Prop 8 Showdown

[rightwinger]

what do blacks have to do with this conversation =/= what do blacks have to do with the Constitution.

I see I was wrong, I will now add you to the list of idiotic and dishonest left wing mouth breathers.

are you retarded? this whole thread concerns the rights of minorities. once it was blacks, now it is homosexuals. you think i misread your bullshit? i probably should, and then i should DEMAND AN ANSWER?

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.

Prop 8 is obviously unconstitutional and will be found to be so in a short time. Thankfully, we have the courts to protect the rights of the individual against the biases of the masses

 

[Sheldon]

I won't be surprised if this makes it way to SCOTUS. There are four votes guaranteed to strike down Prop 8, but I don't know how Kennedy will swing.

My hope is they'll use the Fourteenth to strike it down, then apply that same argument to the Fifth to strike down DOMA.

Loving v Virgina, a decision that ruled that state bans on inter-racial marriages are unconstitutional, will probably be used as precedent:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes





And a partial list of legal protections afforded to legally-recognized marriage:

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity








And finally, a fun fact: did you know that same-sex marriage was made legal in South Africa?

 

[ConHog]

are you retarded? this whole thread concerns the rights of minorities. once it was blacks, now it is homosexuals. you think i misread your bullshit? i probably should, and then i should DEMAND AN ANSWER?

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.

Prop 8 is obviously unconstitutional and will be found to be so in a short time. Thankfully, we have the courts to protect the rights of the individual against the biases of the masses

thanks for that Huffington recap, now tell me in your own words, how it unconstitutional.

 

[goldcatt]

Loving is a starting point, but the real stepping stone is the case that overturned Bowers, which is Lawrence v. Texas:

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Prior to Lawrence, homosexuality could be considered criminal behavior in its own right regardless of Equal Protection. Now, that barrier is removed. It should be interesting to see what happens when this goes to the Supremies. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for Lawrence in 2005.

 

[L.K.Eder]

what do blacks have to do with this conversation =/= what do blacks have to do with the Constitution.

I see I was wrong, I will now add you to the list of idiotic and dishonest left wing mouth breathers.

are you retarded? this whole thread concerns the rights of minorities. once it was blacks, now it is homosexuals. you think i misread your bullshit? i probably should, and then i should DEMAND AN ANSWER?

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.

your lack of mental prowess does not excuse your misrepresentation of my post, you little maggot. the majority of americans who know you know you are full of shit. now go to bed.

 

[Sheldon]

Loving is a starting point, but the real stepping stone is the case that overturned Bowers, which is Lawrence v. Texas:

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Prior to Lawrence, homosexuality could be considered criminal behavior in its own right regardless of Equal Protection. Now, that barrier is removed. It should be interesting to see what happens when this goes to the Supremies. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for Lawrence in 2005.

There's that, too.

I think someone, somewhere, in this thread posted that marriage is a state's right and they get to define it however they want, but Loving kinda tosses that notion out the window.

Do you have any idea how Kennedy might side? I really don't know where he sits on this. <<<<nvmnd!

 

[ConHog]

are you retarded? this whole thread concerns the rights of minorities. once it was blacks, now it is homosexuals. you think i misread your bullshit? i probably should, and then i should DEMAND AN ANSWER?

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.

your lack of mental prowess does not excuse your misrepresentation of my post, you little maggot. the majority of americans who know you know you are full of shit. now go to bed.

My lack of mental prowess? that's laughable. It is YOU who can't defend their position that this proposition is unconstitutional. How hard could it be? "I think this is unconstitutional because _____________________" I mean seriously you have nothing but name calling, and there's nothing wrong with name calling, unless that is ALL you have.

 

[goldcatt]

Loving is a starting point, but the real stepping stone is the case that overturned Bowers, which is Lawrence v. Texas:

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Prior to Lawrence, homosexuality could be considered criminal behavior in its own right regardless of Equal Protection. Now, that barrier is removed. It should be interesting to see what happens when this goes to the Supremies. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for Lawrence in 2005.

There's that, too.

I think someone, somewhere, in this thread posted that marriage is a state's right and they get to define it however they want, but Loving kinda tosses that notion out the window.

Do you have any idea how Kennedy might side? I really don't know where he sits on this.

The two work hand in hand. Loving works with privileges and immunities, but the States can't be required to sanction criminal activity. Lawrence removes the barrier of criminality, at least.

You can see a lot of Kennedy's stance in his opinion on Lawrence, he's pretty strong on P&I issues and has ruled pro-gay (if you want to see it that way) in the past. As the sole moderate I'm not sure he's strong enough politically to side with the minority, that's a question we'll have to wait to see the rest of the docket in that particular term to find out - assuming the balance doesn't change in the meantime. But there's hope.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.

your lack of mental prowess does not excuse your misrepresentation of my post, you little maggot. the majority of americans who know you know you are full of shit. now go to bed.

