New Prop 8 Case Filed in CA July 12, 2013 Headed to SCOTUS Ultimately

[Silhouette]

Marriage for all enhances marriage

If marriage for all enhances marriage Jake, then you won't mind polygamy, incest and minors marrying, because those marriages "enhance marriage" also...

Oh now, be fair. You can't be a bigot just because a sexual activity seems "weird" to you...

..lol..

When you can't argue with logic, call your opponent an ape. Great plan

I didn't call any opponents apes, I called homo sapiens apes. All of us. Including you and me. We don't do well under "free for all" conditions. Check your history books for details...

 

[eflatminor]

When you can't argue with logic, call your opponent an ape. Great plan

I didn't call any opponents apes, I called homo sapiens apes. All of us. Including you and me. We don't do well under "free for all" conditions. Check your history books for details...

That's your retort?

Wow. Massive fail there pal.

Not big on specificity are you? Exactly what history book (cite it or link to it) suggests getting the government out of the marriage business is the same as "free for all conditions".

And how about you other points, which I've thoroughly destroyed? No snappy comebacks?

Pathetic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage for all enhances marriage

If marriage for all enhances marriage Jake, then you won't mind polygamy, incest and minors marrying, because those marriages "enhance marriage" also...Oh now, be fair. You can't be a bigot just because a sexual activity seems "weird" to you.....

When you can't argue with logic, call your opponent an ape. Great plan

I didn't call any opponents apes, I called homo sapiens apes. All of us. Including you and me. We don't do well under "free for all" conditions. Check your history books for details...

The reactionary trap door is "consent". Marriage requires consent. Silhouette can't marry a gold fish because it can't consent. Fathers and daughters can't marry because it requires consent. Minors can't marry unless their parents give consent, and those rules need to be ended.

Reactionaries are fun to watch when they froth at the mouth: bestiality, group sex, marrying a goal post. Irrelevant people.

 

[Seawytch]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

Marriage is a contract. All we need the government for is to provide courts should there be a dispute concerning that contract. Otherwise, the government need not know the nature of your personal relationship, with the possible exception of immigration applicants.

Whatever 'benefits' are afforded to married couples in the tax codes or in other laws, such benefits should either be eliminated or the people should be allowed to identify another person(s) of their choosing to receive said benefits. The nature of the relationship is none of government's business!

This way, if a lesbian couple wants to get married and their pastor at the local Church of the Sacred Beaver is willing to marry them, great! We have a first amendment too...so if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead. None of this should require government approval or definition.

Problem solved.

So where's the legislation to do that?

I've seen no legislation, but I'm glad to see you're keen on the idea. Perhaps some freedom minded, anti-nanny state politician will introduce it. We shall see.

Where was it before the gays wanted in the pool?

Well, as we don't see such legislation now, it's hardly surprising that we didn't see it in the past.

That said, I've been arguing against any special benefits/loopholes for any select/favored group for decades now. IMO, laws, regulations, tax codes, etc should be made only when absolutely necessary and without giving benefit to one group over another.

I didn't say I agree with your idea of "government out if marriage". It wouldn't matter if I did 'cause it's beyond realistic.

A better course of action to appease the folks that have a problem with the word "marriage" is for the government to ONLY issue civil unions, regardless of the gender of the applicants.

 

[Silhouette]

But the Supreme Court just said states get to decide yes or no on gay marriage. This means gay marriage is not a civil right. How can it be that California is the only exception?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is not what SCOTUS opined, Silhouette.

 

[Seawytch]

But the Supreme Court just said states get to decide yes or no on gay marriage. This means gay marriage is not a civil right. How can it be that California is the only exception?

You are not understanding both the DOMA ruling and the Prop 8 ruling. Try SCOTUSBlog.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage for all enhances marriage

If marriage for all enhances marriage Jake, then you won't mind polygamy, incest and minors marrying, because those marriages "enhance marriage" also...Oh now, be fair. You can't be a bigot just because a sexual activity seems "weird" to you.....

When you can't argue with logic, call your opponent an ape. Great plan

I didn't call any opponents apes, I called homo sapiens apes. All of us. Including you and me. We don't do well under "free for all" conditions. Check your history books for details...

The reactionary trap door is "consent". Marriage requires consent. Silhouette can't marry a gold fish because it can't consent. Fathers and daughters can't marry because it requires consent. Minors can't marry unless their parents give consent, and those rules need to be ended.

Reactionaries are fun to watch when they froth at the mouth: bestiality, group sex, marrying a goal post. Irrelevant people.

It continues to disturb me that they have trouble with the concept of "consent".

 

[Silhouette]

That is not what SCOTUS opined, Silhouette.

DOMA Opinion,

Pages 16-17: "The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations ... the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

...In so Saying, the Highest Court said all the 49 states get to choose yes or no on gay marriage....all 49 of them... Loving v Virginia was about race, not polygamy or homosexuality.

