California's Proposition 8

[ParanoiA]

The point of democracy is the will of the people, even if the will of the people isn't the right thing to do.

 

And the point of the first ten amendments is to restrict the will of the people to override alienable rights. If the will of the people is to hang Riogho, they still can't.

[Riogho]

Well then we will just have to amend our constitution then won't we?

[doG]

The point of democracy is the will of the people, even if the will of the people isn't the right thing to do.

 

And that's why wise men steer away from democracy...

[bascule]

Both are not allowed to marry in California?

 

People aren't allowed to marry their pets either. But that's completely irrelevant to gay marriage.

 

Disproving your statement that heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love

 

Again, that wasn't my statement:

 

(Gays) can't marry the person they love, or even visit them in the hospital. So no, they don't have exactly the same rights.

 

I'm not wrong, but as Cap'n Refsmmat says, I am being a bit of an ass.

 

No, you're wrong, and you're making a slippery slope argument.

[Mr Skeptic]

Again, that wasn't my statement:

 

Implicit in a complaint that gay people cannot marry the person they love, and so do not have the same rights as straight people, is the implied statement that straight people can marry the person they love. Otherwise, your complaint makes no sense.

 

No, you're wrong, and you're making a slippery slope argument.

 

In any case, I don't see how you can say I am making a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument by definition involves future side effects of an action. What future effect have I predicted? You are the one who made a slippery slope argument, and a strawman besides.

[iNow]

With only rare exceptions, heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person of their choice.

With only rare exceptions, homosexuals are NOT allowed to marry the person of their choice.

Can we move on, now?

[jackson33]

How is that a "ploy?" It's not only a fact, but one based on evidence (as opposed to your "probably the hospital couldn't make you leave" argument).

 

Also, as my post above clearly shows, this is about MUCH more than just hospital visitation.

 

I have probably visited 200 people in the hospitasl in my life, granted during visiting hours, but have never been asked if I was a family member. They do ask under some conditions, terminal cases, children or new births but these are for the security of the patience and would be to any one, gay or not.

 

I have posted numerous times, indicating a base and the base is where common law has to work with, in developing law, during investigation of crime, on into prosecution and sentencing. Domestic law is probably the most common offense reported and followed up on by law enforcements in any city, county or State and each having its own system. It is my primary argument in opposing additional classification to what constitutes a RECOGNIZED union of two people. Those that are pushing this agenda IMO are interested in the benefits, which are also covered by a serious of law and again to some locality.

 

If you change status of any two people to the same status of what currently recognized, it will have to come from the Federal System, most logically the Congress itself and agreed (ratified amendment) by the required number (37) to allow any conformity in all the laws of all those States. What you and others are suggesting are suits/counter suits and an inevitability of the "slippery slope" as people naturally move around, want services or benefits in places other than they were married. I would not oppose such an amendment to the Constitution, but do oppose the current agenda to adjust American Society from the bottom up.

[iNow]

So, let me check my understanding, then.

 

Anyone who argues that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of skin color or sexual preference, you are summarily dismissing as "having an agenda."

Next, you oppose any change in our country that comes from the "bottom up," and summarily dismiss that as an "agenda" as well.

 

Got it. You're battin' a thousand there, jackie.

 

 

Do you have any more enlightened thoughts you wish to share?

[jackson33]

We are a Nation of laws. If a person or a group of persons wishes to change, what I am calling the base, then YES it should be from the original base in this case our Constitution. The founders understood, change would occur and provided THAT procedure for change. There is not one law or will there ever be where every person could agree on in any society. The society that existed long before the US formed accepted certain principals beyond any acceptance of todays but what was, was. Anarchy or the nonacceptance of law (our foundation) and with a prescribed procedure, must be followed or the power of small groups will overcome the majority. There are today, small segment of society that believe, even practicing many thing unacceptable to the majority. Polygamy to rights of women on to EXACTLY what religion is acceptable. These groups and hundreds of others are encouraged by the idea, change in the society can be changed from the bottom, opposed to the concepts and principles of this country. You really don't want to encourage, our rights to demonstrate and voice a public opinion, to be confused with 'rule of law'.

[Pangloss]

We aren't. We're establishing law, not ruling by public opinion. There is no mob rule being discussed here.

