Nonsense. By this logic, since this is all part of the “slope emanating from the Civil Rights movement”, should we NOT have made such strides in Civil Rights, for fear of where that ‘slope’ would lead to?[/quote]
Uh, no - good Lord, that is completely illogical and makes no sense at all. The point is that is perfectly fair and legitimate to examine where the “next next step” would be when proponents claim that gay marriage is the “next step” from the Civil Rights movement - a “look before you leap” approach anytime you consider a shift in an overarching legal principle.
Not all change is good. Some directions are good and helpful, some are bad and disastrous. Only a fool doesn’t look down the road at a policy like this.
And just because the Civil Rights movement was successful and fixed a broken social problem does not mean that every “change” will be just as “successful” and solve a “broken social problem”. There may, of course, be no problem in need of fixing at all.
Nonsense. By this logic, since this is all part of the “slope emanating from the Civil Rights movement”, should we NOT have made such strides in Civil Rights, for fear of where that ‘slope’ would lead to?[/quote]
Uh, no - good Lord, that is completely illogical and makes no sense at all. The point is that is perfectly fair and legitimate to examine where the “next next step” would be when proponents claim that gay marriage is the “next step” from the Civil Rights movement - a “look before you leap” approach anytime you consider a shift in an overarching legal principle.
Not all change is good. Some directions are good and helpful, some are bad and disastrous. Only a fool doesn’t look down the road at a policy like this.
And just because the Civil Rights movement was successful and fixed a broken social problem does not mean that every “change” will be just as “successful” and solve a “broken social problem”. There may, of course, be no problem in need of fixing at all.
[/quote]
Oh, I’m looking. I just predict that it would be a good change, while you seem to predict otherwise.
Ok, so… Marriage does have an effect on STD transmission in the heterosexual community, but it wouldnt have an effect in the gay community? Is that your position?[/quote]
My position is that the effect would be marginal in both “communities”. And my position is that if you won’t stop engaging in unsafe intercourse out of fear of death or debilitating disease, but you would if you could get a marriage certificate, you don’t marriage - you need therapy.
Ok, so… Marriage does have an effect on STD transmission in the heterosexual community, but it wouldnt have an effect in the gay community? Is that your position?[/quote]
My position is that the effect would be marginal in both “communities”. And my position is that if you won’t stop engaging in unsafe intercourse out of fear of death or debilitating disease, but you would if you could get a marriage certificate, you don’t marriage - you need therapy.[/quote]
Um, thats not the idea there. The idea is that people are less likely to cheat on a spouse than they are a boyfriend/girlfriend (because they are conditioned to hold the relationship in higher esteem).
Oh, I’m looking. I just predict that it would be a good change, while you seem to predict otherwise.[/quote]
Good, then it stands to reason that complaints about the “slippery slope” are misplaced.[/quote]
What should we call it, then? Bad predictions?
The issue of poly marriage has been adressed in this thread, repeatedly. At worst, if gay marriage is legalized (isn’t it already in some states?), polyfolk will try - and fail - at getting marriage for themselves, because the relationships they engage in are functionally different than what marriage entails.
The issue of “marriage rights” does not translate to “anyone can define marriage any damn way they please and the government must recognize it”. That seems to be how you interpret it, though.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Um, thats not the idea there. The idea is that people are less likely to cheat on a spouse than they are a boyfriend/girlfriend (because they are conditioned to hold the relationship in higher esteem).[/quote]
And? The answer to this is simply “so what?” if it doesn’t pertain to the focus of marriage, which is the prevention of illegimate children.
Is it your position that we need to enact gay marriage to protect homosexuals from self-destructing in their own community because they can’t act responsibly as individuals and need our paternalistic hand to save them from themselves?
… because the relationships they engage in are functionally different than what marriage entails.[/quote]
Well, here’s your problem - this couldn’t be more incorrect. Polygamous relationships are entirely more suited to marriage on the basis that these relationships procreate, and marriage is designed to socially order procreation.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Um, thats not the idea there. The idea is that people are less likely to cheat on a spouse than they are a boyfriend/girlfriend (because they are conditioned to hold the relationship in higher esteem).[/quote]
And? The answer to this is simply “so what?” if it doesn’t pertain to the focus of marriage, which is the prevention of illegimate children.
