Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

[iNow]

No. That is exactly counter to what was just explained to you above... counter to what you claimed to understand. It would seem you did not understand at all.

[Mokele]

Scrappy, you seem to think that whether something is or isn't constitutional is some sort of final answer. The fact is, it's not - the constitution can be changed (again).

 

Nobody wants "an answer", they want basic human rights, and if re-writing parts of the constitution is what it takes to achieve that, that's what'll be done.

 

Remember, if it ended with what the constitution says, voting would still be restricted to white male property owners.

[Severian]

Doesn't California have a 'civil union' which provides the same rights to couples as being married and is not restricted to heterosexuals? If so, then isn't this a discussion purely about the word 'marriage'?

[Mokele]

Doesn't California have a 'civil union' which provides the same rights to couples as being married and is not restricted to heterosexuals? If so, then isn't this a discussion purely about the word 'marriage'?

 

Yes and no - CA does have civil unions (termed Domestic Partnerships there) which grant almost all the rights of marriage. According to that most venerable of sources, wikipedia, there are several differences between the two, mostly minor but a few more substantial. It does make a good point that if/when DOMA is repealed, a DP wouldn't gain federal recognition, while a marriage would, and that international entities may recognize same-sex marriages but not DPs.

 

Of course, there's also the very strong argument that the government does not have any compelling, justifiable reason to restrict the use of the word 'marriage'.

[iNow]

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/016603.html

 

Speaking of Prop. 8...

 

How confident are Prop. 8 supporters that they are going to lose tomorrow, when Judge Walker issues his decision on constitutional issues? They've already filed papers asking for him to stay his ruling pending appeal (which is a prerequisite to seeking a stay in the Ninth Circuit). That stay request will be heard by a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit, which is made up this month of Judges Leavy, Hawkins, and Thomas. Not a great draw for Prop. 8 supporters. A stay request could go potentially to Justice Kennedy at the Supreme Court within days.

 

 

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/08/gay-marriage-ruling-due/

 

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker will release later Wednesday his ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal constitutional challenge to California’s “Proposition 8″ ban on same-sex marriage, the Court in San Francisco announced Tuesday (docket 09-2292). After the announcement, supporters of the ballot initiative filed a request for a stay pending appeal, should the judge strike down the ban. In that motion, the proponents said they would appeal an adverse decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, and possibly to the Supreme Court, and sought time to do so.

 

Simultaneously, the proponents asked Judge Walker to rule on their stay request at the same time he issued his ruling on the merits Wednesday.

[iNow]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/08/same-sex-marriage-ban-nullified/

 

In a first step toward a historic Supreme Court test, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down California’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples. U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that so-called “Proposition 8″ — approved by the state’s voters in November 2008 — violated two clauses of the federal Constitution.

 

<...>

 

The judge, in finding a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of legal equality, concluded that California could not justify treating committed couples differently solely because they were of the same sex. He applied the lowest constitutional test — “rational basis” – to this differing treatment. He also ruled that Proposition 8 violated rights that are protected by the Due Process Clause.

 

The evidence put forward in the challenge to the ban, the judge wrote,

 

“shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.”

 

Here are closing parts of the decision:

 

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marr age license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

 

 

Can I now say, told ya so?

[DJBruce]

 

Can I now say, told ya so?

 

I would hold that statement for just a bit. The ruling is being appealed, and my guess is that the case will work its way up to the Supreme Court so this is by no far the final ruling. If the case does reach the Supreme Court I think its virtually a toss up with Kennedy probably being the swing vote. So I would hold you "I told you so" until the case is completely settled.

 

I found it interesting that the Judge made no mention of the Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Nelson. Since in it the Supreme Court found that there was no "federal question" on a state banning same sex marriage, this setting precedent. As the basis for Judge Walker's decision, ie: the equal protection clause and due process, was found not to be in conflict with same sex marriage by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson.

 

Regardless, in the next few years we will probably see what the Supreme Court thinks of Judge Walker's decision and Prop 8.

[iNow]

I would hold that statement for just a bit. The ruling is being appealed, and my guess is that the case will work its way up to the Supreme Court so this is by no far the final ruling. If the case does reach the Supreme Court I think its virtually a toss up with Kennedy probably being the swing vote. So I would hold you "I told you so" until the case is completely settled.

Point taken, DJ... and I sort of knew that when I said it. It just strikes me as so very odd that someone is going to appeal a ruling to the supreme court in order to MAINTAIN discrimination... in order to PROTECT differential treatment. It just seems so contrary to what this nation was intended to do for people, and the ideals under which we've prospered for so long.

 

Anyway, you're quite right, and I thank you for the kind way in which you said it.

