The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[g5000]

If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression".

Bingo.

Nope. It's a major fail. It makes the bigot's common mistake of attempting to associate a harmless behavior with ones that are harmful. Because you bigots have no rational reason for banning gay marriage, you seek ways to associate it to bad things. It's an old and tired and transparent tactic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The celebrations at the release of the DOMA and Prop 8 Opinions from the US Supreme Court were premature and based on false hopes, wishful thinking and skimming the actual text of the Opinions. I think it is unfortunate that masterminds behind the Rainbow Wildfire sought and seek to retool the Decisions to reflect what they had hoped for, when they reflected instead the polar opposite. Duping the general public can only last for so long in a world where 7 million voices were wrongly silenced in California and lawyers put on reading glasses to more carefully glean the text of the US Supreme Court's documents..

In the DOMA Opinion, the Supreme Court of the US Found that each sovereign state has the constitutional right to consensus on deciding if gay marriage is legal or not. Some cite Loving v Virginia as grounds that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". However, the Court brought up Loving v Virginia and still missed the opportunity to draw direct correlations to it. Instead, even after bringing up Loving, the Court found gay marriage was not a universal right across the 50 states.

They didn't find in DOMA that denying gay marriage is "unconstitutional". Neither did they find that in Prop 8. What they did mention about constitutional interpretation was that each sovereign state gets to decide on gay marriage via consensus and that the results of that consensus, the fed has to abide by. That includes federal courts.

Page 19 DOMA Opinion: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

An example of a state defining marriage that isn't constitutional is like Loving v Virginia and a state trying to disallow interracial marriage. Since race and habituated sexual paraphilia are the difference between nouns and verbs, Loving v Virginia cannot apply to what one does vs what one is. If you set a precedent for behaviors becoming akin to race, then you set precedents that are poised to unravel each state's penal and civil codes where anyone can claim a behavior "feels inborn or innate" and thereby justify just about any behavior under the sun getting to do "anything that feels natural to its expression". A VERY dangerous precedent to set; an actual retooling of the english language itself.

In any event the Court with AMPLE opportunity to make a statement Upholding gay marriage as "a constitutional right" did not do so. Instead, It Upheld as a constitutional right, each sovereign state's right to determine for itself whether or not gay [a deviant sexual behavior and not a race] marriage is legal via consensus. California already did that consensus twice; poor gay people in that state are now thinking they are legally married, when in fact they are not.

The Court only allowed as to how 12 and not 13 [California added] states had legal gay marriage:

Page 14 same link as above:
New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry

A gay marriage proponent versed in law in debate with me once claimed that the reason the Court said this was because it issued DOMA first and then Prop 8 Opinion just after [I read it was within 5 minutes]. To say that SCOTUS purposefully left out a state it planned to include in five minutes, is absurd. The Court heard both at the same Sitting to make that conclusion even more implausible. You can try to manipulate language in law but that is a stretch even the most daring lawyer wouldn't try in any hopes of succeeding... The Court said and meant and still means that only 12 states have legal gay marriage. And that is a confirmation that They do not consider California as having legal gay marriage.

Unless now it will be argued that maybe they meant that some other state didn't properly ratify gay marriage? I'd like to hear thoughts on which state you think that might be and the grounds SCOTUS used to determine that?

Do these words mean anything to you:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

 

[dcraelin]

A constitution, to have legitimacy, has to reflect the will of the people. The California constitution spoke most recently and directly on the issue. NO to gay marriage (and it has always been the states area of law) ...this case never should have got to the federal courts at all ...the right way to handle this would have been to bring it up again in a few years as an initiative in California

The people said NO to interracial marriage passing statutory and constitutional amendment banning it. Do you also feel that a state can bar such a right (or privilege) based on color since Civil Marriage has always been a state area of law?

Was the Supreme Court of California wrong in 1948 to over that states provisions against interracial marriage based on the States Constitution guarantee of equal protection and was the SCOTUS wrong to overturn Virginia law based on the guarantee of equal protection in the federal Constitution?
>>>>

the 14th amendment clearly addressed the rights of blacks and clearly was meant to interfere in states rights in those areas. I get a little sick of people comparing those in interracial marriages being torn apart physically and thrown in jail, to gay marriage prohibition.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A constitution, to have legitimacy, has to reflect the will of the people. The California constitution spoke most recently and directly on the issue. NO to gay marriage (and it has always been the states area of law) ...this case never should have got to the federal courts at all ...the right way to handle this would have been to bring it up again in a few years as an initiative in California

The people said NO to interracial marriage passing statutory and constitutional amendment banning it. Do you also feel that a state can bar such a right (or privilege) based on color since Civil Marriage has always been a state area of law?

