Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[CurveLight]

Just in.
More to follow.

Incorrect. There is no Constitutional Right to gay marriage.

Strawmen are all dishonest cowards like you have to offer. If you ever made a legitimate and valid argument it would be by pure accident you reetawrded ****.

 

[mal]

Just in.
More to follow.

Incorrect. There is no Constitutional Right to gay marriage.

Strawmen are all dishonest cowards like you have to offer. If you ever made a legitimate and valid argument it would be by pure accident you reetawrded ****.

Strawmen?... It's simply a Fact that you do not have a Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage...

The Supreme Court Addressed Restrictions on Marriage based on Race and Rule that it was a Civil Right that was "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival."

Homosexual Coupling is not that...



peace...

 

[Dr Grump]

That's a lovely sentiment. Sort of like telling blacks to move to Africa, or gays to move to San Fran

After all, if we're going to let all consenting adults marry each other at will, why not allow plural marriages? Or marriages between parents and (grown) children? Brothers and sisters? Don't they have the right to pursue happiness in their own way as well?

Indeed, why not?

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes, and WHO were the ones who freed the slaves? Oh thats right, white men. WHO are the ones that gave the black people voting rights? Oh thats right, WHITE men. Nice attempt though to deflect, its comparing apples and oranges. Being born a certain race/gender has nothing to do with a sinful and immoral behavior.

Also, I never once said that two homosexuals in a relationship ever effected me or impacted me in my life - you are the one who came up with that strawman arguement on your own. Just because your deviant behavior doesn't effect me personally, doesn't make it moral. If you raped your sister, it may not effect me either, but it's still immoral. So your arguement falls flat on its face.

Well bully for the white man! Good on him for righting a wrong!

What is one man's morals is anothers by which they live by. Just because you find something immoral, doesn't mean it is. The rule of thumb I use is "Who's getting hurt here". If somebody is, then it is a moral dilemma. If nobody is, then it's not. The impact on my life aspect is far from a strawman, it is the only yardstick that needs to be used....

 

[AllieBaba]

That's a lovely sentiment. Sort of like telling blacks to move to Africa, or gays to move to San Fran

After all, if we're going to let all consenting adults marry each other at will, why not allow plural marriages? Or marriages between parents and (grown) children? Brothers and sisters? Don't they have the right to pursue happiness in their own way as well?

Indeed, why not?

You are so gross.

 

[ConHog]

Just in.
More to follow.

Incorrect. There is no Constitutional Right to gay marriage.

Strawmen are all dishonest cowards like you have to offer. If you ever made a legitimate and valid argument it would be by pure accident you reetawrded ****.

Can you show me the Article or Amendment which constitutionally guarantees your right to marry anyone?

 

[bodecea]

Yes, and WHO were the ones who freed the slaves? Oh thats right, white men. WHO are the ones that gave the black people voting rights? Oh thats right, WHITE men. Nice attempt though to deflect, its comparing apples and oranges. Being born a certain race/gender has nothing to do with a sinful and immoral behavior.

Also, I never once said that two homosexuals in a relationship ever effected me or impacted me in my life - you are the one who came up with that strawman arguement on your own. Just because your deviant behavior doesn't effect me personally, doesn't make it moral. If you raped your sister, it may not effect me either, but it's still immoral. So your arguement falls flat on its face.

Well bully for the white man! Good on him for righting a wrong!

What is one man's morals is anothers by which they live by. Just because you find something immoral, doesn't mean it is. The rule of thumb I use is "Who's getting hurt here". If somebody is, then it is a moral dilemma. If nobody is, then it's not. The impact on my life aspect is far from a strawman, it is the only yardstick that needs to be used....

I wonder if he is expecting black people to be eternally grateful to whites for freeing them.

 

[Madeline]

Once again, I find I have nothing more to add to all this discussion.

But I just cannot wipe the grin off my face.....and I can hardly believe the kid I have raised and the ones I have watched grow up will never know the hatred and bigotry adults my age and older have seen. It's been an amazing time to be alive....once again, congrats to everyone.