[DJBruce]

Point taken, DJ... and I sort of knew that when I said it. It just strikes me as so very odd that someone is going to appeal a ruling to the supreme court in order to MAINTAIN discrimination... in order to PROTECT differential treatment. It just seems so contrary to what this nation was intended to do for people, and the ideals under which we've prospered for so long.

 

Anyway, you're quite right, and I thank you for the kind way in which you said it.

 

You are welcome. I was glad to see you posting again.

[Pangloss]

It just strikes me as so very odd that someone is going to appeal a ruling to the supreme court in order to MAINTAIN discrimination... in order to PROTECT differential treatment. It just seems so contrary to what this nation was intended to do for people, and the ideals under which we've prospered for so long.

 

It always seems to boil down to that. Not that that's the intent of anyone here at SFN, but that always seems to be the effect of gay marriage ban legislation.

 

Thanks for the bump, btw; I went back and re-read the thread and remembered how great this discussion was. One of our best, IMO.

[jackson33]

It just strikes me as so very odd that someone is going to appeal a ruling to the supreme court in order to MAINTAIN discrimination... in order to PROTECT differential treatment.[/Quote]

 

iNow; Discrimination, itself is subjective to individuals, groups or even societies;

 

Wealth/Achievement/Success, today in the US is being attacked as discriminatory on those that have less, much more so by those with none. Social Justice, the cry...

 

Some groups in the US or Nations around the World, to different levels of tolerance, accept or reject any number of ideologies (An orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation), under laws and legal systems, determining there merits.

 

 

It just seems so contrary to what this nation was intended to do for people, and the ideals under which we've prospered for so long.[/Quote]

 

Actually, this process and the access to those means (amendments), is EXACTLY, what was intended and by the founders, whether those changes would be seen by them as destructive or constructive. Certainly Sodomy would never have been acceptable in the 18th or 19th Century, but has become acceptable to the American Society in RECENT YEARS, to a portion of the population. In turn the individual rights for those that practice sodomy, as a preferred way of life.

 

I was glad to see you posting again.[/Quote]

 

To add to 'TDBruces', I agree it's nice to you again taking part in discourse on issues of 'National Interest' and from the viewpoints you express and no doubt are passionate about. I'll add another quality, which Buffy once complimented me on and I will you, "in a consistent manner", which is refreshing in this world of "going with the flow"...

 

I would hold that statement for just a bit. The ruling is being appealed, and my guess is that the case will work its way up to the Supreme Court so this is by no far the final ruling. If the case does reach the Supreme Court I think its virtually a toss up with Kennedy probably being the swing vote. So I would hold you "I told you so" until the case is completely settled. [/Quote]

 

Bruce; I'll go along with Judge Napolitano (FNC), that when this reaches SCOTUS, as you mentioned it's a toss up, however with Kennedy the deciding vote and based on "Romer vs. Wade" would likely affirm the California decisions...

 

Rejecting the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving "special rights", Kennedy wrote:

 

To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

 

Of course if Kagan is in, Stevens retired, the decision is all but assured....IMO, affirmed anyway...

 

Keep in mind, Walker was legitimizing the California's Legislatures right, to write law and in California, NO referendum can or ever has over ridden current law. Once that legislation passed becoming law, the referendum became moot. I'd have argued under precedence, that these referendums have been accepted in the past and it IS the States right to oblige to the public or refute, which they refused to do. That is, States still maintain the control of Marriage Law, not the Federal. Said another way and IMO; It's Constitutional for STATES, to determine Marriage Law, including or exlcuding different concepts of that union.

 

What I personally see happening, is the SC, WILL affirm the Constitutionality of 'Same Sex Marriage', but it will pertain to the California Case, much as the D.C. Gun law original decision. Congress, will then for political reasons WILL, be forced to offer an Amendment in either direction, but suggesting it will indicate "That the US Government will recognize (for whatever reason) Marriages (possible use other wording) as between one Male and one Female. I have no doubt with today's sentiments, this would receive 2/3rd approval vote, by both Chambers and probably 3/4th's the States Ratification with in a year.

Edited August 7, 2010 by jackson33

[Moontanman]

 

Actually, this process and the access to those means (amendments), is EXACTLY, what was intended and by the founders, whether those changes would be seen by them as destructive or constructive. Certainly Sodomy would never have been acceptable in the 18th or 19th Century, but has become acceptable to the American Society in RECENT YEARS, to a portion of the population. In turn the individual rights for those that practice sodomy, as a preferred way of life.

