Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Yurt]

A lot of silly arguments on this thread. Perhaps the silliest one of all is that since we must get a license to marry it is okay to refuse any two citizens a license simply because they are gay.

What next? No gays granted driver's licenses or hunting licenses?

agreed

 

[ConHog]

A lot of silly arguments on this thread. Perhaps the silliest one of all is that since we must get a license to marry it is okay to refuse any two citizens a license simply because they are gay.

What next? No gays granted driver's licenses or hunting licenses?

Who said that?

 

[Oddball]

Like I asked before, how do you go about determining and quantifying "gayness" to receive any license, let alone one for marriage?

Does this now mean that straight same-sex couples should now be granted a license to marry?

 

[ConHog]

Like I asked before, how do you go about determining and quantifying "gayness" to receive any license, let alone one for marriage?

Does this now mean that straight same-sex couples should now be granted a license to marry?

Same sex triplets can get married for all I care. I mean honestly.

 

[Ravi]

Like I asked before, how do you go about determining and quantifying "gayness" to receive any license, let alone one for marriage?

Does this now mean that straight same-sex couples should now be granted a license to marry?

If that is what they want, yes.

There is no reason that any two consenting adults can't be married in a civil ceremony.

 

[Ravi]

A lot of silly arguments on this thread. Perhaps the silliest one of all is that since we must get a license to marry it is okay to refuse any two citizens a license simply because they are gay.

What next? No gays granted driver's licenses or hunting licenses?

Who said that?

Dud...and I think you but I just skimmed the thread. Noticed your inferiority bruhaha.

 

[topspin]

Man I know there are same angry haters here. But this is a new level of hateraid. Kudos to the gays and there new humaine equal rights. With this many hating morons we hate plenty room to improve.

 

[Oddball]

Like I asked before, how do you go about determining and quantifying "gayness" to receive any license, let alone one for marriage?

Does this now mean that straight same-sex couples should now be granted a license to marry?

Same sex triplets can get married for all I care. I mean honestly.

I don't really care either, as long as the proper deference is given to the precepts of dual sovereignty.

Making this a federal decision plainly ignores that, in favor of making a political decision from the bench.

 

[Sheldon]

It's correct that sexuality isn't mentioned in Prop 8. While the de facto discrimination against gays is a sexy red herring, the de jure discrimination is against gender and I think that's where the legal argument really is.

I look at it real simple-like:

There are privileges provided by marriage. First things that come to mind: tax benefits, 401K benefits, inheritance, medical decisions. I believe those privileges shouldn't be disallowed to a consensual adult relationship--marriage, civil union, I don't give a **** what it's called--simply because of the gender of both parties. To me, that reeks of gender discrimination, and as a violation of the Fourteenth.

If SCOTUS strikes Prop 8 down, then DOMA will go, too. We're watching a landmark case unfold.

 

[AllieBaba]

Man I know there are same angry haters here. But this is a new level of hateraid. Kudos to the gays and there new humaine equal rights. With this many hating morons we hate plenty room to improve.

You can say that again....

and nobody would understand you the second time, either. WTF?

 

[Toro]

Gay marriage is inevitable. Might as well accelerate history since its going to happen anyways.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's correct that sexuality isn't mentioned in Prop 8. While the de facto discrimination against gays is a sexy red herring, the de jure discrimination is against gender and I think that's where the legal argument really is.

I look at it real simple-like:

There are privileges provided by marriage. First things that come to mind: tax benefits, 401K benefits, inheritance, medical decisions. I believe those privileges shouldn't be disallowed to a consensual adult relationship--marriage, civil union, I don't give a **** what it's called--simply because of the gender of both parties. To me, that reeks of gender discrimination, and as a violation of the Fourteenth.

If SCOTUS strikes Prop 8 down, then DOMA will go, too. We're watching a landmark case unfold.

We're watching our country change from a republic to a tyranny, is what we're watching. Where judges overrule the people to assert their own political views.

 

[bodecea]

Which Constitutional provision or amendment deems a state-issued license for anything as a right?

Equal protection, Dude....it's not the license per se...it's that the government provides the license with all the rights, protections, and privileges to one group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...and denies that same license to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...without a valid (for the welfare of the people) reason.

The issue here definitely is the state-issued license, per se.