 

[ConHog]

just a thought, but if gays, or other so called minorities, really cared about being seen as equal, they would argue against so called hate crimes and affirmative action type program.s Not related to marriage I know, but a point on its own.

 

[Yukon.]

Strange how those condemed to Yukon's purgatory persist in commenting.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well folks, at the end of the first quarter where we had the Dover ID v. evolution case and the California gay marriage case the score is:

Conservative Judges and freedom 14
Right wing kooks 0

 

[Yukon.]

Well folks, at the end of the first quarter where we had the Dover ID v. evolution case and the California gay marriage case the score is:

Conservative Judges and freedom 14
Right wing kooks 0

BRAVO, Gadawag, BRAVO my son !

 

[Gadawg73]

Once again, I find I have nothing more to add to all this discussion.

But I just cannot wipe the grin off my face.....and I can hardly believe the kid I have raised and the ones I have watched grow up will never know the hatred and bigotry adults my age and older have seen. It's been an amazing time to be alive....once again, congrats to everyone.

This old flannel shirt wearing, fishing and hunting, tobacco chewing and spittin, beer and Jack Daniels swillin, limping from football days and southern drawl speaking country boy feels exactly the same Madeline. Took my oldest son a while but he is coming around.
The great news is my daughter who is a senior in high school treats everyone with respect.
That is how we raised her.
I have a very good friend, retired career military officer from Viet Nam, 2 purple hearts and with enough fruit salad on his chest to blind you say it best:
"30 years from now we will all look back and see how stupid this entire gay boogeyman argument was".
Gays area non issue to me unless someone tries to deny them their rights. As a defender of liberty and acting as a true patriot I seek to defend the rights of EVERYONE, especially those that are persecuted.

 

[Mr Natural]

Could they possibly find a more nonsensical issue to hang their hats on?

 

[Madeline]

"They" who, Mr Clean?

 

[Madeline]

Once again, I find I have nothing more to add to all this discussion.

But I just cannot wipe the grin off my face.....and I can hardly believe the kid I have raised and the ones I have watched grow up will never know the hatred and bigotry adults my age and older have seen. It's been an amazing time to be alive....once again, congrats to everyone.

This old flannel shirt wearing, fishing and hunting, tobacco chewing and spittin, beer and Jack Daniels swillin, limping from football days and southern drawl speaking country boy feels exactly the same Madeline. Took my oldest son a while but he is coming around.
The great news is my daughter who is a senior in high school treats everyone with respect.
That is how we raised her.
I have a very good friend, retired career military officer from Viet Nam, 2 purple hearts and with enough fruit salad on his chest to blind you say it best:
"30 years from now we will all look back and see how stupid this entire gay boogeyman argument was".
Gays area non issue to me unless someone tries to deny them their rights. As a defender of liberty and acting as a true patriot I seek to defend the rights of EVERYONE, especially those that are persecuted.

O wow...the perfect man. LOL.

 

[Navy1960]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

The definition of sexual orientation in the laws of the 13 states prohibiting such
discrimination in employment generally establishes the basis for the protection they
provide. The majority of states provide in some form that “sexual orientation” means
heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.4 Except for Vermont and the District
of Columbia, all the definitions include people who are perceived by others to be in,
or are identified with, those three categories, whether or not they actually fall within
one of them. An effect of this is to prohibit discrimination not only against an
employee who is homosexual, for example, but also against an employee whom the
employer wrongly believes is homosexual.

ENDA
California
“Homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” sec. 3(9)
“Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,” including “a perception that the person has
[any of these characteristics].” Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(q)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf

No offense here but it does appear to be a consitutional issue, and if California expressly forbids discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation by law, then a law that is passed that excludes those individuals from marriage which is a civil matter can be seen as a viloation of Equal Protection Clause. Of course there is no constitutional Amendment that gives anyone the right to marry and that is left to the states to decide, however if a state expressly forbids descrimination based on sexual orientation and then passes a law that does it has IMHO violated the 14th Amendment.