 

 

Jackson33 do you really think that sodomy being acceptable has anything to do with people practicing sodomy? I've seen pornography from before the turn of the last century that portrays sodomy of all types, men and women, men and men, women and women. What was really going on was a small part of society, religious in nature, who lay awake at night worried that somehow somewhere some one was having a good time and thought they had the right to tell everyone else what they could and could not do, sodomy has always been acceptable to society, no one wanted to admit it due to the wrath of the religious few (who did it in secrete as well) but it went on in a very wide spread and popular manner, it has always been practiced by society.

 

It has just been condemned by the religious who thought they had the right to dictate the behavior of others. Banning sexual behavior between consenting adults is totally the result of religion, not the result of very few people doing something that was seen to be wrong by most people. Gay marriage in no way should be dictated by the few who are not interested in marrying some one of the same gender no more than the few who think oral sex is icky should dictate to everyone else not to do it....

 

I would like to comment on another thing I keep seeing come up in this and in other threads about this subject, the marriage is one man one woman rule that some keep harping on. I noticed there weren't any protesters in the street to object to the Mormon sects who have many wives often under age. A few did say it was wrong but it's still tolerated. It's still going on, no huge press from Utah to combat polygamy in their own state much less others.

 

I think it's disingenuous as it can be, no one is saying that polygamy is going to destroy marriage... No thats ok, because it's one man and several little girls? Forcing little girls into sexual servitude is ok as long as it's done with Gods consent? This whole argument is nothing but gay bashing at the intellectual level instead of hunting them down and kicking their ass in a dark ally after you force them to have sex with you.

[DJBruce]

I would like to comment on another thing I keep seeing come up in this and in other threads about this subject, the marriage is one man one woman rule that some keep harping on. I noticed there weren't any protesters in the street to object to the Mormon sects who have many wives often under age. A few did say it was wrong but it's still tolerated. It's still going on, no huge press from Utah to combat polygamy in their own state much less others.

 

I think it's disingenuous as it can be, no one is saying that polygamy is going to destroy marriage... No thats ok, because it's one man and several little girls? Forcing little girls into sexual servitude is ok as long as it's done with Gods consent? This whole argument is nothing but gay bashing at the intellectual level instead of hunting them down and kicking their ass in a dark ally after you force them to have sex with you.

 

I would bet if there was a referendum to legalize plural marriages that their would be an uproar as big, and probably bigger than the one over Prop 8. I will state that by no means is marriage meant to be a plural affair., nor is it meant to be a forced joining, and by NO MEANS is marriage supposed to be the sexual assault and abuse of children by people.

 

That being said I think it is possible to have a debate on Prop 8 and gay marriage in general without chracterizing one side of the argument as simply gay bashers. Both sides of the argument have points, and to refute the points of one side by saying they are gay bashers is wrong.

[Moontanman]

I would bet if there was a referendum to legalize plural marriages that their would be an uproar as big, and probably bigger than the one over Prop 8. I will state that by no means is marriage meant to be a plural affair., nor is it meant to be a forced joining, and by NO MEANS is marriage supposed to be the sexual assault and abuse of children by people.

 

I disagree, it is going on, right now as I type this, but you see no huge public out cry! Why? Because it's sanctioned by religion. people are loath to restrict anyones religion. Because it's males having sex with females and you can't be opposed to either one of those things because God says it's ok.... BTW I have no problem with plural marrage as long as it's informed consenting adults but that's another thread...

 

That being said I think it is possible to have a debate on Prop 8 and gay marriage in general without chracterizing one side of the argument as simply gay bashers. Both sides of the argument have points, and to refute the points of one side by saying they are gay bashers is wrong.

 

What would that point be other than religious values?

 

Homosexuals getting married will destroy marriage!

 

How?

 

Well just because it's wrong!

 

Why is is it wrong?

 

Because it will destroy marriage!

 

Why?

 

Because it's wrong to force Churches to marry gays!

 

But there are already Churches that will marry Gay couples!

 

No! it will destroy marriage!

 

But how!

 

My pastor, preacher, priest, etc says it will!

 

Then your pastor, preacher or priest shouldn't marry people!

 

But it's wrong for any gay person to marry another person of the same gender!

 

Why?

 

Because some of us think it's wrong!

 

The same circular argument was used to stop inter racial marriage for a very long time, just because you or me or anyone else thinks gay marriage is wrong is not good enough reason to stop it, there should a real reason other than "I don't like the idea of it!"

 

The argument just goes in circles and the basis for it is simply the disenfranchisement of gay people, just like no real reason could be given for the opposition to interracial marriage other than i think it's wrong and yes religion was used extensively to try and convince people that whites and blacks should not be married as well.

 

So far I all the arguments against boil down to I don't want it to be allowed, simple emotions, nothing more, in no way shape or form could gay marriage damage our society!