Is it your position that we need to enact gay marriage to protect homosexuals from self-destructing in their own community because they can’t act responsibly as individuals and need our paternalistic hand to save them from themselves?[/quote]
The focus of marriage is to ameliorate problems in the heterosexual community, especially those that effect the rest of society as well. I’m making the case that allowing homosexuals to marry would ameliorate problems in the homosexual community, especially those that effect the rest of society as well.
Is it your position that marriage should have been enacted to protect heterosexuals from reckless reproduction? Shouldn’t they “act responsibly as individuals” when it comes to makin babies? Shouldnt pregnancy/childsupport/abortion/fear of unwanted children in general be enough to inspire responsible sexual practice, or do straight people need a paternalistic hand to save them from their own irresponsibility?
I’m making the case that allowing homosexuals to marry would ameliorate problems in the homosexual community, especially those that effect the rest of society as well.[/quote]
But it wouldn’t, and whatever problems there are, they don’t really affect the rest of society. Look at the problems neagtively affecting society these days - problems in the homosexual community wouldn’t even make the top 2,000 of the list. There is no general social problem to solve here.
Yes, yes and yes - society has always set up moral guardrails to engineer certain behavior and shame others, especially behavior that is so central to society and pervasive into every corner of society. And a problem that looms so large as the disintegration of ordered liberty and civil society by irresponsible procreation needs these social incentives (not all are provided by the government, of course, but some are). That’s easy.
So, now you answer - the homosexual community needs us to save them from themselves?
[quote]forlife wrote:
BostonBarrister, I think you make a good point.
The legal question is whether gay marriage is substantially similar to straight marriage. If so, it would be unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. The California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is in fact substantially similar.
It is equally fair and requisite to ask whether polygamy, incest, and bestiality are substantially similar to straight marriage. The courts would have to weigh those comparisons on their own merits, independently of what they decide regarding gay marriage.
In all cases though, the standard of comparison is the same.[/quote]
I honestly could care less about gay marriage. But your argument is so flawed I couldn’t help but comment.
First…you use the CSC to back up your opinion. Maybe you should conduct a review on how that Court Rules. Talk about loons. That aside, using THAT source to back yourself up is about the same thing as saying: I agree with myself. Duh.
Beyond that any finding that Marriage and Gay Unions are “substantially similar” is absurd on its face. Laughable.
Before the ACLU, NOW, and a host of other liberal powerhouses combined to destory Marriage it stood as a means for Society to create stable pair bonds who in turn created nice, productive, little tax payers…who built rather than destroyed the moral underpinnings of this Nation.
I think the results of that destrution speak for themselves, poverty, crime…
Gay pairs can make no such claim. They cannot produce children. The gay culute is one that attempts to tear down and destroy what it sees as hostile towards it ( and fair enough, some things are hostile towards them).
But, frankly, I think we have bigger problems than homosexuals having the ability to marry.
[/quote]
Whether or not you agree with the California Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant. My point was that the courts have the judicial responsibility to determine whether gay marriage is substantially similar to straight marriage. I don’t doubt the issue will eventually be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, unless the legislature acts sooner.
Your argument is flawed in any case, because infertile straight couples are allowed to marry. Obviously, marriage isn’t restricted to couples that can or will procreate.
I asked you about the standard of review - a very important aspect to the decision and a huge aspect to the unorthodox manner Walker came to his decision - and it’s clear you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. You didn’t address the issue or even provide a relevant response. [/quote]
This is actually my fault. I let your use of the term ‘standard of review’ slide since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and instead presented an argument about Judge Walker’s ruling. Since you decided to go ahead and bring personal insults into this, let me apologize now for not going ahead and pointing out what an idiot you are. It won’t happen again, I promise. Now let me explain why you are an idiot. A standard of review is used by a higher court to determine the validity of the ruling in a lower court. In our legal system the basic level of the court are trial courts (district courts at the federal level), appellate courts (court of appeals)), and a Supreme Court. This means that after the trial court issues it’s ruling, an appeal may or may not be made to a higher court (court of appeals and possibly the Supreme Court depending on the court of appeals’ decision). Now, as to how this applies to this situation. Judge Walker presided over Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the District Court for the Northern District of California. This is a trial court, not an appellate court or Supreme Court. This was also an original case that had not been tried before. THERE WAS NO STANDARD OF REVIEW INVOLVED IN JUDGE WALKER’S DECISION. When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reviews the ruling later this year then standard of review will apply.
