Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[WorldWatcher]

I think the stupidity of your logic is summed up here:

If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included?

Usually people give terse answers like this when they've discovered they're wrong. Proposition 8 says, "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California". Notice it doesn't say anything about gay or straight. Meaning, gays aren't being denied anything...other than the "right" to get their way, which isn't a right at all.

Correct, the discriminatory factor is gender - a biological condition similar to race.


>>>>

 

[g5000]

I think the stupidity of your logic is summed up here:

If the law is defined as man and woman, exactly how gays not included?

Usually people give terse answers like this when they've discovered they're wrong. Proposition 8 says, "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California". Notice it doesn't say anything about gay or straight. Meaning, gays aren't being denied anything...other than the "right" to get their way, which isn't a right at all.

Wow. Okay. Just keep digging that hole.

So if there was a law that said, "Only marriage between a white man and a white woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California", your idiotic illogic would argue that does not exclude blacks.

 

[bassho]

So much for voting. Apparently it's just a farce and when the result conflicts with the leftist agenda, no need to worry the judiciary to the rescue, to once again force the socialist will down the throats of the good voters. It's interesting how the socialists fabricate and attempt to hide behind what they claim is constitutional on one hand and ignore it altogether when it doesn't suit them or they cannot manufacture the illusion that somehow only they know what was intended.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think the stupidity of your logic is summed up here:

Usually people give terse answers like this when they've discovered they're wrong. Proposition 8 says, "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California". Notice it doesn't say anything about gay or straight. Meaning, gays aren't being denied anything...other than the "right" to get their way, which isn't a right at all.

Wow. Okay. Just keep digging that hole.

So if there was a law that said, "Only marriage between a white man and a white woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California", your idiotic illogic would argue that does not exclude blacks.

Actually that law would exclude blacks.

Now if the law said that "White could only marry whites and colored could only marry coloreds" then that would not exclude blacks and be closer to the logic.

But of course the SCOTUS already found that language to violate equal protection.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So much for voting. Apparently it's just a farce and when the result conflicts with the leftist agenda, no need to worry the judiciary to the rescue, to once again force the socialist will down the throats of the good voters. It's interesting how the socialists fabricate and attempt to hide behind what they claim is constitutional on one hand and ignore it altogether when it doesn't suit them or they cannot manufacture the illusion that somehow only they know what was intended.

"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."

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

When the Constitution says that the people have a right to bring grievance against the government and then the 14th was passed to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the States extending Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws to all citizens - well - we were just kidding. People aren't really supposed to bring a grievance against the government.



>>>>

 

[Qball]

I'll say two things:

1. This ruling is yet another example of right-wing "lies" and "fear-mongering" come to pass. The reason many people opposed to gay marriage also oppose civil unions is because they figured it wouldn't be seen as a compromise, it would be used to push the gay marriage agenda. Bullshit, they argued. Well, the narrow ruling argued that very premise. They said it was unconstitutional for a state to allow civil unions but withhold the title "marriage", and of course gay marriage supporters rejoice. But as I've said before, it's not fear-mongering if it's also the truth, and it's not a lie just because it hasn't happened yet.

I've read the ruling and that was not the basis of the ruling. The basis of the ruling was that same-sex couples had a right to Civil Marriage in California prior to the enactment of Prop 8 and that there was no rational reason for the government (i.e. the initiative process acting to create law) to revoke a right already held by a group. The reason was that all rights and responsibilities associated under California law existed under Civil Unions (which would be the status of same-sex couples if Prop 8 was to pass) so that all the arguments made by proponents were false - the only reason to pass Prop 8 was established as removing equal treatment under the law by calling the legal relationships the same thing.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

Sooo, then it was the basis of the ruling. You just added in their rationale for it. That doesn't change the fact that they used the fact that CA has domestic partnerships as part of their reasoning to strike down Prop 8.

Also, I'll point out that this "right" they had was granted by judicial fiat; it didn't "always exist". The 9C tried to do some quarterbacking (and I guess some people have fallen for it), but the court doesn't have the final say over what the constitution says. The people are the ultimate sovereign, and it's clear they never intended for their constitution to reflect a right to gay marriage (given the popular votes on Proposition 22, which was struck down, then Prop 8).

2. The primary thing everyone needs to understand is that we don't define marriage as the union of a man and woman just because of hatred of gay people. There's nothing wrong with having a debate over gay marriage, and both sides making their case, and occasionally one side winning and one side losing. But it's wrong to just conclude, without any evidence, that the primary motivation for not wanting to alter marriage, and the primary reason marriage isn't now inclusive to gay couples, is due to bigotry and intolerance.