[iNow]

Jackson - Your argument is both specious and weak.

 

The US Constitution already allows it. If you recall, the states used to bar interracial marriages and in Loving v. Virginia the SCOTUS overturned those laws on the basis that "marriage is a basic civil right"..." and that "...the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

 

The same applies here with same sex couples, it's just that too many people ideologically indoctrinated can't understand that niggers homosexuals should be allowed to marry white women people of the same gender.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the

Due Process Clause

and the

Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

 

"

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

."

 

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

 

"

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy

."

 

Using the same logic, there is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious sexual discrimination which justifies this classification of marriage only being allowed to be defined as between a man and a woman.

 

 

 

 

 

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement prepared for delivery on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court, which commented on same-sex marriage. The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

"

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

 

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about

."

[bascule]

Implicit [...] implied

 

Okay, as long as we're playing that game...

 

A slippery slope argument by definition involves future side effects of an action. What future effect have I predicted?

 

As long as we're playing the implicit implied game, you seem to be implying that if we bestow marital rights on gay couples, we should apply the same rights to incestous couples. Otherwise, your complaint makes no sense.

[Mr Skeptic]

As long as we're playing the implicit implied game, you seem to be implying that if we bestow marital rights on gay couples, we should apply the same rights to incestous couples. Otherwise, your complaint makes no sense.

 

I am pointing out that we make exceptions to the right to marry for certain heterosexual couples, not only for homosexual couples. So the right to marry the person of your choice isn't a very fundamental right. If you were to make the right to marry the person of your choice an inalienable right, then you would have to allow incest (since relatives might fall in love with each other), and also polygamy (since two different people might fall in love with the same person), and even forced marriage (since one person falling in love with another doesn't mean that the other will love the first). I don't see how this is in any way a slippery slope argument. But if exceptions are made for these groups, then why not make exceptions for gay people too?

 

I shouldn't have said "imply". I meant "logically required". If you are complaining that gays doesn't have a certain right, than for the complaint to make sense, it logically requires that others who are not gay do have that right. I pointed out that a subset of people who are not gay also do not have the right to marry the person they love, proving that gays are not the only ones who are not permitted to marry the person they love.

 

In any case, if you say your complaint that gay people can't marry the person they love doesn't imply that people who aren't gay can, that's fine with me. Worrying about what people are implying is much more trouble than just going with what they say.

[Pangloss]

We'll allow unions that make sense (mainly because they don't hurt anyone), and deny the ones that don't (like incest or minors or polygamy). There will be a logical and legal basis for doing this, because that's how we do things in this country. Q.E.D.

[jackson33]

iNow; Your arguments, agreed to by the California Supreme Court are duly noted. However my arguments are not in opposing 'same sex marriage', rather than the chaos it will bring to State Structures which have already made law, to OPPOSE these recognitions and in fact those other States MAY endorse. My argument continues to the base for law, the idea should be addressed, a Federal Constitutional Amendment which if ratified would make all States conform their law to justify this acceptance. Since probably 40 States have some law which directly attacks any law of another State and this recognition, your setting up for massive problems, all of which is lined up to promote a minority agenda, or that some people with certain rights in one State, will not have those rights if they move. To avoid all this, including those rights, it MUST come from and be part of Federal Law.

 

What I would like you or some one thinking sexual orientation of ONE segment of society, to word such an amendment, in simplistic terms. We already have many segments of society that live in or under other than the recognized male/female interpretation and are denied those benefit/legal rights, are never officially married under law and in fact have some that would never recognize that endorsement, in the first place.

 

The problem is Marriage was a Religious concept in the first place, under our system not a matter for the Federal and in most States controlled by the majority. All legal under our system and cannot or should not be forced on to another State.

 

On a side note; When Black/Whites were not covered by the amendment, most States had already allowed such marriages and recognized the union. I might add 'inter racial' marriage had been going on long before there was even a US, when discriminations were based on theological differences.

 

Another side note to show confusion/chaos; In NM, where I live you can obtain a State Marriage License to marry, if you agree to move to Massachusetts with in one year. It might be interesting to know how this can be enforced, but an example of just whats going on around the country and the pressures being place on society.