[quote]
Legislatures aren’t “denying” homosexuals anything because there is nothing to deny - such a right doesn’t exist (and never has in our constitutional history, by statute, constitution, or case). For such a right to exist, it will have to be invented.
A court can’t invent it (legitimately). The Constitution requires that classification laws be reviewed under a rational basis, unless they be race-based (or related to a tiny few other characteristics). Rational basis starts with a presumption that the law passed by a legislature is valid, and the burden is on the challenger to show that it irrational.
Traditional marriage is not and cannot be demonstrated to be an irrational policy. No invidious motive toward homosexuals was part of its enactment - indeed, the original legislatures who passed traditional marriage laws over 200 years ago weren’t thinking about homosexuals at all, in any shape or form. The only motive was to take an institution that predated the country itself and codify it in law because of all the benefits it provided society. Nothing irrational about it, and this is indisputable. Any idea that it doesn’t survive rational basis review is simply ridiculous to any reasonable observer.
To change the standard of review would be to shift the presumption - the new presumption would be to presume that traditional marriage would be considered suspect until proven otherwise. Such a move by a court would be (and was) the height of absurdity - there is no constitutional duty of a court (who, like legislatures, are bound to the constitution - they don’t get to invent new ones) to make such a ludicrous approach to evaluating the merits of traditional marriage. To presume that traditional marriage is irrational, unjustfiably discriminatory or invidious is not following the Constitution - rather it would be a dereliction of duty to it.
Want a good case to read on it? Hernandez v. Robles, out of New York. Like any state case, it is narrow to the state, but you’ll get the drift.[/quote]
You know what is a better case to look over? Loving v. Virginia. This is a direct quote from the Supreme Court’s decision:
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). 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 discriminations. 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.
These convictions must be reversed.
It is so ordered."
Take a close look at the second sentence: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Even if it was not a right before this ruling (it was, just check out the cases cited as precedents), this ruling would establish it as a precedent. Marriage is a right. Stop trying to argue it. Since marriage is a right and thus falls under the protection of the 14th amendment, it does lend credence to the matter being brought up in such cases as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Windsor v. United States, and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.
[quote] Hint: no I don’t. Under rational basis, the government definitionally does not have the burden to prove traditional marriage doesn’t violate the Constitution; the challenger to the law has the burden of proving it does.
As for why the government can “deny” homosexual a right (that doesn’t exist), see above.
Now don’t you wish you would have spent some time actually learning about the topic before you stumbled in here and started declaring “victory” all over the place?[/quote]
You are not the government. If you want your arguments to hold any credibility YOU have to provide facts to back them up. I have done that for my arguments. Until you do the same for your arguments, they have no credibility at all. Besides, when the challenger to a law provides an argument as to why it is unconstitutional, the defender of the law is encouraged to present an argument as to why that law is constitutional. If the defense offers no argument, it is definitely not going to look good when the judge considers his ruling.
Reproduction is not a requirement to be legally married
Children from in vitro fertilization and adoption are still children. Gay couples raise children right now.
Okay, how about a better example? I am sure you are aware of this one: Brown v. Board of Education. Traditionally, and legally in most states, black students were segregated. The Supreme Court overturned these laws, and tradition, in favor of civil rights regardless of legislation.
Nice job trying to make me look stupid though, too bad it did not work. As some dumbass once said: Better luck next time.
This is actually my fault. I let your use of the term ‘standard of review’ slide since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and instead presented an argument about Judge Walker’s ruling. Since you decided to go ahead and bring personal insults into this, let me apologize now for not going ahead and pointing out what an idiot you are. It won’t happen again, I promise. Now let me explain why you are an idiot. A standard of review is used by a higher court to determine the validity of the ruling in a lower court. In our legal system the basic level of the court are trial courts (district courts at the federal level), appellate courts (court of appeals)), and a Supreme Court. This means that after the trial court issues it’s ruling, an appeal may or may not be made to a higher court (court of appeals and possibly the Supreme Court depending on the court of appeals’ decision). Now, as to how this applies to this situation. Judge Walker presided over Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the District Court for the Northern District of California. This is a trial court, not an appellate court or Supreme Court. This was also an original case that had not been tried before. THERE WAS NO STANDARD OF REVIEW INVOLVED IN JUDGE WALKER’S DECISION. When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reviews the ruling later this year then standard of review will apply. [/quote]
Let’s expose just how ignorant you are: you say THERE WAS NO STANDARD OF REVIEW INVOLVED IN JUDGE WALKER’S DECISION:
On page 121 of Walker’s decision, under a big heading called “STANDARD OF REVIEW”:
As presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of review. Accordingly, the court need not address the question whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of review.