Unruh Civil Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.[1] This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[2] This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified at California Civil Code § 51

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

This does not mean that another state cannot pass a law that prohibits same sex marriage IMO.

 

[LuckyDan]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

The definition of sexual orientation in the laws of the 13 states prohibiting such
discrimination in employment generally establishes the basis for the protection they
provide. The majority of states provide in some form that “sexual orientation” means
heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.4 Except for Vermont and the District
of Columbia, all the definitions include people who are perceived by others to be in,
or are identified with, those three categories, whether or not they actually fall within
one of them. An effect of this is to prohibit discrimination not only against an
employee who is homosexual, for example, but also against an employee whom the
employer wrongly believes is homosexual.

ENDA
California
“Homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” sec. 3(9)
“Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,” including “a perception that the person has
[any of these characteristics].” Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(q)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf

No offense here but it does appear to be a consitutional issue, and if California expressly forbids discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation by law, then a law that is passed that excludes those individuals from marriage which is a civil matter can be seen as a viloation of Equal Protection Clause. Of course there is no constitutional Amendment that gives anyone the right to marry and that is left to the states to decide, however if a state expressly forbids descrimination based on sexual orientation and then passes a law that does it has IMHO violated the 14th Amendment.

Unruh Civil Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.[1] This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[2] This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified at California Civil Code § 51

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

This does not mean that another state cannot pass a law that prohibits same sex marriage IMO.

Prop 8 excludes no one from marriage.

 

[bodecea]

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

The definition of sexual orientation in the laws of the 13 states prohibiting such
discrimination in employment generally establishes the basis for the protection they
provide. The majority of states provide in some form that “sexual orientation” means
heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.4 Except for Vermont and the District
of Columbia, all the definitions include people who are perceived by others to be in,
or are identified with, those three categories, whether or not they actually fall within
one of them. An effect of this is to prohibit discrimination not only against an
employee who is homosexual, for example, but also against an employee whom the
employer wrongly believes is homosexual.

ENDA
California
“Homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” sec. 3(9)
“Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,” including “a perception that the person has
[any of these characteristics].” Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(q)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf

No offense here but it does appear to be a consitutional issue, and if California expressly forbids discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation by law, then a law that is passed that excludes those individuals from marriage which is a civil matter can be seen as a viloation of Equal Protection Clause. Of course there is no constitutional Amendment that gives anyone the right to marry and that is left to the states to decide, however if a state expressly forbids descrimination based on sexual orientation and then passes a law that does it has IMHO violated the 14th Amendment.

Unruh Civil Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.[1] This law applies to all businesses, including but not limited to hotels and motel, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail establishments.[2] This law was enacted in 1959, and was named for the author Jesse M. Unruh. The Unruh Civil Rights Act is codified at California Civil Code § 51

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

This does not mean that another state cannot pass a law that prohibits same sex marriage IMO.

Prop 8 excludes no one from marriage.

Not anymore it doesn't.

 

[bodecea]

Once again, I find I have nothing more to add to all this discussion.

But I just cannot wipe the grin off my face.....and I can hardly believe the kid I have raised and the ones I have watched grow up will never know the hatred and bigotry adults my age and older have seen. It's been an amazing time to be alive....once again, congrats to everyone.

This old flannel shirt wearing, fishing and hunting, tobacco chewing and spittin, beer and Jack Daniels swillin, limping from football days and southern drawl speaking country boy feels exactly the same Madeline. Took my oldest son a while but he is coming around.
The great news is my daughter who is a senior in high school treats everyone with respect.
That is how we raised her.
I have a very good friend, retired career military officer from Viet Nam, 2 purple hearts and with enough fruit salad on his chest to blind you say it best:
"30 years from now we will all look back and see how stupid this entire gay boogeyman argument was".
Gays area non issue to me unless someone tries to deny them their rights. As a defender of liberty and acting as a true patriot I seek to defend the rights of EVERYONE, especially those that are persecuted.

O wow...the perfect man. LOL.

I know...if I were straight...I'd be flirting with Gadawg....a lot.