 

Makes my skin crawl to think of what they do in the dark is not a good reason, God doesn't like it is not a good reason, all it really amounts to is intellectual gay bashing, deny them their basic rights as human beings because I don't like them, at one time it was used against the Native Americans, blacks, Irish, Italians, and any and all groups that were disapproved of due to being different... just because the majority doesn't like one group does not give them the right to deny them their basic human rights....

 

I don't see this as a Gay straight issue, I see it as a human issue, nothing more nothing less...

[jackson33]

Jackson33 do you really think that sodomy being acceptable has anything to do with people practicing sodomy?[/Quote]

 

Moon; In using sodomy, with reference to 'Same Sex Union', I'm emphasizing a public perception, whether formed from moral, ethical or religion reasoning. Technically for the most part sodomy in law really never considered 'same sex' and was used primarily to protect women from husbands. These attitudes or perceptions for both then had not been enforced, prosecuted in most all US Legal Jurisdictions for years, long before the 2003 "Lawrence v. Texas" decision, which simply closed the door on both.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

 

What was really going on was a small part of society, religious in nature, who lay awake at night worried that somehow somewhere some one was having a good time and thought they had the right to tell everyone else what they could and could not do, sodomy has always been acceptable to society, no one wanted to admit it due to the wrath of the religious few (who did it in secrete as well) but it went on in a very wide spread and popular manner, it has always been practiced by society. [/Quote]

 

I can't accept, "a small part of Society" then distinguish the reason as being "religious in nature". What MAY be the small portion are the activist GLTC, that are trying to gain 'recognition', benefits or add some notion of creditability for other than their personal sexual orientation.

 

Yes sodomy or sex between the same sex has been practiced or a desired means to stimulation for some and probably practiced well back into human evolution. That's actually the point, what or why has this desire to use such terms as marriage, sanctity or other terminology to equate those preferences to the norm. Don't misunderstand me on this, we all deviate from the norm in some manner through life, but don't impose those deviations on others in order to justify our own.

 

I would like to comment on another thing I keep seeing come up in this and in other threads about this subject, the marriage is one man one woman rule that some keep harping on. I noticed there weren't any protesters in the street to object to the Mormon sects who have many wives often under age. A few did say it was wrong but it's still tolerated. It's still going on, no huge press from Utah to combat polygamy in their own state much less others. [/Quote]

 

In the US, implied, traditionally or under law, one M/F has always been the rule. You mention Utah and it took 40-50 years from their request for Statehood, to insure they would conform to that rule, to gain Statehood. No doubt there are many Mormons and non Mormons living and sexually active in groups and I might add one man, multiple women is NOT always the case. Those unions are just as legal today as are 'same sex' in any form or in fact the hundreds of thousands or millions that for religious reasons, support more than one wife, however none of them are trying to change the traditional society or legally try to gain some benefit. They knew full well what the consequences might be, when making their choices, as we all do with any choice.

[Moontanman]

Moon; In using sodomy, with reference to 'Same Sex Union', I'm emphasizing a public perception, whether formed from moral, ethical or religion reasoning. Technically for the most part sodomy in law really never considered 'same sex' and was used primarily to protect women from husbands. These attitudes or perceptions for both then had not been enforced, prosecuted in most all US Legal Jurisdictions for years, long before the 2003 "Lawrence v. Texas" decision, which simply closed the door on both.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

 

What public perception are you talking about Jackson? Sodomy in the law has always included if not primarily based on same gender sexual relations and to protect women from their husbands? please clarify this for me because i have no idea what you are talking about, before recent years a man practically owned his wife and could rape her with no fear of any prosecution by law

 

I can't accept, "a small part of Society" then distinguish the reason as being "religious in nature". What MAY be the small portion are the activist GLTC, that are trying to gain 'recognition', benefits or add some notion of creditability for other than their personal sexual orientation.

 

The anti sodomy laws laws are religious in nature, these sex laws have always been driven by religion and what is wrong with gaining the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals? Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same recognition, benefits, and credibility? Why is wanting the same rights as everyone else a bad thing? you are not making any pojnt except "i think it's wrong so it should be"

 

 

 

Yes sodomy or sex between the same sex has been practiced or a desired means to stimulation for some and probably practiced well back into human evolution. That's actually the point, what or why has this desire to use such terms as marriage, sanctity or other terminology to equate those preferences to the norm. Don't misunderstand me on this, we all deviate from the norm in some manner through life, but don't impose those deviations on others in order to justify our own.

 

No one is trying to impose anything on you or anyone else Jackson, homosexuality is normal for homosexuals.