Page 122: The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. . .Here,however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review.
Page 123: Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The standard of review, genius, is the level of legal scrutiny the court applies to the facts of the case, including this one. Every court applies a standard of review - in this case, Walker stated that a level of strict scrutiny applies, but that even under the lower, more deferential standard of review, the law is unconstitutional.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Stop wasting my time.
As presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of review. Accordingly, the court need not address the question whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of review.[/quote]
Massive reading comprehension fail. He is simply stating that his ruling will stand up to any standard of review if and when his ruling reaches a higher court that can actually apply a standard of review to it. He is explaining why his ruling will stand up against any standard of review.
Again, he is not applying a standard of review to his trial. He simply cannot do that. He is stating that while strict scrutiny is usually the appropriate level of standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation, it does not in this case because Proposition 8 is not even pass a rational basis standard of review. Again, stating why his ruling will survive an appeal.
This is not a standard of review.
No it is not, dumbass. Go to the library/bookstore and take a look at an introductory law book or legal dictionary on U.S. law and look up standard of review. The legal definition you find will look something like this:
“Standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. United States courts apply three standards of review namely, de novo review, arbitrary and capricious standard and clearly erroneous standard. In the case of De novo standard of review, the appeals court looks at the case anew, as if the earlier trial had never occurred and the case is effectively re-tried in the appellate forum. The Ã?¢??arbitrary and capriciousÃ?¢?? or Ã?¢??abuse of discretionÃ?¢?? standard is applied when reviewing the decision of an administrative agency and the appellate court will only overturn an agency decision if it was arbitrary and capricious, or if it exceeds the agency’s lawful authority. When an appellate court applies the Ã?¢??clearly erroneous standard,Ã?¢?? it will only overturn the lower decision if it contains plain errors of fact or law.”
I’m making the case that allowing homosexuals to marry would ameliorate problems in the homosexual community, especially those that effect the rest of society as well.[/quote]
But it wouldn’t, and whatever problems there are, they don’t really affect the rest of society. Look at the problems neagtively affecting society these days - problems in the homosexual community wouldn’t even make the top 2,000 of the list. There is no general social problem to solve here.
Yes, yes and yes - society has always set up moral guardrails to engineer certain behavior and shame others, especially behavior that is so central to society and pervasive into every corner of society. And a problem that looms so large as the disintegration of ordered liberty and civil society by irresponsible procreation needs these social incentives (not all are provided by the government, of course, but some are). That’s easy.
So, now you answer - the homosexual community needs us to save them from themselves?[/quote]
Two things -
Is your argument that problems in the gay community are not significant because homosexuals are a minority, and thus those problems dont effect enough of a detriment on the rest of society to warrant laws designed to help solve those problems? By significant I mean in terms of statistically signifcant, not personally.
Secondly, your gloom and doom predictions seem to hinge on the idea that allowing homosexuals to marry will totally reinvent marriage in the eyes of society in general - I argue that it wont. Do you have any numerically significant examples of people in countries/states that allow gay marriage jockeying for poly marriage, incest marriage, beastial marriage, etc? Not the random person, but the kind of widespread movement you seem to predict?
To answer your question, I dont think it would be “trying to save gays from themselves” any more than marriage laws for heterosexuals is. (btw “yes, yes, and yes” makes fora bitof an illogical response)
Again, he is not applying a standard of review to his trial. He simply cannot do that.[/quote]
This has become comical. On page 135, the trial court concludes:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
In order to come to this conclusion, the court first had to adopt and apply the standard of review - i.e., the legal standard by which the challenged law would be reviewed, in this case “rational basis” review (sort of) - to the evidence presented at trial. The trial court most certainly adopts and applies the standard of review to the case, else he couldn’t render a legal decision on the unconstitutionality of the law. That is why the court had a big, fat heading called “Standard of Review” - it was enunciating…wait for it…the standard of review the trial court would be applying in the case at hand…[u]just like all other trial courts that must apply the law to the facts when making a decision.[/u]
I beg you - stop talking before you make it worse. I am dead serious.