My lack of mental prowess? that's laughable. It is YOU who can't defend their position that this proposition is unconstitutional. How hard could it be? "I think this is unconstitutional because _____________________" I mean seriously you have nothing but name calling, and there's nothing wrong with name calling, unless that is ALL you have.

fess up, you just shake yourself like a wet dog and your short time memory leaves ya, right?

black=homosexual ring a bell, fly-brain?

german ring a bell?

debate as presented in the OP ring a bell?

 

[syrenn]

are you retarded? this whole thread concerns the rights of minorities. once it was blacks, now it is homosexuals. you think i misread your bullshit? i probably should, and then i should DEMAND AN ANSWER?

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.

your lack of mental prowess does not excuse your misrepresentation of my post, you little maggot. the majority of americans who know you know you are full of shit. now go to bed.

That is his standard MO because he can not debate.

 

[syrenn]

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.

your lack of mental prowess does not excuse your misrepresentation of my post, you little maggot. the majority of americans who know you know you are full of shit. now go to bed.

My lack of mental prowess? that's laughable. It is YOU who can't defend their position that this proposition is unconstitutional. How hard could it be? "I think this is unconstitutional because _____________________" I mean seriously you have nothing but name calling, and there's nothing wrong with name calling, unless that is ALL you have.

Again, laughable. As that is all you usually have.

 

[ConHog]

Don't give me your bullshit about black = homosexual. The majority of Americans in fact believe gays CHOOSE to be gay I know of no one who chose to be black.

and that is pure deflection anyway. This thread id NOT about whether gays should be allowed to marry. it is about is a proposition preventing them from doing so in a state unconstitutional, and no it is not. You obviously know it is not or you would stop trying to deflect and give a reason why you think it is.

your lack of mental prowess does not excuse your misrepresentation of my post, you little maggot. the majority of americans who know you know you are full of shit. now go to bed.

That is his standard MO because he can not debate.

OH, I think that this board in general realizes that is you moron lefties who don't know how to debate.

See a debate goes like this.

Person A says " I think this prop is constitutional because _______________"

Person B says "I think it is unconstitutional because _________________"

Yall's version of a debate is

Person A says "I think this is constitutional because ____________________"

and you respond with "That's just your opinion, you can't tell me what the law is you stupid idiotic moron and also you lie also BOOSH was a bad President"

It's quite comical really that you had the nerve to just say I don't know to debate

 

[ConHog]

your lack of mental prowess does not excuse your misrepresentation of my post, you little maggot. the majority of americans who know you know you are full of shit. now go to bed.

My lack of mental prowess? that's laughable. It is YOU who can't defend their position that this proposition is unconstitutional. How hard could it be? "I think this is unconstitutional because _____________________" I mean seriously you have nothing but name calling, and there's nothing wrong with name calling, unless that is ALL you have.

Again, laughable. As that is all you usually have.

Another sign of YOUR stupidity, if name calling is all I have than why is it that I have given you reasons I think this proposition is constitutional while you have done nothing EXCEPT name call? Defend your position you dumb skank.

 

[syrenn]

It's quite comical really that you had the nerve to just say I don't know to debate

That is exactly right, ask just about anyone here. You have been called on it several times. You have been schooled on it several times that all you do is make yourself look foolish.

 

[L.K.Eder]

your lack of mental prowess does not excuse your misrepresentation of my post, you little maggot. the majority of americans who know you know you are full of shit. now go to bed.

That is his standard MO because he can not debate.

OH, I think that this board in general realizes that is you moron lefties who don't know how to debate.

See a debate goes like this.

Person A says " I think this prop is constitutional because _______________"

Person B says "I think it is unconstitutional because _________________"

Yall's version of a debate is

Person A says "I think this is constitutional because ____________________"

and you respond with "That's just your opinion, you can't tell me what the law is you stupid idiotic moron and also you lie also BOOSH was a bad President"

It's quite comical really that you had the nerve to just say I don't know to debate

 

[L.K.Eder]

excuse me, i will go to another thread to create more drama

 

[syrenn]

My lack of mental prowess? that's laughable. It is YOU who can't defend their position that this proposition is unconstitutional. How hard could it be? "I think this is unconstitutional because _____________________" I mean seriously you have nothing but name calling, and there's nothing wrong with name calling, unless that is ALL you have.

Again, laughable. As that is all you usually have.