[iNow]

The same "causing chaos" argument was used when discussing allowing blacks and whites to marry.

The same "causing chaos" argument was used when discussing allowing gays in the military.

 

They were wrong both times then, and I see zero reason to think they are "right" this time.

 

 

Transitions don't have to be perfectly smooth in order to move us toward something better.

 

 

 

 

 

What I would like you or some one thinking sexual orientation of ONE segment of society, to word such an amendment, in simplistic terms.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. I refer you now to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders, and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government.

 

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

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.

Edited November 9, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[jackson33]

iNow; No State is required to enact law, to conform to any other State. If the 14th A falls under your interpretation, agreed to by the California and establishes law over the peoples wishes, nothing has changed to State rights. Until the SC Rules that interpretation is valid and/or 'sexual orientation' (assume any and beyond Gay) is equal to race (a stretch) there will remain 50 different sets of law governing acceptable qualifications for recognition and/or benefits. NOTHING, short of an amendment can change the only US Law regarding 'qualifying' for status or man/woman for benefits or a rewording (reinventing) of the wheel.

 

"Equal protection" of the Federal Law ONLY, has implied guarantee or can be . There is no guarantee being with held to gay/lesbians, or in fact any persons preferences in life style including polygamy, cultural behavior or out of necessity lifestyles. There are thousands of written law prohibiting or permitting all kinds of things in any one State, where perfectly legal in others, denying rights to one or the other. I would venture most people think many laws are set by the Federal when in fact, THEY ARE NOT. The difference being the common interest of most, being the same.

 

Since you brought up 'Don't ask, don't tell'; This is a form of acceptance forced on members of a group, operating outside US Law. Uniform Code of Military Justice, where rights are heavily restricted, in the first place, and I suggest 'don't tell' is or would be a violation (restriction) of their rights today. I frankly do NOT oppose as the members voluntarily join these services and are not forced. If I move to San Francisco, NYC, Florida or anyplace I can check out laws/regulation/taxes and so on to get an understanding of the difference of that society, comparing it to my beliefs and their interest of my family. Rural areas around urban areas (suburbs) grew on this very principle.

[Moontanman]

You MAY still be asked if your a member (doubt) but would any gay person living in a union, say NO I am not. Then what authority (none) does the hospital have to check your statement. This is a ploy used by advocates....

 

Actually Jackson, this sort of thing happens all the time, there are many ways gays can be hurt by laws that support inequality.

 

One of the worst would be if your gay partner died, anyone who was a blood relation could come in and take away anything he had owned up to and including the house you lived in. Even in the best case scenario you would have to pay taxes on the house if it was left to you by your gay lover no matter how long you have together.

 

Can you imagine being with your lover for 30 years and then he dies and you are kicked out the house you paid for together because you can't pay the taxes on it or because his relatives want half or all of it?

 

If you had a gay child wouldn't you want him or her to have the same rights as everyone else?

[iNow]

If I move to San Francisco, NYC, Florida or anyplace I can check out laws/regulation/taxes and so on to get an understanding of the difference of that society, comparing it to my beliefs and their interest of my family.

 

I recognize that you seem to be arguing more for the existing legal structure than you are against differences in rights based on sexual preference. However, with that said, you (nor anyone on the pro-ban-gay-marriage side of the debate) have offered zero valid or feasible reasons why homosexual couples should be treated any differently than heterosexual couples... zilch, nada, naught, zip, zippo, diddly, no-thing.

 

Also, your post above basically boils down to, "If you don't like it, move." Sounds eerily similar to how people spoke of blacks in Alabama (and other southern states) just a few short decades ago. If you don't think there's something wrong with that approach, then you are part of the problem.

[doG]

This issue really highlights one of the chief reasons that the founders chose a Republic, government by rule of law, over a Democracy, government by rule of the majority or mob rule. A Republic, under a written Constitution, safeguards the rights of the individual and the minority. A Democracy lacks any legal safeguard for the rights of the individual and the minority. Now we have groups that want to oppress one minority or another and find that they can't under our proper form of government so they get the issue on a ballot in an effort to trump the rule of law with a measure of mob rule. The people should wake up and see this for what it is for we all belong to one or more minorities and we each could find ourselves a victim of such democratic tactics.