 

In the US, implied, traditionally or under law, one M/F has always been the rule. You mention Utah and it took 40-50 years from their request for Statehood, to insure they would conform to that rule, to gain Statehood. No doubt there are many Mormons and non Mormons living and sexually active in groups and I might add one man, multiple women is NOT always the case. Those unions are just as legal today as are 'same sex' in any form or in fact the hundreds of thousands or millions that for religious reasons, support more than one wife, however none of them are trying to change the traditional society or legally try to gain some benefit. They knew full well what the consequences might be, when making their choices, as we all do with any choice.

 

But why was it the law of the land? Religion! And oh yes those people do want to change the law of the land and yes they do gain benefits and again I'll ask you why shouldn't homosexuals have the exact same rights and benefits as every one else? Why? Homosexuals aren't trying to force anything on you, they are not trying to force you to have sex with a person of the same gender and BTW homosexuality is not a choice.

[DJBruce]

 

What would that point be other than religious values?

 

Homosexuals getting married will destroy marriage!

 

How?

 

Well just because it's wrong!

 

Why is is it wrong?

 

Because it will destroy marriage!

 

Why?

 

Because it's wrong to force Churches to marry gays!

 

But there are already Churches that will marry Gay couples!

 

No! it will destroy marriage!

 

But how!

 

My pastor, preacher, priest, etc says it will!

 

Then your pastor, preacher or priest shouldn't marry people!

 

But it's wrong for any gay person to marry another person of the same gender!

 

Why?

 

Because some of us think it's wrong!

 

The same circular argument was used to stop inter racial marriage for a very long time, just because you or me or anyone else thinks gay marriage is wrong is not good enough reason to stop it, there should a real reason other than "I don't like the idea of it!"

 

The argument just goes in circles and the basis for it is simply the disenfranchisement of gay people, just like no real reason could be given for the opposition to interracial marriage other than i think it's wrong and yes religion was used extensively to try and convince people that whites and blacks should not be married as well.

 

So far I all the arguments against boil down to I don't want it to be allowed, simple emotions, nothing more, in no way shape or form could gay marriage damage our society!

 

Makes my skin crawl to think of what they do in the dark is not a good reason, God doesn't like it is not a good reason, all it really amounts to is intellectual gay bashing, deny them their basic rights as human beings because I don't like them, at one time it was used against the Native Americans, blacks, Irish, Italians, and any and all groups that were disapproved of due to being different... just because the majority doesn't like one group does not give them the right to deny them their basic human rights....

 

I don't see this as a Gay straight issue, I see it as a human issue, nothing more nothing less...

 

I never commented on the validity of the arguments put forth by both side of the debate I simply stated that boiling down one sides argument down to gay bashing is not progressing the debate. If anything it is an ad hom on one side of the debate. You can disagree with one side's points as much as you wish but attacking them is not a valid form of retort.

[Sayonara]

Scanning the last few posts of this thread one would imagine that this ruling means daily, federally-mandated sodomy sessions will become compulsory for the religious. I'm pretty sure that's not what was being discussed but since public perception was apparently some kind of issue then it would be remiss of me to not mention that the impression is that the thread is going off-topic.

[Moontanman]

I never commented on the validity of the arguments put forth by both side of the debate I simply stated that boiling down one sides argument down to gay bashing is not progressing the debate. If anything it is an ad hom on one side of the debate. You can disagree with one side's points as much as you wish but attacking them is not a valid form of retort.

 

 

Is it any worse than the other side claiming gay marriage is damaging to society in some vague but horrific way?

[jackson33]

What public perception are you talking about Jackson? Sodomy in the law has always included if not primarily based on same gender sexual relations and to protect women from their husbands? please clarify this for me because i have no idea what you are talking about, before recent years a man practically owned his wife and could rape her with no fear of any prosecution by law. [/Quote]

 

Moon; Protection from "non consensual sex acts" would have been a better wording or not always directed solely to same sex consensual acts. Husbands that forced perceived deviate activity on the wife, really just one. Anyway here is a list by States and as they broke away from Sodomy Law, the point of the comment...scroll down to US.

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=scowl

 

As for men historically owning there wives; It would be my opinion the reverse is the rule and men have taken up ownership more recently, generally speaking. I think divorce/adultery rates pretty well support that viewpoint.

 

The anti sodomy laws are religious in nature, these sex laws have always been driven by religion and what is wrong with gaining the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals? [/Quote]

 

Your trying to blame religion on an attitude of sexual orientation and no much of the this comes from other than a religious base. China, Russia and most of Africa today have fairly small amounts of religious activity, yet have and always have frowned on both the activity and simply don't sanction any such union. What Religious Institutions are claiming (your confusing), again for the most part, is that Marriage is a Religious Tradition between men and women, in many cases even Polygamy.