I don't tend to get into the "bigotry", "hate" and "intolerance" arguments.

Good.

We're not talking about some simple issue of morality here. This isn't slavery, this isn't gays being forced into ghettos, this isn't gays being forced to ride in the back of the bus.

Correct, we are a country founded on the ideals of liberty and freedom, we teach our children the Pledge of Allegiance which ends with "Liberty and Justice for All".

We are a country where morally speaking the ideals should exist that the government should not discriminate against it's citizens based on gender without a compelling government reason. The principle that people in like situated situations should be treated the same without discrimination simply because one segment of a population finds another segment "abominations", "icky", or just because they live their lives differently.

To date no one has really provided a compelling government reason why law abiding, tax paying, infertile, US Citizen, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple should be treated differently then law abiding, tax paying, infertile, US Citizen, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.
>>>>

Well, first of all the problem is gay marriage supporters have the mistaken belief that they have room to sit around demanding answers for not getting their way. It's one of the reasons I like to stress that gay marriage -- this thing they want so badly -- hasn't ever existed. Nobody's taking anything away from you. This country didn't just wake up one day thirty years ago and decide, "gays can no longer marry". The onus is those who want to change marriage, not those who want it to stay the same. It'd be great if both sides had "compelling reasons" the other side could respect, but alas that isn't the case.

Infertile heterosexual couples are an exception to the general rule that male/female couples procreate and same-sex couples do not. You're comparing the rule in one case to the exception in another and calling it the same thing.

Personally, I'll say I've never been convinced of the gay marriage arguments, either. Because there are certain legal benefits tied to marriage doesn't entitle you to them, and those benefits exist due to the specific relationship between men and woman, and not the general human tendency to pair up.

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

None of the Civil Marriage laws are written in terms of sexual orientation, the discrimination is written in terms of gender.
>>>>

So if the law says marriage is a man and woman, meaning a woman can only marry a man, and a man can only marry a woman, who's being discriminated against? Some men might would marry a man, some women might would marry a woman, but neither of them can. That seems equal to me.

 

[bripat9643]

Which means a shift of only 2.5% would have ment a different outcome.

A 2.5% change to change the outcome is pretty slim.

>>>>

And that gives a couple of judges carte blanche to toss it out?

What I responded to had nothing to do with judges.


What gives judges the authority to throw out a law is when it is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, nothing about how many vote a law passes by gives them that authority.


>>>>

Of what relevance is the vote margin to that issue?

 

[del]

I'll say two things:

1. This ruling is yet another example of right-wing "lies" and "fear-mongering" come to pass. The reason many people opposed to gay marriage also oppose civil unions is because they figured it wouldn't be seen as a compromise, it would be used to push the gay marriage agenda. Bullshit, they argued. Well, the narrow ruling argued that very premise. They said it was unconstitutional for a state to allow civil unions but withhold the title "marriage", and of course gay marriage supporters rejoice. But as I've said before, it's not fear-mongering if it's also the truth, and it's not a lie just because it hasn't happened yet.

I've read the ruling and that was not the basis of the ruling. The basis of the ruling was that same-sex couples had a right to Civil Marriage in California prior to the enactment of Prop 8 and that there was no rational reason for the government (i.e. the initiative process acting to create law) to revoke a right already held by a group. The reason was that all rights and responsibilities associated under California law existed under Civil Unions (which would be the status of same-sex couples if Prop 8 was to pass) so that all the arguments made by proponents were false - the only reason to pass Prop 8 was established as removing equal treatment under the law by calling the legal relationships the same thing.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

Sooo, then it was the basis of the ruling. You just added in their rationale for it. That doesn't change the fact that they used the fact that CA has domestic partnerships as part of their reasoning to strike down Prop 8.

Also, I'll point out that this "right" they had was granted by judicial fiat; it didn't "always exist". The 9C tried to do some quarterbacking (and I guess some people have fallen for it), but the court doesn't have the final say over what the constitution says. The people are the ultimate sovereign, and it's clear they never intended for their constitution to reflect a right to gay marriage (given the popular votes on Proposition 22, which was struck down, then Prop 8).



Good.




Well, first of all the problem is gay marriage supporters have the mistaken belief that they have room to sit around demanding answers for not getting their way. It's one of the reasons I like to stress that gay marriage -- this thing they want so badly -- hasn't ever existed. Nobody's taking anything away from you. This country didn't just wake up one day thirty years ago and decide, "gays can no longer marry". The onus is those who want to change marriage, not those who want it to stay the same. It'd be great if both sides had "compelling reasons" the other side could respect, but alas that isn't the case.