 

[Londoner]

Some of us want a minimalist libertarian state, where the government is small and acts like a vending machine, handing out marriage contracts to consenting adults. This government doesn't care about the content of that marriage because only individual freedom can determine the content.

Others want a big moral government that places a bureaucrat at the foot of every bed, making sure that consenting adults are copulating and expressing their love exactly as big brother wishes.

Indeed, these people turn to big government for morality. They want big brother's greasy hands inside the wombs of woman; they want their version of marriage to be imposed from Washington.

I say let consenting adults have the freedom to choose how to live their life. Let God be the final judge not some big government bureaucrat.

 

[Seawytch]

That is not what SCOTUS opined, Silhouette.

DOMA Opinion,

Pages 16-17: "The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations ... the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

...In so Saying, the Highest Court said all the 49 states get to choose yes or no on gay marriage....all 49 of them... Loving v Virginia was about race, not polygamy or homosexuality.

The SCOTUS said that states can pass pro gay laws. They haven't ruled on the constitutionality of the anti gay ones...yet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

Marriage is a contract. All we need the government for is to provide courts should there be a dispute concerning that contract. Otherwise, the government need not know the nature of your personal relationship, with the possible exception of immigration applicants.

Whatever 'benefits' are afforded to married couples in the tax codes or in other laws, such benefits should either be eliminated or the people should be allowed to identify another person(s) of their choosing to receive said benefits. The nature of the relationship is none of government's business!

This way, if a lesbian couple wants to get married and their pastor at the local Church of the Sacred Beaver is willing to marry them, great! We have a first amendment too...so if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead. None of this should require government approval or definition.

Problem solved.

Here’s the Constitutional perspective:

Each of the states allows same-sex couples access to their marriage law in accordance with the 14 Amendment.

Problem solved.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

Marriage is a contract. All we need the government for is to provide courts should there be a dispute concerning that contract. Otherwise, the government need not know the nature of your personal relationship, with the possible exception of immigration applicants.

Whatever 'benefits' are afforded to married couples in the tax codes or in other laws, such benefits should either be eliminated or the people should be allowed to identify another person(s) of their choosing to receive said benefits. The nature of the relationship is none of government's business!

This way, if a lesbian couple wants to get married and their pastor at the local Church of the Sacred Beaver is willing to marry them, great! We have a first amendment too...so if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead. None of this should require government approval or definition.

Problem solved.

Here’s the Constitutional perspective:

Each of the states allows same-sex couples access to their marriage law in accordance with the 14 Amendment.

Problem solved.

Constitutional perspective:

That violates the 10th Amendment. Unless the government itself has made a law in condoning one form of marriage over another or vise versa, that duty is relegated to the states. You can't force states to accept one establishment over another. As you gay rights activists have been saying all this time, that also violates the 14th Amendment.

Let's hear it for colossal double standards!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is not what SCOTUS opined, Silhouette.

DOMA Opinion,

Pages 16-17: "The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations ... the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

...In so Saying, the Highest Court said all the 49 states get to choose yes or no on gay marriage....all 49 of them... Loving v Virginia was about race, not polygamy or homosexuality.

The SCOTUS said that states can pass pro gay laws. They haven't ruled on the constitutionality of the anti gay ones...yet.

And the Court may not need to if all the Federal District courts and/or Circuit Courts of Appeals agree with the Ninth.

That’s at least what the justices are wishing for...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

Marriage is a contract. All we need the government for is to provide courts should there be a dispute concerning that contract. Otherwise, the government need not know the nature of your personal relationship, with the possible exception of immigration applicants.

Whatever 'benefits' are afforded to married couples in the tax codes or in other laws, such benefits should either be eliminated or the people should be allowed to identify another person(s) of their choosing to receive said benefits. The nature of the relationship is none of government's business!

This way, if a lesbian couple wants to get married and their pastor at the local Church of the Sacred Beaver is willing to marry them, great! We have a first amendment too...so if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead. None of this should require government approval or definition.

Problem solved.

Here’s the Constitutional perspective:

Each of the states allows same-sex couples access to their marriage law in accordance with the 14 Amendment.

Problem solved.

Constitutional perspective:

That violates the 10th Amendment. Unless the government itself has made a law in condoning one form of marriage over another or vise versa, that duty is relegated to the states. You can't force states to accept one establishment over another. As you gay rights activists have been saying all this time, that also violates the 14th Amendment.

Let's hear it for colossal double standards!

This doesn’t make any sense.

And you clearly have no idea the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

In fact, the 10th Amendment is completely irrelevant concerning substantive due process with regard to equal protection rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends its protection to races and classes, and prohibits any State legislation which has the effect of denying to any race or class, or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.

Civil Rights Cases

And that class of persons would include same-sex couples.