 

Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same recognition, benefits, and credibility? Why is wanting the same rights as everyone else a bad thing? you are not making any point except "i think it's wrong so it should be"[/Quote]

 

 

I don't expect you have read probably my 30 post on this thread, but excluding the wording (religions problem, IMO), they should receive the same r/b/c as heterosexuals unions, but they need not be granted additional rights to those religious connotations/meanings. Couples all the time, without any religious belief, will get a license, go to the local JP and be officially united under law, or don't bother forming unions under common law or contract and IMO, so should any two, four or forty consenting adults be allowed to.

 

No one is trying to impose anything on you or anyone else Jackson, homosexuality is normal for homosexuals. [/Quote]

 

Activism is itself an act of imposing on others, for whatever reason, however I don't oppose such activity. What I do oppose is when activism enters law or law enforcement.with a biased attitude. We could spend weeks or who considers what wrong, but if your implying Homosexuals feel, Heterosexuals are abnormal, I'd suggest your incorrect.

 

Is it any worse than the other side claiming gay marriage is damaging to society in some vague but horrific way? [/Quote]

 

I certainly hope this was not directed to me. I'm started out my discussion with you and Bruce, portraying a scenario, I feel this issue will take through the SC and Congress. As for damaging a basically religious society, it's up to the religious to defend their position.

[Moontanman]

Moon; Protection from "non consensual sex acts" would have been a better wording or not always directed solely to same sex consensual acts. Husbands that forced perceived deviate activity on the wife, really just one. Anyway here is a list by States and as they broke away from Sodomy Law, the point of the comment...scroll down to US.

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=scowl

 

As for men historically owning there wives; It would be my opinion the reverse is the rule and men have taken up ownership more recently, generally speaking. I think divorce/adultery rates pretty well support that viewpoint.

 

Your link is meaningless to this discussion, did you really mean to show a link to the word scowl?

 

 

 

Your trying to blame religion on an attitude of sexual orientation and no much of the this comes from other than a religious base. China, Russia and most of Africa today have fairly small amounts of religious activity, yet have and always have frowned on both the activity and simply don't sanction any such union. What Religious Institutions are claiming (your confusing), again for the most part, is that Marriage is a Religious Tradition between men and women, in many cases even Polygamy.

 

Russia and Africa have small amounts of religious activity? Africa is a hot bed of religion with American evangelicals going there and intensionally stirring up a culture of hatred against homosexuals by claiming out right that homosexuals are advocating molesting children and those same religious workers supporting the murder of homosexuals. Russia is deeply religious, always was, even when it was officially against the law, China I have no information on. Marriage is a religious tradition but religion is not part of the push to ban gay marriage? Are you sure you want to make that claim?

 

 

I don't expect you have read probably my 30 post on this thread, but excluding the wording (religions problem, IMO), they should receive the same r/b/c as heterosexuals unions, but they need not be granted additional rights to those religious connotations/meanings. Couples all the time, without any religious belief, will get a license, go to the local JP and be officially united under law, or don't bother forming unions under common law or contract and IMO, so should any two, four or forty consenting adults be allowed to.

 

Don't be insulting Jackson, we've been on opposite sides of this argument for along time across two forums at least. You know i am not a hit run poster who doesn't read the threads... if there are churches who are willing to marry homosexuals then why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? Right now they can't even get the secular version of marriage, marriage is not an additional right, many homosexuals have deep religious feelings, i personally don't understand why but they do, i go to a church that the congregation is mostly homosexual. if homosexuals could go to the JP and get the license and be united under the law you would have a point but they can't. i will state my point again so it is clear, as long as a church is willing to marry homosexuals then why not? You make a good point with the secular version of marriage but homosexuals can't get that either so your point does not hold water...

 

Activism is itself an act of imposing on others, for whatever reason, however I don't oppose such activity. What I do oppose is when activism enters law or law enforcement.with a biased attitude. We could spend weeks or who considers what wrong, but if your implying Homosexuals feel, Heterosexuals are abnormal, I'd suggest your incorrect.

 

You know I'm not implying that heterosexuals are abnormal Jackson, i never in any way shape or form suggested that, no activism is not necessarily the act of imposing your views on others, i don't care what others think, i want homosexuals to have the same rights as any other human being. If this is forcing my views on others then so is asserting racism is wrong or asserting any other rights as a human being are being denied to some one.

 

 

I certainly hope this was not directed to me. I'm started out my discussion with you and Bruce, portraying a scenario, I feel this issue will take through the SC and Congress. As for damaging a basically religious society, it's up to the religious to defend their position.