Was the Supreme Court of California wrong in 1948 to over that states provisions against interracial marriage based on the States Constitution guarantee of equal protection and was the SCOTUS wrong to overturn Virginia law based on the guarantee of equal protection in the federal Constitution?
>>>>

the 14th amendment clearly addressed the rights of blacks and clearly was meant to interfere in states rights in those areas. I get a little sick of people comparing those in interracial marriages being torn apart physically and thrown in jail, to gay marriage prohibition.

"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."​

#1 - I'm sorry, where does the 14th Amendment "clearly" indicate it's only applicable to blacks? Where is the part that says "When we say 'All person', we were only kidding"?

#2 - Can states reinstitutes bans on Interracial Civil Marriage as long a such bans are statutory law and not criminal law?



>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

The people said NO to interracial marriage passing statutory and constitutional amendment banning it. Do you also feel that a state can bar such a right (or privilege) based on color since Civil Marriage has always been a state area of law?

Was the Supreme Court of California wrong in 1948 to over that states provisions against interracial marriage based on the States Constitution guarantee of equal protection and was the SCOTUS wrong to overturn Virginia law based on the guarantee of equal protection in the federal Constitution?
>>>>

the 14th amendment clearly addressed the rights of blacks and clearly was meant to interfere in states rights in those areas. I get a little sick of people comparing those in interracial marriages being torn apart physically and thrown in jail, to gay marriage prohibition.

"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."​

#1 - I'm sorry, where does the 14th Amendment "clearly" indicate it's only applicable to blacks? Where is the part that says "When we say 'All person', we were only kidding"?

#2 - Can states reinstitutes bans on Interracial Civil Marriage as long a such bans are statutory law and not criminal law?
>>>>

the history of it clearly shows it addressed black rights. It certainly doesnt mention gay marriage does it.

the fact that you have to piggyback on the emotionalism of interracial marriage shows the weakness of your position (which is largely based on the emotionalism of gay marriage itself)

criminal law is instituted by statute isn't it? I think the 14th amendment would still prohibit such bans.

I believe marriage is a leftover from the church-state of England. We did away with a mixture of church and state. but it would be hugely disrupting to do away with all marriage. If you think the Constitution protects gay marriage what about polygamy which has both your 14th amendment reasoning AND freedom of religion arguments going for it. What about single persons, why do they get no tax breaks?

Regardless what I am mainly concerned with isnt gay marriage but how the prop8 case undermines Democratic/Republican principles. Like I said Scalia made alot of noises about Democracy in the DOMA case but his vote in the Prop8 case shows his true attitude toward Democratic/Republican principles.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the 14th amendment clearly addressed the rights of blacks and clearly was meant to interfere in states rights in those areas. I get a little sick of people comparing those in interracial marriages being torn apart physically and thrown in jail, to gay marriage prohibition.

"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."​

#1 - I'm sorry, where does the 14th Amendment "clearly" indicate it's only applicable to blacks? Where is the part that says "When we say 'All person', we were only kidding"?

#2 - Can states reinstitutes bans on Interracial Civil Marriage as long a such bans are statutory law and not criminal law?
>>>>

the history of it clearly shows it addressed black rights. It certainly doesnt mention gay marriage does it.

The only thing that it "clearly" says is "ALL PERSONS", therefore the 14th is clearly not limited to "black persons".

the fact that you have to piggyback on the emotionalism of interracial marriage shows the weakness of your position (which is largely based on the emotionalism of gay marriage itself)

Equal protection under the law and not having the government discriminate for capricious and vindictive reasons because there is no compelling government interest to deny equal treatment based on gender it now "emotionalism"?

criminal law is instituted by statute isn't it? I think the 14th amendment would still prohibit such bans.

Because you agree that the 14th limits discriminatory practices by the state as they pertain to Civil Marriage, that says that Civil Marriage is not only a state issue. Which conflicts with what you said before in that it belongs to the states.

I believe marriage is a leftover from the church-state of England. We did away with a mixture of church and state. but it would be hugely disrupting to do away with all marriage. If you think the Constitution protects gay marriage what about polygamy which has both your 14th amendment reasoning AND freedom of religion arguments going for it. What about single persons, why do they get no tax breaks?