Is your argument that problems in the gay community are not significant because homosexuals are a minority, and thus those problems dont effect enough of a detriment on the rest of society to warrant laws designed to help solve those problems? By significant I mean in terms of statistically signifcant, not personally.[/quote]
Somewhat - the problems you speak of in the homosexual community that need correcting don’t rise to the level of significant social problems generally, it’s true. But, in in any event, marriage wouldn’t do much to solve them, no matter how insignificant they are to society at large, which was my point earlier.
But this is mostly irrelevant, as this “corrective” theory is not the primary reason proponents want to see it enacted anyway.
No - and I’m not sure you could quantify that in light of the recency of gay marriage in those countries, in any event.
Well, it would have to be saving them from themselves, because otherwise, without marriage, they don’t even have sense enough to stop engaging in lethal behavior.
This is why your comparison falls apart, of course - the risk of death is not the same as the risk of illegitimate offspring, and the differences make for an apples-oranges problem.
My “yes, yes, yes” was my emphatci endorsement that, yes, we have to provide rules to guide certain behaviors when the stakes are so high to society when the behavior isn’t followed. Society simply can’t defer to the whims of individuals, given the risk.
This has become comical. On page 135, the trial court concludes:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
In order to come to this conclusion, the court first had to adopt and apply the standard of review - i.e., the legal standard by which the challenged law would be reviewed, in this case “rational basis” review (sort of) - to the evidence presented at trial. The trial court most certainly adopts and applies the standard of review to the case, else he couldn’t render a legal decision on the unconstitutionality of the law. That is why the court had a big, fat heading called “Standard of Review” - it was enunciating…wait for it…the standard of review the trial court would be applying in the case at hand…[u]just like all other trial courts that must apply the law to the facts when making a decision.[/u]
I beg you - stop talking before you make it worse. I am dead serious.[/quote]
This is getting really sad. Again, the fact that he said the words ‘standard of review’ does not mean that he is using a legal standard of review on his case. A judge cannot review (overturn) his own case, it is that simple. The reason for the heading is simply to show that the statements in that section apply to how his ruling will be viewed by an appellate court. I have provided the definition of standard of review as it applies to court proceedings in the United States. You just threw a bunch of words together and said that since this group of words can mean standard of review by taking the English Dictionary definitions of each individual words that make up the phrase ‘standard of review’ then that is what it is. It does not work that way. What a legal standard of review is is clearly defined. Just try to find a single legal dictionary or legal professional that will say that your definition applies to legal proceedings in the U.S.
By the way, the legal term used to describe the definition you gave is called a ‘question of law’ or in some rare cases ‘finding of fact’
Or you will what? Continue to misunderstand simple, basic legal terms and then try to change the legal definition of the term when it is clearly explained to you? You are a joke.
This is getting really sad. Again, the fact that he said the words ‘standard of review’ does not mean that he is using a legal standard of review on his case. A judge cannot review (overturn) his own case, it is that simple. The reason for the heading is simply to show that the statements in that section apply to how his ruling will be viewed by an appellate court. I have provided the definition of standard of review as it applies to court proceedings in the United States. You just threw a bunch of words together and said that since this group of words can mean standard of review by taking the English Dictionary definitions of each individual words that make up the phrase ‘standard of review’ then that is what it is. It does not work that way. What a legal standard of review is is clearly defined. Just try to find a single legal dictionary or legal professional that will say that your definition applies to legal proceedings in the U.S.[/quote]
This is kinda fun, I have to admit. The court says on page 123: PROPOSITION 8 DOES NOT SURVIVE RATIONAL BASIS - Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The standard of review is “rational basis”:
The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be â??rationally relatedâ?? to a â??legitimateâ?? government interest. Under this standard of review, the â??legitimate interestâ?? does not have to be the governmentâ??s actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a â??legitimateâ?? interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review.
“Rational basis” review is a standard of review. Period. Always has been, it’s not a matter of semantics. Trial courts, in fact, apply “rational basis” review of challenged laws, because they are being asked to rule on its constitutionality. A trial court can’t rule on the unconstitutionality of a law until it applies the appropriate standard of review. That isn’t up for debate.
