discuss
another link
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
discuss[/quote]
I am going to get jumped for this, but personally I beleive that it is the right decision. The SC is going to have to weigh in on this decision.
Reasoning in the opinion is, frankly, terrible.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Reasoning in the opinion is, frankly, terrible.[/quote]
Care to elaborate?
Poor reasoning or not, it was the right decision.
right decision. I for one believe in civil rights.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Poor reasoning or not, it was the right decision.[/quote]
Negative, a state can rationally decide to restrict marriage to one group versus another. “Rational” doesn’t mean “I agree with it” - “rational” means “rational”.
The issue is not whether CA voters should ban gay marriage, the issue is whether CA voters can ban gay marriage. The court said they can’t on the basis that they shouldn’t.
You, like the court, are confused.
Why can’t they ban inter-racial marriage?
[quote]doogie wrote:
Why can’t they ban inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
Because race is in a different class, both as a matter of precedent and history.
And heterosexual marriage is not and has never been enacted in law to punish or otherwise marginalize non-heterosexuals - i.e., there is no invidious motive.
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage 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.”
…quite sensible actually…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
Poor reasoning or not, it was the right decision.[/quote]
Negative, a state can rationally decide to restrict marriage to one group versus another. “Rational” doesn’t mean “I agree with it” - “rational” means “rational”.
The issue is not whether CA voters should ban gay marriage, the issue is whether CA voters can ban gay marriage. The court said they can’t on the basis that they shouldn’t.
You, like the court, are confused.
[/quote]
what would be the rational reason for restricting marriage again?
If its because god says so I dont think thats an issue of rationality I think its an issue of faith.
You, like the you, are confused.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
Why can’t they ban inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
Because race is in a different class, both as a matter of precedent and history.
And heterosexual marriage is not and has never been enacted in law to punish or otherwise marginalize non-heterosexuals - i.e., there is no invidious motive.
[/quote]
Lets rearrange some words here…
And same-race marriage is not and has never been enacted in law to punish or otherwise marginalize interracial couples - i.e., there is no invidious motive.
What? Oh thats a bunch of nonsense. I see.
The Judge is Gay.
Not that there’s anything “wrong” with it.
I guess what is important is in the “eye of the beholder…”
But it just seems to me that California has a lot more pressing problems. They may not be able to afford basic services for their citizens…and there are no jobs…but at least everyone will be able to get married!!!
WooHoo for California…
I think this issue is and always will be in the who gives a fuck category. If gay people want to get married let them, what effect does it have on my life? none, then why should I care, I shouldn’t. goddamn busybodies.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
Why can’t they ban inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
Because race is in a different class, both as a matter of precedent and history.
And heterosexual marriage is not and has never been enacted in law to punish or otherwise marginalize non-heterosexuals - i.e., there is no invidious motive.
[/quote]
the entire movement behind prop 8 was to marginalize gays. you must not be from CA, if you had seen how prop 8 was pushed, you would know. creating a law saying “only these people can get married” completely marginalizes everyone else, theres no amount of acrobatics to get around that.
you’re right, history has already shown, that separate is not equal, prop 8 tried to invalidate that.
[quote]rageradios wrote:
I think this issue is and always will be in the who gives a fuck category. If gay people want to get married let them, what effect does it have on my life? none, then why should I care, I shouldn’t. goddamn busybodies. [/quote]
but your marriage, family, community, church, the USA, will fall apart at the dethroning of our bedrock institution that is marriage! plus god will really hate you for not condemning your equals!
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
Why can’t they ban inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
Because race is in a different class, both as a matter of precedent and history.
And heterosexual marriage is not and has never been enacted in law to punish or otherwise marginalize non-heterosexuals - i.e., there is no invidious motive.
[/quote]
the entire movement behind prop 8 was to marginalize gays. you must not be from CA, if you had seen how prop 8 was pushed, you would know. creating a law saying “only these people can get married” completely marginalizes everyone else, theres no amount of acrobatics to get around that.
you’re right, history has already shown, that separate is not equal, prop 8 tried to invalidate that.[/quote]
This.
The only say government should have in marriage is that you can’t be wed to more than one person(consenting adult). Government should get out of granting marriage licenses and giving tax advantages to married couples. That is the whole basis of why gays feel discriminated against. Government stops rewarding people for any marriage at all, problem solved.
Marriage should be between you, your spouse and you religious beliefs.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
what would be the rational reason for restricting marriage again?
If its because god says so I dont think thats an issue of rationality I think its an issue of faith.[/quote]
Preserving a traditional social institution designed to order child-creation, child-raising, taming and civilizing the sexual relationships of men, orderly disposition of property and encouraging the preferred and better form of family in Western civilization.
No one said anything about God - get smarter.
Negative - I actually know what “rational basis” means, unlike you, who apparently is going by what you “feel”.