The legal recognition of marriage goes way beyond England.

Regardless what I am mainly concerned with isnt gay marriage but how the prop8 case undermines Democratic/Republican principles. Like I said Scalia made alot of noises about Democracy in the DOMA case but his vote in the Prop8 case shows his true attitude toward Democratic/Republican principles.

Fair enough.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Regardless what I am mainly concerned with isnt gay marriage but how the prop8 case undermines Democratic/Republican principles. Like I said Scalia made alot of noises about Democracy in the DOMA case but his vote in the Prop8 case shows his true attitude toward Democratic/Republican principles.

The reason Scalia didn't want to hear Prop 8 was because he knew it wouldn't go the way he wanted.

 

[dcraelin]

"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."​

the history of it clearly shows it addressed black rights. It certainly doesnt mention gay marriage does it.

The only thing that it "clearly" says is "ALL PERSONS", therefore the 14th is clearly not limited to "black persons".

yes, all persons was used to to include all races. by your logic polygamy should be allowed. And why arent you concerned about discrimination against single people. What about the B in LGBT dont they need access to two partners in order not to be discriminated against?

Equal protection under the law and not having the government discriminate for capricious and vindictive reasons because there is no compelling government interest to deny equal treatment based on gender it now "emotionalism"?

the government "discriminates" all the time, age limits for driving ,drinking etc. Your deliberately casting this kind of 'discrimination" as bigotry..again a play on the emotions.
"vindictive"..really?,... following the time established self-definition of marriage is hardly "vindictive" or "capricious". "compelling government interest" is legal mumbo-jumbo ..in Our system of government the will of the people determines the governments interest.

Because you agree that the 14th limits discriminatory practices by the state as they pertain to Civil Marriage, that says that Civil Marriage is not only a state issue. Which conflicts with what you said before in that it belongs to the states.

no if you read carefully it does not conflict

I believe marriage is a leftover from the church-state of England. We did away with a mixture of church and state. but it would be hugely disrupting to do away with all marriage. If you think the Constitution protects gay marriage what about polygamy which has both your 14th amendment reasoning AND freedom of religion arguments going for it. What about single persons, why do they get no tax breaks?

The legal recognition of marriage goes way beyond England.

but its presence in our law is due to the church-state of England.

Regardless what I am mainly concerned with isnt gay marriage but how the prop8 case undermines Democratic/Republican principles. Like I said Scalia made alot of noises about Democracy in the DOMA case but his vote in the Prop8 case shows his true attitude toward Democratic/Republican principles.

The reason Scalia didn't want to hear Prop 8 was because he knew it wouldn't go the way he wanted.

I didnt say anything about whether he wanted to hear it or not. It went somewhat how he wanted anyway... he got his view on standing in such cases passed..which I think is dangerous

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Since you messed up the quotes I'm not going to try to fix it for you.


***********************************

Discrimination isn't an application of "emotion" it's a description of reality. The applicable definition of discrimination is " : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually ".

The laws against same-sex Civil Marriage are based on the gender composition of the couple. Gender is used in the law to categorically establish requirements instead of being based on the individual. The very definition of discrimination.

Discrimination is neither bad or good. The behavior of "discrimination" then is viewed as bad or good depending on the morality of the individual that perceives it. To some, discriminating in terms of Civil Marriage depends on the circumstances. 50 years ago plenty of people felt that discriminating based on race in terms of marriage was a "good" thing. Now the vast majority see it as a "bad" thing. Today, some, view discrimination in terms of Civil Marriage based on gender to be a "good" thing, others see it as a "bad" thing. We are in a period of transition where more and more people are seeing it as "bad".

About a decade ago, denying Civil Marriage based on gender had a huge majority opinion in the population. Acts barring Civil Marriage based on gender passed with margins of victory of (IIRC) 23-76%. However last year there were four ballot initiatives on SSCM and all four votes by the people resulted in a "win" for SSCM.

If you opinion is that there is a compelling government interest in defining Civil Marriage in terms of gender, please then articulate a compelling, secular government interest why two couples should be treated differently under the law, one couple not allowed to Civilly Marry and one couple allowed under the law when those couples are in like situations - that being - law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults.