 

Directed at you personally? no, it is directed at the people who support denying other humans of their basic rights simply because you feel like it's wrong instead of being able to show specific reasons why it's harmful to society in some way. My point would be that the religious do not have to defend their position all they have to do is evoke the vague emotional feelings of gays being wrong and trying to stuff their views down the throats of others when all they are really asking is the same basic human dignity anyone else has.

[ParanoiA]

The problem is, state recognized marriage is not a right. While I agree with the judge's decision in that it's favorable for practical ends, I'm not sure how to process the inherent conflict of "equality" in the context of "privilege". Although, I acknowledge that state privilege perhaps just has to discriminate by some other means than race, sex, and etc.

 

To me, supporters of same-sex unions should drop using the word "right" and embrace the “privilege” that it is. Otherwise, we're still allowing the government to grant permission to join a privileged class that confers rights – and that’s the unconstitutional contention, IMHO. Keep in mind I'm parsing rights from benefits.

 

By conceding the privilege rationale, perhaps rights extended by traditional marriage laws can be challenged instead. Firstly, inheritance and medical surrogate consent laws. That's where we confer or deny rights to spouses based on qualification for a privileged institution. This is the weasel tandem that circumvents our repudiation of “nobility” and “subjects”. Why don't we just pass a law that says only people with driver's licenses can vote, while we're at it?

 

I contend inheritance and medical surrogate consent laws are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection clause, as well. Probably others too, but I’m not quite comfortable enough with the concepts of “privilege” and “rights” to enumerate further. The weak point of this argument obviously being if spousal inheritance and substitutes for medical consent are considered a “right” in the first place. Take the steam out of this arrangement, because it’s weird for government to be judging free associations and labels between free citizens.

 

 

Real marriage is a function of free association and no one can stop you from hooking up with a man, woman, or a rock and calling yourselves married. Stop letting heterosexual marriages function as the modern “nobility” via subtending laws that reference them, exclusively.

 

The only real issue at hand is the state power granted to marriage. After that’s deflated, as it should be, there is no inequality. No hetero marriage should be able to force me to recognize it any more than some idiot that insists he’s a snowman. Group and label yourselves however you please, but don’t think I have to accept it for any reason. Believe me, I’ll never ask you permission for anything. Be free, and act like it. Stop asking your government for permission.

 

Or...just keep doing what you’re doing and continue to be frustrated at your fair masters.

Edited August 6, 2010 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

The problem is, state recognized marriage is not a right. While I agree with the judge's decision in that it's favorable for practical ends, I'm not sure how to process the inherent conflict of "equality" in the context of "privilege". Although, I acknowledge that state privilege perhaps just has to discriminate by some other means than race, sex, and etc.

 

To me, supporters of same-sex unions should drop using the word "right" and embrace the “privilege” that it is. Otherwise, we're still allowing the government to grant permission to join a privileged class that confers rights – and that’s the unconstitutional contention, IMHO. Keep in mind I'm parsing rights from benefits.

 

By conceding the privilege rationale, perhaps rights extended by traditional marriage laws can be challenged instead.

That's a separate point, though. The point in this thread is that marriages are offered in a very specific way to heterosexual couples, they are a right (not a privilege), and rules like Prop 8 are setup to do little more than prevent that right from being offered to homosexual partners (differential treatment based on existing setup without secular cause or due process consideration) based on some private moral view. The evidence is that this is about little more than trying to make same sex couples inferior to opposite sex partners.

 

I recognize your point... Think we covered it some months back, in fact, more than once even. However, it's a different question than that being discussed in this thread. In this thread, we must take as given the current setup where marriage is a right and review Prop. 8 within that context, since our reality is within the structure (which you propose should instead be structured as privilege) and has been that way for decades.

 

I'm not saying it's not a good discussion to have. I'm saying you can't discuss Prop 8 rulings in that context since marriage is a right, not a privilege in this country.

[ParanoiA]

That's a separate point, though. The point in this thread is that marriages are offered in a very specific way to heterosexual couples, they are a right (not a privilege), and rules like Prop 8 are setup to do little more than prevent that right from being offered to homosexual partners (differential treatment based on existing setup without secular cause or due process consideration) based on some private moral view. The evidence is that this is about little more than trying to make same sex couples inferior to opposite sex partners.

 

It's not a right if you have to ask permission and be licensed first. Are they also going to say driving is a right? It would be equally astonishing if gay folks were denied driver's licenses. There are qualifications for a license to drive, just like there's qualifications for a license to marry. So how would you argue that one? Can I now argue that denying my child the right to drive is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause due to age discrimination? Or denying the right for a limbless person to drive is discrimination of the disabled, including a violation of the American with Disabilities Act?