[Saryctos]

I recognize that you seem to be arguing more for the existing legal structure than you are against differences in rights based on sexual preference. However, with that said, you (nor anyone on the pro-ban-gay-marriage side of the debate) have offered zero valid or feasible reasons why homosexual couples should be treated any differently than heterosexual couples... zilch, nada, naught, zip, zippo, diddly, no-thing.

 

Not physically capable of producing children isn't different? Because that's the ONLY difference I can see between the two(to deny that this difference exists is pretty thick headed, whether or not it matters is a different thing). Other than that, I see no reason why they should be treated differently at all.

[npts2020]

Not physically capable of producing children isn't different? Because that's the ONLY difference I can see between the two(to deny that this difference exists is pretty thick headed, whether or not it matters is a different thing). Other than that, I see no reason why they should be treated differently at all.

 

There are more than a few heterosexual couples "not capable of producing children" because of age, physical defect or other reasons.

[jackson33]

I recognize that you seem to be arguing more for the existing legal structure than you are against differences in rights based on sexual preference. However, with that said, you (nor anyone on the pro-ban-gay-marriage side of the debate) have offered zero valid or feasible reasons why homosexual couples should be treated any differently than heterosexual couples... zilch, nada, naught, zip, zippo, diddly, no-thing.

 

Also, your post above basically boils down to, "If you don't like it, move." Sounds eerily similar to how people spoke of blacks in Alabama (and other southern states) just a few short decades ago. If you don't think there's something wrong with that approach, then you are part of the problem.

 

Yes, I believe the US Constitution has laid out a very good system for change and movements should take that approach. Many movements, in particular 'degrading the sanctity of marriage' at the expense of Religious people, realize the system will take years and people in movements want action, yesterday. Stepping on or over rights//beliefs of others by demonstration, accusation and intimidation doesn't equate to American, IN MY OPINION.

 

I realize there are always fringe element of any movement but in all honesty 'Gay Rights' has some really strange and dangerous elements at that fringe. You might google 'San Francisco Up your Alley Fair', an annual Fair protected by the local SF Police and not a good place to take your kids.

 

No, I explicitly mentioned 'moving to' not from, but my reference to suburbs was a true example, where people did move from. People move into or out of areas all the time for hundreds of reasons. They use 'better schools', 'less violence' 'taxes' or a host of reasons all generally more sinister reasons.

 

You are continuously trying to link Slavery and the perception of a past society into todays 'Same Sex Marriage' which is an injustice to those that believe marriage should have a certain standard. Personally, I am not religious and don't care who lives with who or why. I opposed governments recent actions (methods) against your Texas Fundamentalist LDS and a disruption of that society based on an anonymous phone call. Law works both ways and to achieve some goal by usurping the law is a very dangerous and destructive tool.

[iNow]

Righto. I'll add you to the status quo defense column, then.

[jackson33]

Actually Jackson, this sort of thing happens all the time, there are many ways gays can be hurt by laws that support inequality.

 

One of the worst would be if your gay partner died, anyone who was a blood relation could come in and take away anything he had owned up to and including the house you lived in. Even in the best case scenario you would have to pay taxes on the house if it was left to you by your gay lover no matter how long you have together.

 

Can you imagine being with your lover for 30 years and then he dies and you are kicked out the house you paid for together because you can't pay the taxes on it or because his relatives want half or all of it?

 

If you had a gay child wouldn't you want him or her to have the same rights as everyone else?

 

Hi Moon; Perceived injustices happen TO ALL PEOPLE and on a daily basis, its part of life and we should live with most and if change is required it should be for the betterment of that society.

 

No gay person is being denied anything where any other person has a right. If you go to benefits or anything else. To qualify for certain benefits has to have a base or an acceptable place where they can be obtained. People can use law (contracts) to insure those rights and State law already can steps in on long term relationship where wills or contracts were neglected.

 

I don't think any person is born gay/lesbian, at least not from my own experiences. To me its a perversion/rebellion or that old being different attitude all kids go through, including myself. The 13 kids (7 of my own) I helped raise seem to have a different problem and at last count have some 40 plus kids of their own. The world may have been a little better off if I had turned gay and like every other person on this planet, the thought had occurred to me.