**************************************************

Are age limits discriminatory? Sure. However they are based on a compelling government interest backed up by science that show, in general levels of maturity are reached at different time. Therefore an 18 year old is no longer considered a minor and has full legal authority to act on his/her own behalf and is eligible to vote. The drinking age is 21, I disagree with that. If someone is going to be an adult to vote, sign contracts, and risk their life in military service - they should be able to have a beer.

Driving law are discriminatory against blind people. However there is a compelling government interest in ensuring that 2,500 steel object hurtling down the road at 60 miles an hour are operated safely for other people on the road.

There is a valid compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage to two people because of the complexity of situations that would arise. There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


**************************************************

And not single people are not discriminated against in terms of obtaining Civil Marriage. They are free to find another willing partner (in some states of the opposite gender and in some states of either gender) and get married.

Civil Marriage is not denied to single people because they are single. I've always thought that was one of less then well thought out excused for discriminating against the gays.


>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

by this logic I could say that gay people are free to find an opposite gender partner ... and that is correct
marriage is self-defined as the union of two people of the opposite sex.

u do have the legalistic sophistry down good. But despite your saying discrimination is not good or bad, it rings of a moral judgement...and amounts to a play on the emotions

"compelling government interest" is just an excuse for courts to overreach. In a Democratic/Republican society the will of the people should be supreme. You seem to believe the the views of the public are changing, then patience and the ballot box should have been used. This Prop8 case, denying standing to a whole state in essence, is a travisty.

see my picture of Jefferson for a very wise quote of his. I believe Jefferson, Madison and others believed that the common law should give way to legislative law in a Democracy/Republic.

I have little problem with civil unions and I dont think most of the nation would. But that isnt good enough apparently for the gay community. It really seems like they are trying to rub this in the face of religous groups. The term marriage has religious conotations and probably doesnt belong in government for either type of union.

 

[Seawytch]

by this logic I could say that gay people are free to find an opposite gender partner ... and that is correct
marriage is self-defined as the union of two people of the opposite sex.

A similar argument was used by those that wished to keep interracial marriage bans in place. They argued that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race. That argument eventually failed.

I have little problem with civil unions and I dont think most of the nation would. But that isnt good enough apparently for the gay community. It really seems like they are trying to rub this in the face of religous groups. The term marriage has religious conotations and probably doesnt belong in government for either type of union.

Where have gays turned down civil unions? Anywhere? Bueller?

I'd be fine with Civil Unions too...for everyone not just the gays. That's separate but equal and that's unconstitutional.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And not single people are not discriminated against in terms of obtaining Civil Marriage. They are free to find another willing partner (in some states of the opposite gender and in some states of either gender) and get married.

Civil Marriage is not denied to single people because they are single. I've always thought that was one of less then well thought out excused for discriminating against the gays.
>>>>

by this logic I could say that gay people are free to find an opposite gender partner ... and that is correct
marriage is self-defined as the union of two people of the opposite sex.

Not in 13 Legal Entities in the United States (12 States + DC).

u do have the legalistic sophistry down good. But despite your saying discrimination is not good or bad, it rings of a moral judgement...and amounts to a play on the emotions
"compelling government interest" is just an excuse for courts to overreach. In a Democratic/Republican society the will of the people should be supreme.

#2 - Can states reinstitutes bans on Interracial Civil Marriage as long a such bans are statutory law and not criminal law?
>>>>

criminal law is instituted by statute isn't it? I think the 14th amendment would still prohibit such bans.

Except of course when you agree with the courts, then it was OK to overturn Civil Marriage bans and you think the courts could still overturn them if they tried.

You seem to believe the the views of the public are changing, then patience and the ballot box should have been used. This Prop8 case, denying standing to a whole state in essence, is a travisty.

They didn't deny standing to the whole state, if the State had appealed the decision, they would have had Standing - the State government choose not to.

DISCLAIMER: That is what legally occurred. Personally I think that when a law is legally passed then the State or Federal government has an obligation to make a defense of the law. If as an Attorney General you can't defend a law, then resign so someone else can. But that is my opinion.

see my picture of Jefferson for a very wise quote of his. I believe Jefferson, Madison and others believed that the common law should give way to legislative law in a Democracy/Republic.

And yet you have said that dispite the fact that legislative law (and even State Constitutional Amendments were in place) that barred interracital marriage, the 14th Amendment would prohibit such bans.

Let me paragraphs: "Bans I agree with should not be overturned by the courts, bans I don't agree with should be overturned by the courts."