You're perfectly free to marry any man -gay or not- you want, under a statutory marriage.

Otherwise, you'll have to go the common or contract law route.

And thus...gender discrimination.

 

[WillowTree]

A lot of silly arguments on this thread. Perhaps the silliest one of all is that since we must get a license to marry it is okay to refuse any two citizens a license simply because they are gay.

What next? No gays granted driver's licenses or hunting licenses?

no reason to keep two brothers from getting married either, least ways I can think of none. since procreation is out of the equation.

 

[ConHog]

A lot of silly arguments on this thread. Perhaps the silliest one of all is that since we must get a license to marry it is okay to refuse any two citizens a license simply because they are gay.

What next? No gays granted driver's licenses or hunting licenses?

Who said that?

Dud...and I think you but I just skimmed the thread. Noticed your inferiority bruhaha.

LOL YOu think I said that gay's shouldn't be allowed to marry? You're a god damned fool and a liar deluxe Ravi. I bet I've said 20 times in THIS thread alone that no one should be denied a privilege based on sex. PERIOD.

You stupid hack. In fact THIS

On the right, shut up for God's sakes, no one should be denied a privilege of citizenship based on a sin (and blah no lefite it isn't a sin responses here ok , I'm not ******* talking to you in this paragraph.) Since when did being conservative mean not having a goddamn lick of compassion or common sense? Jesus just let them get married, does it lessen your own marriage at all? No it doesn't.


was posted exactly three posts before your stupid post about denying driver's licenses.

 

[Oddball]

Gay marriage is inevitable. Might as well accelerate history since its going to happen anyways.

...no matter how many precepts of the American republic we need to destroy to reach that end.

 

[bodecea]

SCOTUS should have an easy time knocking this little gem down:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license..." - Walker

Prop 8 does nothing of the kind. Gays are not even mentioned in Prop 8.

Relax. This won't stand.

nah...intent or legislative intent is always a factor...

there is no doubt prop 8 was solely about denying gays the right to marry, it came about as a direct response to californis sct allowing gay marriage

Au contraire, my friend. Prop 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Gays are not excluded from that definition and are not singled out.

Easy.

Exactly....it is gender discrimination.

 

[Sheldon]

It's correct that sexuality isn't mentioned in Prop 8. While the de facto discrimination against gays is a sexy red herring, the de jure discrimination is against gender and I think that's where the legal argument really is.

I look at it real simple-like:

There are privileges provided by marriage. First things that come to mind: tax benefits, 401K benefits, inheritance, medical decisions. I believe those privileges shouldn't be disallowed to a consensual adult relationship--marriage, civil union, I don't give a **** what it's called--simply because of the gender of both parties. To me, that reeks of gender discrimination, and as a violation of the Fourteenth.

If SCOTUS strikes Prop 8 down, then DOMA will go, too. We're watching a landmark case unfold.

We're watching our country change from a republic to a tyranny, is what we're watching. Where judges overrule the people to assert their own political views.

That's how I would feel, if the judge had ruled the other way.

 

[bodecea]

I'm saying the state-issued license is, by definition, a privilege...You can look it up. There's nothing in the world stopping any couple from drawing up their own private marriage arrangements, and having them enforced under common and contract law.

BTW, if states wish to pass laws authorizing statutory gay marriage, I couldn't care less.

Then, to be equal...DROP the state licensing...with all the privileges, protections, and rights that come with it....for ALL. I'm ok with that as long as there is equality.

I'm all for that.

But when is the gay community going to pull their collective heads out of their asses, and even consider the approach of abolishing statutory marriages as an option?
My answer to that: The people driving the "right" to a statutory marriage issue are a bunch of far leftist wackos, who believe that all which is good and just flows from Big Daddy Big Gubmint.

That has been TRIED in CA...with a petition for a Proposition....it did not get very far at all.

 

[Valerie]

A lot of silly arguments on this thread. Perhaps the silliest one of all is that since we must get a license to marry it is okay to refuse any two citizens a license simply because they are gay.

What next? No gays granted driver's licenses or hunting licenses?

no reason to keep two brothers from getting married either, least ways I can think of none. since procreation is out of the equation.

Maybe the benefits should just be called something like a Civil Commitment Incentive.