Infertile heterosexual couples are an exception to the general rule that male/female couples procreate and same-sex couples do not. You're comparing the rule in one case to the exception in another and calling it the same thing.

Personally, I'll say I've never been convinced of the gay marriage arguments, either. Because there are certain legal benefits tied to marriage doesn't entitle you to them, and those benefits exist due to the specific relationship between men and woman, and not the general human tendency to pair up.

How are they being denied equal protection of the law? What are, say, straight people protected from that gay people aren't being protected from, just because they're gay?

None of the Civil Marriage laws are written in terms of sexual orientation, the discrimination is written in terms of gender.
>>>>

So if the law says marriage is a man and woman, meaning a woman can only marry a man, and a man can only marry a woman, who's being discriminated against? Some men might would marry a man, some women might would marry a woman, but neither of them can. That seems equal to me.

that's because you're really, really, really stupid.

 

[Gadawg73]

So much for voting. Apparently it's just a farce and when the result conflicts with the leftist agenda, no need to worry the judiciary to the rescue, to once again force the socialist will down the throats of the good voters. It's interesting how the socialists fabricate and attempt to hide behind what they claim is constitutional on one hand and ignore it altogether when it doesn't suit them or they cannot manufacture the illusion that somehow only they know what was intended.

I support gay marriage or better said, I am not opposed to it and am indifferent.
And I have voted Republican for 40 straight years 95% of the time
I ain't no leftist.
Them is fighten words!
Ever notice how come election we hear the anti gay marriage politicians and then we hear nothing about it for another 4 years?
Think about that Moe.

 

[Qball]

I think the stupidity of your logic is summed up here:

Usually people give terse answers like this when they've discovered they're wrong. Proposition 8 says, "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California". Notice it doesn't say anything about gay or straight. Meaning, gays aren't being denied anything...other than the "right" to get their way, which isn't a right at all.

Wow. Okay. Just keep digging that hole.

So if there was a law that said, "Only marriage between a white man and a white woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California", your idiotic illogic would argue that does not exclude blacks.

Well, rule of thumb is it's not good to show that someone's argument wouldn't work if you were talking about an entirely different subject. Because you're not actually talking about a different subject. Plus, what you said wasn't a natural consequent of what I said, so really you make no sense.

Anyway.

That law would actually exclude blacks, so...what are you talking about?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Usually people give terse answers like this when they've discovered they're wrong. Proposition 8 says, "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California". Notice it doesn't say anything about gay or straight. Meaning, gays aren't being denied anything...other than the "right" to get their way, which isn't a right at all.

It doesn’t need to say anything about ‘gay or straight’ to be un-Constitutional. The very act of denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple when that very same license was issued to an opposite sex couple is the very basis of the equal protection violation.

No one is asking to ‘get their way’; indeed, same-sex couples wish only to be treated no differently than anyone else, to have the same access to their state’s laws as any other citizen.

To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in Romer:

“We must conclude that [Proposition 8] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [California] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [Proposition 8] violates the Equal Protection Clause…”

 

[Qball]

that's because you're really, really, really stupid.

How is that really, really, really stupid?

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Cooking dinner write now.

Will respond in detail later over coffee.

>>>>

 

[Qball]

Usually people give terse answers like this when they've discovered they're wrong. Proposition 8 says, "only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of California". Notice it doesn't say anything about gay or straight. Meaning, gays aren't being denied anything...other than the "right" to get their way, which isn't a right at all.

It doesn’t need to say anything about ‘gay or straight’ to be un-Constitutional. The very act of denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple when that very same license was issued to an opposite sex couple is the very basis of the equal protection violation.

No, it doesn't. For one thing, saying one type of couple is being treated differently than another type of couple misses the fact that couples don't possess rights. If they did, it would be unconstitutional for any type of couple to be denied a marriage license. But of course it's not, so that's an erroneous argument.

Also, "equal protection" doesn't pertain to anything that has two people classes of people involved. The law itself has to pertain, and marriage arguably does not. You're not protected from anything simply because you're married, nor are you harmed by having a legally single status.

No one is asking to ‘get their way’; indeed, same-sex couples wish only to be treated no differently than anyone else, to have the same access to their state’s laws as any other citizen.

And that's fine, but since there is no constitutional requirement for that, it should be left up to the legislative process to determine. Although, I'll point there is no real functional different between marriage and domestic partnerships, which are available to same-sex couples, in CA.