I have little problem with civil unions and I dont think most of the nation would. But that isnt good enough apparently for the gay community. It really seems like they are trying to rub this in the face of religous groups. The term marriage has religious conotations and probably doesnt belong in government for either type of union.

First of all Civil Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal status, no religion is required as part of it's functioning.

But OK, Fine. There are two options that would comply with your statement above.

#1 - Remove government from all aspects Civil Marriage, remove it from the books completely. No tax free transfer of property between spouses, not assumed parentage to children born - the father would have to adopt any children to become a legal parent, no medical decision making except by family without a medical power of attorney, no shared estate, no state laws mandating health insurance coverage for anyone other than the employee and his/her dependent children, etc., etc. Go for it, remove Civil Marriage from the law - good luck with that.

#2 - All current Civil Marriages are voided and replaced by Civil Unions that apply equally to couples of same and mixed gender compositions. Basically Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages and are available equally. I could by that as my Religious Marriage is before God and I could care less what the government calls it.

I have little problem with civil unions and I dont think most of the nation would. But that isnt good enough apparently for the gay community. It really seems like they are trying to rub this in the face of religous groups. The term marriage has religious conotations and probably doesnt belong in government for either type of union.

They did try for Civil Unions and as a result many state passed State Constitutional bans not only on Civil Marriage, but ANY legal status for same sex couples like the Commonwealth of Virginia. Civil Unions are banned here in the same amendment that Civil Marriages for same sex couples are banned.

You might also want to rethink that nice sounding talking point. Washington State passed an equality bill (Senate Bill 5688) with provided equality but the only difference was the name, they were called Civil Unions. However, it was considered "to much like marriage" and a signature referendum was started to block the law. It was defeated 53/47, but it show that many people don't want the gays to even be able to have Civil Unions.


>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

A similar argument was used by those that wished to keep interracial marriage bans in place. They argued that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race. That argument eventually failed.

like hell it was, you are just trying to play of the emotionl response against interracial marriage bans

Where have gays turned down civil unions? Anywhere?

in california

I'd be fine with Civil Unions too...for everyone not just the gays.

we could agree here then

that's separate but equal and that's unconstitutional.

I dont see why it wouldnt be acceptable what gays have is different&doesnt fit the ancient self-definition of marriage. as Gore Vidal said he couldn't care less about gay marriage, a gay activist in Australia said it was self-indulgent crap

 

[dcraelin]

And not single people are not discriminated against in terms of obtaining Civil Marriage. They are free to find another willing partner (in some states of the opposite gender and in some states of either gender) and get married.

Civil Marriage is not denied to single people because they are single. I've always thought that was one of less then well thought out excused for discriminating against the gays.
>>>>

by this logic I could say that gay people are free to find an opposite gender partner ... and that is correct
marriage is self-defined as the union of two people of the opposite sex.

Not in 13 Legal Entities in the United States (12 States + DC).

​

Except of course when you agree with the courts, then it was OK to overturn Civil Marriage bans and you think the courts could still overturn them if they tried.



They didn't deny standing to the whole state, if the State had appealed the decision, they would have had Standing - the State government choose not to.

DISCLAIMER: That is what legally occurred. Personally I think that when a law is legally passed then the State or Federal government has an obligation to make a defense of the law. If as an Attorney General you can't defend a law, then resign so someone else can. But that is my opinion.



And yet you have said that dispite the fact that legislative law (and even State Constitutional Amendments were in place) that barred interracital marriage, the 14th Amendment would prohibit such bans.

Let me paragraphs: "Bans I agree with should not be overturned by the courts, bans I don't agree with should be overturned by the courts."

I have little problem with civil unions and I dont think most of the nation would. But that isnt good enough apparently for the gay community. It really seems like they are trying to rub this in the face of religous groups. The term marriage has religious conotations and probably doesnt belong in government for either type of union.

First of all Civil Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal status, no religion is required as part of it's functioning.

But OK, Fine. There are two options that would comply with your statement above.

#1 - Remove government from all aspects Civil Marriage, remove it from the books completely. No tax free transfer of property between spouses, not assumed parentage to children born - the father would have to adopt any children to become a legal parent, no medical decision making except by family without a medical power of attorney, no shared estate, no state laws mandating health insurance coverage for anyone other than the employee and his/her dependent children, etc., etc. Go for it, remove Civil Marriage from the law - good luck with that.

#2 - All current Civil Marriages are voided and replaced by Civil Unions that apply equally to couples of same and mixed gender compositions. Basically Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages and are available equally. I could by that as my Religious Marriage is before God and I could care less what the government calls it.