Another sign of YOUR stupidity, if name calling is all I have than why is it that I have given you reasons I think this proposition is constitutional while you have done nothing EXCEPT name call? Defend your position you dumb skank.

Please show me where I call you names? You do realize that it is so much fun getting under your skin and poking your arrogance.

The only reason you have given is YOUR opinion.

Again

Now it IS the job of the courts to determine if a law violates the CON, but in this case I don't think it does because the CON doesn't mention marriage at all. Judges are not supposed to add things to the CON, even though they do all the time.

Your opinion: I dont think

If others did not have a different opinion it would not be in the courts now.

Try again.

 

[oreo]

Who will win California's Prop. 8 trial? - The Week

The debate over same-sex marriage took a significant step forward this week, with the completion of closing arguments in the San Francisco trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the statewide ban on gay marriage Californians approved in 2008.

Judge Walker will almost certainly overturn Prop. 8: This trial is a lock in favor of gay marriage, says Andrew Cohen at Politics Daily. The defenders of Prop. 8 presented a shockingly "odd" and "weak case," with "hapless" witnesses and precious little evidence. The proponents, meanwhile, offered up 17 witnesses and a strong factual record. If "evidence matters to" Judge Walker, he has "virtually no other choice" but to strike down Prop. 8.

If Prop. 8 loses it's because the judge is biased: The "openly homosexual" Judge Walker "came into this courtroom strongly inclined to rule against Prop. 8," says Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, quoted at LifeSiteNews.com. He was "extremely open" to the anti-Prop. 8 case, and seemed baffled by our side's argument that procreation is what marriage is all about. Walker probably "will overturn Prop. 8" — not because of the arguments in the courtroom, but because of his own bias.

I could give a care less of one single hair on my unshaven leg about who gets married and who doesn't. The only problem I have with gay marriage--is when a male calls another male his wife--(a female term) or visa versa.

 

[bodecea]

Who will win California's Prop. 8 trial? - The Week

The debate over same-sex marriage took a significant step forward this week, with the completion of closing arguments in the San Francisco trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the statewide ban on gay marriage Californians approved in 2008.

Judge Walker will almost certainly overturn Prop. 8: This trial is a lock in favor of gay marriage, says Andrew Cohen at Politics Daily. The defenders of Prop. 8 presented a shockingly "odd" and "weak case," with "hapless" witnesses and precious little evidence. The proponents, meanwhile, offered up 17 witnesses and a strong factual record. If "evidence matters to" Judge Walker, he has "virtually no other choice" but to strike down Prop. 8.

If Prop. 8 loses it's because the judge is biased: The "openly homosexual" Judge Walker "came into this courtroom strongly inclined to rule against Prop. 8," says Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, quoted at LifeSiteNews.com. He was "extremely open" to the anti-Prop. 8 case, and seemed baffled by our side's argument that procreation is what marriage is all about. Walker probably "will overturn Prop. 8" — not because of the arguments in the courtroom, but because of his own bias.

I could give a care less of one single hair on my unshaven leg about who gets married and who doesn't. The only problem I have with gay marriage--is when a male calls another male his wife--(a female term) or visa versa.

So? How does that ruin your day?

 

[ConHog]

Who will win California's Prop. 8 trial? - The Week

The debate over same-sex marriage took a significant step forward this week, with the completion of closing arguments in the San Francisco trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the statewide ban on gay marriage Californians approved in 2008.

Judge Walker will almost certainly overturn Prop. 8: This trial is a lock in favor of gay marriage, says Andrew Cohen at Politics Daily. The defenders of Prop. 8 presented a shockingly "odd" and "weak case," with "hapless" witnesses and precious little evidence. The proponents, meanwhile, offered up 17 witnesses and a strong factual record. If "evidence matters to" Judge Walker, he has "virtually no other choice" but to strike down Prop. 8.

If Prop. 8 loses it's because the judge is biased: The "openly homosexual" Judge Walker "came into this courtroom strongly inclined to rule against Prop. 8," says Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, quoted at LifeSiteNews.com. He was "extremely open" to the anti-Prop. 8 case, and seemed baffled by our side's argument that procreation is what marriage is all about. Walker probably "will overturn Prop. 8" — not because of the arguments in the courtroom, but because of his own bias.

I could give a care less of one single hair on my unshaven leg about who gets married and who doesn't. The only problem I have with gay marriage--is when a male calls another male his wife--(a female term) or visa versa.

So? How does that ruin your day?

it doesn't ruin my day, i just find it odd. And I want it clear here that I personally couldn't care less if you get married or not, I am just pointing out that this proposition does not violate the CON. Personally I wonder why of all the things CA has to worry about right now that voters were concerned about THIS though.