In Walker’s case, he reviewed under the standard of review known as “rational basis” listed above and held that the law was not rational.
The “review” in this “standard of review” was not a higher court’s “review” of a lower court, but the trial court’s “review” of the challenged law itself under the standard of review of “rational basis”. This isn’t tricky, junior. In opinions, trial courts note the standard of review that they apply as a matter of course.
The weakness of Walker’s opinion (one of them) is that he said the classification deserved “strict scrutiny”, but did not permit interlocutory appeal of the case which would have forced the 9th Circuit to consider that determination and remand. Had he done so, his trial would have been conducted very differently.
And this question over which standard of review was chosen by Walker - rational basis? strict scrutiny? intermediate scrutiny? - was crucial to the case and the appeal. That you have exactly no idea about this isn’t surprising, and that is why I asked you about it - to see if you had an opinion on it.
Because you didn’t, it was clear that you didn’t know the issues at stake in the case, and were basically just blabbering ignorance - which, as we have learned from your clown show on “standard of review” you are doubling down on out of pride - but alas.
You said to consult a legal professional who might know a thing or two about this kind of stuff - good idea.
This sounds like…this is a democracy, and anyone that disagrees with me better not put their damned opinion on the ticket or I’m going to throw a hissy fit…again. Get over it, religious people have convictions and they are well founded. They also have a right to vote and to run for office. If you want to do something about it, why don’t you round us all up and put us in concentration camps so we can’t do anything about our country.
If you don’t like our beliefs, good for you. We gave you free speech for a reason, express it. But don’t be a dick and try to tell us what we can and cannot vote for, El Joseph. You can vote for whatever ridiculous immoral legislation you want. Just know your actions have consequences, so when our population kills itself from immoral acts and people wonder why we can’t even support our own elderly or poor. Just remember, you voted for it.[/quote]
First, I never said this is a democracy (the U.S. is an indirect democracy at best and this is not the thread to argue the point). As for “anyone that disagrees with me better not put their damned opinion on the ticket or I’m going to throw a hissy fit…again”, where did I say that? I brought up the argument that it is unconstitutional do deny gay couples the right to legally marry. Judge Walker even stated so when he overturned Proposition 8 on the grounds that it was based on traditional notions of same-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. Just take a look at the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It states that no state (and has since been interpreted to include the federal government) shall deny to any person under its jurisdiction equal protection under law. Since marriage is a legal institution in the United States that has over a thousand statutory provisions that bestow legal rights, protections, and privileges upon married couples, it is a violation of gay people’s 14th amendment rights to deny them the right to legally marry, as evidenced by Judge Walker’s ruling. I have already addressed the difference between legal and religious marriages and so will not readdress them now except to reiterate that under the 1st amendment, the government cannot force a religion to perform a marriage that goes against its beliefs. So you can put whatever you want on a ballot, but even if it passes the courts will ultimately decide if the legislation will stand. Unfortunately for you, though, the judges in our legal system seem to have a little bit more respect for our constitution than you or most politicians do.
[/quote]
First, I know you didn’t say that. This is evident when I said “sounds like” as in I read between the lines your load of horseshit.
I have the right to vote, correct? I have the right to run for office and lead, correct? Okay, I have the right to freedom of conscience, in which I vote and lead as I see right in my conscience. Government is for the sake of society, government’s sole purpose is to protect society and to help society to flourish.
It’s unconstitutional for those given the responsibility to protect the law to not defend the law. The law states that a marriage is between one man and one woman. They are technically breaking the law in which they vowed to protect, and could very well be prosectued by the people of the United States.
And, what is wrong with moral tradition? Don’t touch the stove is a good tradition, so please tell me what is wrong with tradtion?
14th Amendment, so you’re taking an Amendment instituted for the Black Slaves in order that they maybe treated fairly and saying that implies that gay’s should be married? I’m sorry, but the only way a homosexual can get married if he marries the opposite sex since that is a fundamental part of marriage. Sorry, but Judge Walker overruling something doesn’t mean he’s right, he is fallible.
I am sure they do, as they allow the government to run all over our bill of rights. What a joke. How is allowing homosexuals to marry helping the American society flourish? Explain that to me.