I have little problem with civil unions and I dont think most of the nation would. But that isnt good enough apparently for the gay community. It really seems like they are trying to rub this in the face of religous groups. The term marriage has religious conotations and probably doesnt belong in government for either type of union.

They did try for Civil Unions and as a result many state passed State Constitutional bans not only on Civil Marriage, but ANY legal status for same sex couples like the Commonwealth of Virginia. Civil Unions are banned here in the same amendment that Civil Marriages for same sex couples are banned.

You might also want to rethink that nice sounding talking point. Washington State passed an equality bill (Senate Bill 5688) with provided equality but the only difference was the name, they were called Civil Unions. However, it was considered "to much like marriage" and a signature referendum was started to block the law. It was defeated 53/47, but it show that many people don't want the gays to even be able to have Civil Unions.


>>>>

I agree with your disclaimer, dont see how you can say whole state wasnt denied standing.
I dont see your point when u think its somehow wrong to agree with 14th amendment court decisions based on race.
I can agree with point #2 above, tho the long standing convention of straight unions called marriages would be hard to overturn I think
Id disagree with a blanket ban on any civil union type whatsoever
what talking point?

 

[bayoubill]

Gay Marriage is inevitable....better get used to it

myself, I've got no problem with consensual fudge-packing and carpet-munching adult couples forming domestic partnerships in the same way that us fucked-up heteros are able to do it...

and I wish the legal system would recognize this inevitable right sooner, rather than later, to save us from having to watch the whole thing play out on an extended basis...

 

[WorldWatcher]

by this logic I could say that gay people are free to find an opposite gender partner ... and that is correct
marriage is self-defined as the union of two people of the opposite sex.

A similar argument was used by those that wished to keep interracial marriage bans in place. They argued that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race. That argument eventually failed.

like hell it was, you are just trying to play of the emotionl response against interracial marriage bans

Sorry, the Commonwealth of Virginia made pretty much that same argument in the Loving case. That Black and White were treated equally under their statue.

"Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [p8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."​

Loving v. Virginia


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

by this logic I could say that gay people are free to find an opposite gender partner ... and that is correct
marriage is self-defined as the union of two people of the opposite sex.

Not in 13 Legal Entities in the United States (12 States + DC).

​

Except of course when you agree with the courts, then it was OK to overturn Civil Marriage bans and you think the courts could still overturn them if they tried.



They didn't deny standing to the whole state, if the State had appealed the decision, they would have had Standing - the State government choose not to.

DISCLAIMER: That is what legally occurred. Personally I think that when a law is legally passed then the State or Federal government has an obligation to make a defense of the law. If as an Attorney General you can't defend a law, then resign so someone else can. But that is my opinion.



And yet you have said that dispite the fact that legislative law (and even State Constitutional Amendments were in place) that barred interracital marriage, the 14th Amendment would prohibit such bans.

Let me paragraphs: "Bans I agree with should not be overturned by the courts, bans I don't agree with should be overturned by the courts."



First of all Civil Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal status, no religion is required as part of it's functioning.

But OK, Fine. There are two options that would comply with your statement above.

#1 - Remove government from all aspects Civil Marriage, remove it from the books completely. No tax free transfer of property between spouses, not assumed parentage to children born - the father would have to adopt any children to become a legal parent, no medical decision making except by family without a medical power of attorney, no shared estate, no state laws mandating health insurance coverage for anyone other than the employee and his/her dependent children, etc., etc. Go for it, remove Civil Marriage from the law - good luck with that.

#2 - All current Civil Marriages are voided and replaced by Civil Unions that apply equally to couples of same and mixed gender compositions. Basically Civil Unions replace Civil Marriages and are available equally. I could by that as my Religious Marriage is before God and I could care less what the government calls it.

I have little problem with civil unions and I dont think most of the nation would. But that isnt good enough apparently for the gay community. It really seems like they are trying to rub this in the face of religous groups. The term marriage has religious conotations and probably doesnt belong in government for either type of union.

They did try for Civil Unions and as a result many state passed State Constitutional bans not only on Civil Marriage, but ANY legal status for same sex couples like the Commonwealth of Virginia. Civil Unions are banned here in the same amendment that Civil Marriages for same sex couples are banned.

