them self "homosexual" should be treated differently based on that identification.

Save when it comes to recognition of legal contract

Thoughts?

You're an idiot who's parroting the entire 'case' presented by your ilk in Loving v Virginia.

Again, you're labeling me with "your ilk", and spewing insults. Have you read the dictionary definition of bigot lately, Pot?

Yep. You were listed under 'synonyms'.

Ironic... I must admit, I had to look up Loving v Virginia to know what it was. I can't be "parroting" arguments for Loving v Virginia, because I've never heard them.

Colour me skeptical.

 

[goldcatt]

I must admit, I had to look up Loving v Virginia to know what it was.

Now I've officially seen everything. A poster insulting other posters' opinions on the legal issues involved in an equal protection case dealing with marriage as lacking depth - who'd never even heard of Loving v. Virginia. That's a classic.

 

[lawbuff]

What would be the legal arguments for the US Supreme Court declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional?

I read the suit online, it challenges DOMA as UNconstitutional. It was originally filed in CA state court but was removed to federal court under 28 USC 1442.


I believe it was challenged under an Equal Protection claim, but would have to look again.


The Full Faith and Credit clause itself gives Congress power itself to pass laws that say what acts/records are to be given effect thereof, and DOMA states NO state must give effect to any record of another that permits same sex marriage. FFC case law also supports this, however, not a direct ruling from a DOMA challenge.

 

[goldcatt]

What would be the legal arguments for the US Supreme Court declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional?

I read the suit online, it challenges DOMA as UNconstitutional. It was originally filed in CA state court but was removed to federal court under 28 USC 1442.


I believe it was challenged under an Equal Protection claim, but would have to look again.


The Full Faith and Credit clause itself gives Congress power itself to pass laws that say what acts/records are to be given effect thereof, and DOMA states NO state must give effect to any record of another that permits same sex marriage. FFC case law also supports this, however, not a direct ruling from a DOMA challenge.

Problem is, Prop 8 has nothing to do with Full Faith and Credit. It's a straight EP argument over whether the State of CA should allow same sex marriages within its own borders under the CA Constitution and the principles set forth in Loving, not whether it has to acknowledge any foreign marriages. The other problem with bringing full faith and credit into the equation is that marriage itself falls not under full faith and credit, but comity. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

 

[lawbuff]

What would be the legal arguments for the US Supreme Court declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional?

I read the suit online, it challenges DOMA as UNconstitutional. It was originally filed in CA state court but was removed to federal court under 28 USC 1442.


I believe it was challenged under an Equal Protection claim, but would have to look again.


The Full Faith and Credit clause itself gives Congress power itself to pass laws that say what acts/records are to be given effect thereof, and DOMA states NO state must give effect to any record of another that permits same sex marriage. FFC case law also supports this, however, not a direct ruling from a DOMA challenge.

Problem is, Prop 8 has nothing to do with Full Faith and Credit. It's a straight EP argument over whether the State of CA should allow same sex marriages within its own borders under the CA Constitution and the principles set forth in Loving, not whether it has to acknowledge any foreign marriages. The other problem with bringing full faith and credit into the equation is that marriage itself falls not under full faith and credit, but comity. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Here is the complaint seeking Declaratory and Injunctive relief, the Causes of Actions are; Violation of Due Process of the 14th; Violaltion of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th: Irreperable injury: and a 1983 claim.

Federal Case Against Prop 8 Complaint

 

[lawbuff]

I seem to be mistaken on the challenge of DOMA here in the complaint, but from what I can I remember, the original CA state complaint had DOMA as a challenge, somewhere it was dropped in the removal process?

 

[goldcatt]

I'm having trouble loading your link, lawbuff. For anyone else having difficulties, try this one from the official US Court site: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

 

[goldcatt]

Here's the link to the actual complaint, which is under the link for documents of special interest. You don't need PACER access for it:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

Preliminary orders and other filings can also be accessed from the first link in the post above without PACER acess.

No, I don't see anything about DOMA. While I can't stand DOMA it isn't implicated here. Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a pretty straightforward EP/DP case.

 

[lawbuff]

I seem to be mistaken on the challenge of DOMA here in the complaint, but from what I can I remember, the original CA state complaint had DOMA as a challenge, somewhere it was dropped in the removal process?

Here is the case I was thinking of and the removal under 1442, and it challenges DOMA, but that part was dismissed, so only the EP/DP et seq remain.

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/SmeltDismissal.pdf

 

[lawnerd]

What would be the legal arguments for the US Supreme Court declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional?

I read the suit online, it challenges DOMA as UNconstitutional. It was originally filed in CA state court but was removed to federal court under 28 USC 1442.


I believe it was challenged under an Equal Protection claim, but would have to look again.


The Full Faith and Credit clause itself gives Congress power itself to pass laws that say what acts/records are to be given effect thereof, and DOMA states NO state must give effect to any record of another that permits same sex marriage. FFC case law also supports this, however, not a direct ruling from a DOMA challenge.

I don't see any of these challenges prevailing.

 

[goldcatt]

What would be the legal arguments for the US Supreme Court declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional?

I read the suit online, it challenges DOMA as UNconstitutional. It was originally filed in CA state court but was removed to federal court under 28 USC 1442.


I believe it was challenged under an Equal Protection claim, but would have to look again.


The Full Faith and Credit clause itself gives Congress power itself to pass laws that say what acts/records are to be given effect thereof, and DOMA states NO state must give effect to any record of another that permits same sex marriage. FFC case law also supports this, however, not a direct ruling from a DOMA challenge.

I don't see any of these challenges prevailing.

Do you have an argument, or are you trolling?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The question is why should the government be involved with the licensing of marriages at all. Implicit with the power to confer any license is the power to deny said license.

Because the gov't has an interest in promoting certain kinds of relationships over other kinds of relationships. This is so because certain kinds of relationships tend to produce better citizens than others.
and I'll reiterate that fags have the same rights to marry as anyone else.

Your last point has been refuted. Everyone had the same rights to marry as everyone else when mixed race marriages were outlawed, and yet the court ruled against those laws.

 

[ihopehefails]

There are none because there are few restrictions on what states can do.