 

Believe me, I fully realize the SC has determined marriage to be a right, as the 138 page decision by Walker cites this starting on page 112. So, with that conclusion, it's a simple demonstration that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. But I don't agree with the SC on it presently being a right. I don't have to get a license to walk around my block or ask permission to look for a job. A right should not require pre-approval, because it's a damn right.

 

To put this in perspective, everyone does have a right to marry, even polygamy. No one can stop you from going to a church, or even dreaming up your own type of ceremony and freely associating yourselves as married, or you can even call yourselves a refrigerator. You have that right, and cannot be denied.

 

You just don't have a right to insist the state recognize you as a refrigerator, and therefore enjoy the benefits of tax free living, no social security obligations, no laws to applying to you since you are now a thing. (Actually, then you could be owned, so I wouldn't try this at home... )

 

I recognize your point... Think we covered it some months back, in fact, more than once even. However, it's a different question than that being discussed in this thread. In this thread, we must take as given the current setup where marriage is a right and review Prop. 8 within that context, since our reality is within the structure (which you propose should instead be structured as privilege) and has been that way for decades.

 

Well, unless the staff disagrees, I don’t think I must take as given the current setup where marriage is a right in order to discuss and disparage Prop 8, including its supporters and opponents, and why they’re wrong.

 

I know we’ve covered my goofy ideas on this, but I think I was still accusing the marriage laws themselves and hadn’t moved on to the laws that reference them instead. Obviously discrimination is happening, but I think that’s the nature of any privilege. So appeals to “unconstitutionality” are inconsistent, and betray an ignorance of the nature of privilege in the first place, even if they’re convenient.

 

Although, I acknowledge that argument is only valid if you don’t side with the SC on marriage being a right.

 

To be clear, and I think you know this, I agree with Walker’s value judgments and I strongly sympathize with the gay community that is suffering this inequality. I’m quite vocal about it too, when given the opportunity. I only disagree with how this is being negotiated through the gears of government. We’re appalled and shocked at the government making these decisions, yet we still keep giving them the decision to make. I just don’t understand that mentality at all.

[jackson33]

The point in this thread is that marriages are offered in a very specific way to heterosexual couples, they are a right (not a privilege), and rules like Prop 8 are setup to do little more than prevent that right from being offered to homosexual partners (differential treatment based on existing setup without secular cause or due process consideration) based on some private moral view. .[/Quote]

 

iNow; Marriages, my preferred wording Unions, are not offered in any specific way. The licensing (reasonably a new idea) and/or proper activation of that permit (allowing certain rights and OBLIGATIONS, is most certainly a privilege*, offered by the society to conform to their standards and this being by the State. To further explain my viewpoint; Under current law, virtually any two people, three or more people, can form any kind of Union (personal/public) with or without a contract, holding within current local or Federal Law (some as in a business, require contracts) and act or live (lifestyle) in the manner of their choice, that's the "rights" of this issue.

 

The evidence is that this is about little more than trying to make same sex couples inferior to opposite sex partners. [/Quote]

 

Who is arguing this point, all the individuals involved in this issue, have the privilege to or not to properly receive those other rights and obligations offered by their society. Said another way if receiving certain benefits or privileges is so important that trying to alter the societies acceptable behavior (consensus), it then becomes that societies duty to attempt maintain their standards. More importantly, it's the Societies, IMO the States people, that should have the final say on these issues.

 

Personally, I feel those few activist involved, media or the political/legal structure are all in some manner defeating the progress made for sexual behavior of individuals advancement. There are probably millions of folks, in most all the civilized world, that live perfectly normal lives, in the midst of a knowing society and in many cases receive most if not all the real privileges of those that CHOSE to conform to social standards. I'll top this off. that those standards whether perceived as destructive or constructive, have been ongoing for generations.

 

I'm not saying it's not a good discussion to have. I'm saying you can't discuss Prop 8 rulings in that context since marriage is a right, not a privilege in this country. [/Quote]

 

iNow and Sayonara; I'm not sure anyone has or could truly go off topic. During these 300 post, we have been basically talking about procedures and what causes lead up to that process. Even in Moon's comments, they are consistent with the ideology of Judge Walker, reinforcing or agreeing with the decision.

 

Thread; I heard a good point yesterday of Beck's show; Where does the concept of Human Right's actually come from? Who or what has established, what those rights are? If you use the DoI, where did Jefferson or as some suggest Franklin or others get these ideas?

 

 

*Noun: right rIt

An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature

 

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"[/Quote]

 

Noun: privilege pri-vu-lij

 

A special advantage, immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all

A right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right)

"suffrage was the privilege of white adult males";

- prerogative, perquisite, exclusive right

(law) the right to refuse to divulge information obtained in a confidential relationship[/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=rights