You might also want to rethink that nice sounding talking point. Washington State passed an equality bill (Senate Bill 5688) with provided equality but the only difference was the name, they were called Civil Unions. However, it was considered "to much like marriage" and a signature referendum was started to block the law. It was defeated 53/47, but it show that many people don't want the gays to even be able to have Civil Unions.


>>>>

I agree with your disclaimer, dont see how you can say whole state wasnt denied standing.
I dont see your point when u think its somehow wrong to agree with 14th amendment court decisions based on race.
I can agree with point #2 above, tho the long standing convention of straight unions called marriages would be hard to overturn I think
Id disagree with a blanket ban on any civil union type whatsoever
what talking point?

I'm in my 50's. I've watch this play out over the last two decades. When gays tried for Civil Unions the door was slammed in their faces because the majority said "not only no, but hell no".

The talking point since (a) society has begone shifting to more acceptance of same-sex couples being treated the same as different-sex couples, and (b) more and more states allowing same-sex Civil Marriages has changed from "Hell No" to a realization that the battle is being lost and a last ditch effort to stave it off with "Well Civil Unions out to be good enough for them".

In the late 90's early 2000's I never saw a serious, national level attempt, to allow for Civil Unions to be equal to Civil Marriages at all levels and accepted by all States in the same manner Civil Marriage is. Instead many States passed Amendments that not only barred Civil Marriage for same-sex couples, they barred Civil Unions also. For example my state of Virginia passed just such an Amendment (Article 15A, Virginia Constitutions, 2006)


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"compelling government interest" is just an excuse for courts to overreach. In a Democratic/Republican society the will of the people should be supreme. You seem to believe the the views of the public are changing, then patience and the ballot box should have been used. This Prop8 case, denying standing to a whole state in essence, is a travisty.

“Compelling governmental interest” is a fundamental tenet of Constitutional case law, it is the mechanism which limits government authority and safeguards our civil liberties. It is in no way an ‘excuse,’ and serves as a vital bulwark against tyranny.

By compelling government to justify its rationale for seeking to limit a fundamental right – such as the equal protection right of same-sex couples to access marriage law – the courts ensure citizens’ civil liberties remain intact, and government prohibited from interfering with our personal liberty to conduct one’s life as he sees fit.

see my picture of Jefferson for a very wise quote of his. I believe Jefferson, Madison and others believed that the common law should give way to legislative law in a Democracy/Republic.

Incorrect.

The law enacted by a legislative body always trumps common law, the law developed by judges and their rulings.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, its citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly; Proposition 8 is proof of that. And the creation of a Constitutional Republic was the intent of all the Framers.

I have little problem with civil unions and I dont think most of the nation would. But that isnt good enough apparently for the gay community. It really seems like they are trying to rub this in the face of religous groups. The term marriage has religious conotations and probably doesnt belong in government for either type of union.

That you and ‘the rest of the Nation’ would have no problem with ‘civil unions’ isn’t the issue, nor does it have anything to do with the ‘gay community’ and what they want or don’t want.

It’s a fact of Constitutional law that separate but equal is illegal, the state may not contrive some ‘alternate marriage law’ for same-sex couples only, absent a compelling governmental interest, predicated solely on animus toward homosexuals, particularly when same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage as the laws are currently written.

Marriage exist both as secular law and religious dogma; the 14th Amendment concerns only the former, the latter remains unaffected, where religious entities are at liberty to deny marriage rituals to same-sex couples.

 

[Seawytch]

A similar argument was used by those that wished to keep interracial marriage bans in place. They argued that there was no discrimination because people could marry within their race. That argument eventually failed.

like hell it was, you are just trying to play of the emotionl response against interracial marriage bans

As pointed out by the Chief, it most certainly was used as an argument to prevent interracial marriage.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

http://hnn.us/article/4708#sthash.8yIWLCzC.dpuf

Where have gays turned down civil unions? Anywhere?

in california

Wrong. Gays didn't turn down civil unions....they just fought for full marriage equality as well.

 

[dcraelin]

1) constitutions have no legitimacy if not based on the will of the people. If the people had known that the 14th amendment included gay marriage rights, it would not have passed and blacks would be disadvantaged too.

2) the correct way to approach this is to have civil unions with perhaps marriage as a "stare decisis" subcategory of civil union. no civil unions could carry with them tax benefits

3)for the dubious advancement of going from full-benefit civil unions to "marriage" in California, the gay community has perhaps done major damage to Our Republic/Democracy. The initiative and referendum is one of the few methods left to get around a purchased government.