More than a 100 years after the Civil Rights Cases, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed that fundamental tenet of the 14th Amendment, when striking down Colorado’s Amendment 2, prohibiting homosexuals from accessing that state’s anti-discrimination law:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

“A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Be that anti-discrimination laws or marriage laws.

 

[eflatminor]

So where's the legislation to do that?

I've seen no legislation, but I'm glad to see you're keen on the idea. Perhaps some freedom minded, anti-nanny state politician will introduce it. We shall see.

Where was it before the gays wanted in the pool?

Well, as we don't see such legislation now, it's hardly surprising that we didn't see it in the past.

That said, I've been arguing against any special benefits/loopholes for any select/favored group for decades now. IMO, laws, regulations, tax codes, etc should be made only when absolutely necessary and without giving benefit to one group over another.

I didn't say I agree with your idea of "government out if marriage". It wouldn't matter if I did 'cause it's beyond realistic.

A better course of action to appease the folks that have a problem with the word "marriage" is for the government to ONLY issue civil unions, regardless of the gender of the applicants.

Thereby ensuring non-married couples and single individuals are denied the benefits afforded to those granted 'civil union' status by the government. Why should government be granting ANY special favors to some and not others?

 

[eflatminor]

Here's a different perspective:

Rather than arguing if government (state and/or Fed) should recognize gay vs straight marriage, how about we get the government out of the business of marriage?

Marriage is a contract. All we need the government for is to provide courts should there be a dispute concerning that contract. Otherwise, the government need not know the nature of your personal relationship, with the possible exception of immigration applicants.

Whatever 'benefits' are afforded to married couples in the tax codes or in other laws, such benefits should either be eliminated or the people should be allowed to identify another person(s) of their choosing to receive said benefits. The nature of the relationship is none of government's business!

This way, if a lesbian couple wants to get married and their pastor at the local Church of the Sacred Beaver is willing to marry them, great! We have a first amendment too...so if you want to call yourself married, go right ahead. None of this should require government approval or definition.

Problem solved.

Here’s the Constitutional perspective:

Each of the states allows same-sex couples access to their marriage law in accordance with the 14 Amendment.

Problem solved.

Why should a couple, however defined, receive benefits over that of an individual...or a non-married couple for that matter?

 

[Seawytch]

I've seen no legislation, but I'm glad to see you're keen on the idea. Perhaps some freedom minded, anti-nanny state politician will introduce it. We shall see.



Well, as we don't see such legislation now, it's hardly surprising that we didn't see it in the past.

That said, I've been arguing against any special benefits/loopholes for any select/favored group for decades now. IMO, laws, regulations, tax codes, etc should be made only when absolutely necessary and without giving benefit to one group over another.

I didn't say I agree with your idea of "government out if marriage". It wouldn't matter if I did 'cause it's beyond realistic.

A better course of action to appease the folks that have a problem with the word "marriage" is for the government to ONLY issue civil unions, regardless of the gender of the applicants.

Thereby ensuring non-married couples and single individuals are denied the benefits afforded to those granted 'civil union' status by the government. Why should government be granting ANY special favors to some and not others?

Because they do and I really don't care. Go ahead and bang your head against the wall and try to take away married benefits from all people. Have fun storming the castle as they say. In the meantime, I'm just going to fight for my right to equal access of those "cash and prizes" for my legal marriage.

 

[eflatminor]

I didn't say I agree with your idea of "government out if marriage". It wouldn't matter if I did 'cause it's beyond realistic.

A better course of action to appease the folks that have a problem with the word "marriage" is for the government to ONLY issue civil unions, regardless of the gender of the applicants.

Thereby ensuring non-married couples and single individuals are denied the benefits afforded to those granted 'civil union' status by the government. Why should government be granting ANY special favors to some and not others?

Because they do and I really don't care. Go ahead and bang your head against the wall and try to take away married benefits from all people. Have fun storming the castle as they say. In the meantime, I'm just going to fight for my right to equal access of those "cash and prizes" for my legal marriage.

Doesn't care about equality. Noted.

Thanks for your revealing honesty. Quite telling.

 

[Seawytch]

Thereby ensuring non-married couples and single individuals are denied the benefits afforded to those granted 'civil union' status by the government. Why should government be granting ANY special favors to some and not others?

Because they do and I really don't care. Go ahead and bang your head against the wall and try to take away married benefits from all people. Have fun storming the castle as they say. In the meantime, I'm just going to fight for my right to equal access of those "cash and prizes" for my legal marriage.

Doesn't care about equality. Noted.

Thanks for your revealing honesty. Quite telling.

LOL...except it isn't inequality. Single people aren't denied the right to marry.

Society has decided that there is a benefit to being married and gives tax incentives to those that are. But it's much more than that. It is a legal contract that combines two individuals into a "partnership" that enables them to make important decisions about each other.

It's not my battle, but I support your efforts. You're not ever going to get the "gubmit" out of the marriage biz but you're free to try.