To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in Romer:

“We must conclude that [Proposition 8] classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [California] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [Proposition 8] violates the Equal Protection Clause…”

Except the law in Colorado that was overturned by an amendment was just about certain protections being given to LGBT individuals. It didn't implicate a fundamentally non-protected class (couples), nor did it involve something that has nothing to do with legal protections (marriage).

 

[del]

that's because you're really, really, really stupid.

How is that really, really, really stupid?

completely, inexorably and fully

 

[g5000]

So much for voting. Apparently it's just a farce and when the result conflicts with the leftist agenda, no need to worry the judiciary to the rescue, to once again force the socialist will down the throats of the good voters.

Like Gadawg, I am also a conservative Republican. I support gay marriage because I cannot argue with the 14th Amendment.

It's interesting how the socialists fabricate and attempt to hide behind what they claim is constitutional on one hand and ignore it altogether when it doesn't suit them or they cannot manufacture the illusion that somehow only they know what was intended.

I think it is interesting that when the Courts protect the Constitution and strike down a state's gun control law because it violates the 2nd Amendment, we don't hear the Right screaming about the violation of states rights, and we don't hear the Right screaming about the "will of the people", and we don't hear the Right screaming about "activist judges". No. We hear about the wisdom of the Founders in providing us a judicial branch to stop those who would tear up our Constitution.

But when the Courts protect the Constitution and strike down a state law which violates the 14th Amendment, it's "We have always been at war with Eastasia!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think it is interesting that when the Courts protect the Constitution and strike down a state's gun control law because it violates the 2nd Amendment, we don't hear the Right screaming about the violation of states rights, and we don't hear the Right screaming about the "will of the people", and we don't hear the Right screaming about "activist judges".

But when the Courts protect the Constitution and strikes down a state law which violates the 14th Amendment, it's "We have always been at war with Eastasia!"

True.

Nor do we hear the right complaining about an ‘individual’ right to own a handgun in the context of ‘self-defense’ when none of those words are found in the Second Amendment. Yet the right to privacy is a ‘made up’ right.

 

[Zander]

Divorce lawyers across California are popping the corks on their champagne bottles!!

"Poster Couple" For Gays Rights Divorcing | NBC Bay Area

 

[MarcATL]

I don't believe that is true. In most states, if not all, you need a marriage license to get married, which is another encroachment of government that needs to be gotten rid of. We shouldn't need government permission to be married.

No it's not you crazy radical.

Just stop and think for a moment what are the modern implications of a marriage.

Think immigration. Think fraud.

What would happen if anyone could marry anyone with no government oversite?

How would immigration process all those "new citizens?"

That's just ONE aspect.

Snap out of your radical, make-believe, non-realistic, nonsensical, libertarian bubble!!

What government oversight is there now other than EXISTING criminal statutes if you want to get married?
How does allowing gay folk change those existing statutes?
They do not exempt gay folk if they get married as it is now.
Specifics please sir.

Clearly you are a non-thinker.

Did you see the example I brought up...that of the immigration situation?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

If/when a foreigner marries a citizen said foreigner can become an American citizen, it's the fastest track to citizenship. Although it has stipulations and a time line associated with it. The Immigration Department handles that. Last time I checked that's a part of Government, aka government oversight.

One more retort like this and I'm gonna write you off like I did that radical fool paulitician.

 

[Flopper]

None of this would have been consented to in the Founding days.

This is 2012, not 1776. The founding fathers would not consent to abolish slavery.

In order to form the union they had to agree not to interfere in each other INTERNAL AFFAIRS - nor was any authority given to fedgov. The ONLY reason it interferes is because fedgov has powerful domestic armies and we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise.

They didn't have enough faith in democracy to allow us to vote for Senators or the President.

There is NOTHING NEW under the sun, read the CATO Letters. The Founding Fathers new that majority rule would degenerate into a welfare/warfare state.

They made plenty of mistakes but they wisely gave us a legislature and an amendment process as a method of correcting them and modifying law to fit our fit our needs. The consent of the founding fathers is irrelevant.

Incorrect.

The 17th Amendment changed the scheme - now we have two houses of representatives and the states have been placed out of the equation.

.

In other words, what the founding fathers would think of same sex marriage is irrelevant to the topic. I doubt they gave it any thought to it at all, as the idea of same sex marriage would have been unthinkable at the time, as would a birth control pill, a 50% divorce rate, a civil rights law, equal pay for women, a man on the moon, or a bomb that could kill millions.