Prop 8 Overturned

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

Your argument is a lot of talk, but the simple fact of the matter is that I have no burden of proof for my argument, I stand by the supreme courts ruling 100%. [/quote]

Here is how I know you have exactly zero idea as to what you are talking about - the burden is in fact in you to explain why the status quo should be changed under a rational basis analysis, not me or anyone else.

And, no, my argument isn’t a lot of talk. It’s the result of history and legal precedent.

Third, the Supreme Court didn’t rule on this - a federal district court did.

This is unbelievably stupid and factually incorrect - under rational basis, the burden is on the challenger to the existing law to establish the law is “irrational”.

I am not making this up - this is the legal framework we have for this issue. What could have possessed you to write the above paragraph? Well, I mean other than willful ignorance and hollow smugness?

I am not on the defense - existing laws are presumed to be rational until demonstrated otherwise (barring heightened protection, like race). This is a fact, it’s not a matter of your opinion.

There is a completely rational basis for presercing traditional marriage at the expense of others, but I don’t have the “burden” to justify it under the Constitution.

Enough making stuff up and wasting my time. After reading your posts, if I were you, I’d be humiliated.

222

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?[/quote]

This has become silly. None of this is a state secret - go read the Constitution itself, go read up on the Reconstruction Amendments, go read up on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, go read up on the Establishment Clause. Rce and religion have always had a unique place in our law and history for, what should be, obvious reasons.

It’s clear you no very little about this issue, and to be frank, I don’t have time to do a color-by-numbers approach on it. Best of luck.

EDIT: added underlined.

223

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can a network of non-sexually involved friends, seeking their pleasures outside of the group, get one of these civil unions? Or, is their bedroom behavior–or, with each other, the lack of it–suddenly our business?[/quote]

I don’t know?

Can a government regulate and issue licenses on couples who say they will love and cherish each other until death do they part? wow… hhmmm seems they can.

dammit.

I am all for less government oversight.

[/quote]

Is that a yes, or a no?[/quote]

I answered that. If the government can regulate supposed romantic relationships between consenting adults than in my opinion it should extend that to all consenting adults or it should abolish the regulation to all.

there is not “separate but equal”

don’t come back about how men and women blah blah blah, because history has shown that there has been many cultures that have recognized homosexuality and polyamory.

the government should get out of regulating personal relationships. I don’t see any couples having to verify it is actual and true love before marriage or even that they are heterosexual.

I worked on a case where the husband was gay and waited 10yrs 6 months before applying for divorce so it would be a marriage of long standing and he could file for alimony. His supposed best friend the whole time was his lover.

Marriage does not guarantee sanctity and truth.

[/quote]

Ok, so you’re not for Civil Unions? That is, some kind of recognition of one relationship (a “Civil Union”) from another (such as roommates). So any and all relationships are invisible to the state, because it can’t adopt a definition for fear of discrimination (the greatest evil evah!). Not being able to define, it can’t regulate. So to be clear, these Civil Unions are nothing more, in the eyes of the State, than the relationship between…oh, I don’t know…Drinking buddies?! And so these, Unionists, only rely on the same resources as drinking buddies would to make arrangments between themselves?

That, or any and all number of consenting adults must be recognized (by the state)–in any and all configurations, or associations, in any communal or dispersed living arrangement, sexual or nonsexual, we imaginative humans can come up with–as being married.[/quote]

I am for civil unions. I am also for marriage. But I do think it should be available equally to all consenting adults who wish to formalize their relationship.

You used the example of drinking buddies. I get what you mean, but that isn’t the type of relationship wherein it motivates people to get married, although I do know of some hetero marriages where they just got married so the military guy could get extra benefits. They didn’t even live together but she got insurance and he got extra housing allowance. So being hetero does not mean you are getting married for the right reasons. Or what most people assume is the right reason for marriage.

I used the word love. You got on about how the government is now to regulate love? No, I don’t think the government should regulate love, but generally I assume if someone is getting married they have a loving romantic relationship which is why I used the term and also what usually makes it distinctive from just friends.

What is it that makes just hetero couplehood (excepting procreation because not every married couple has children, and homosexual couples may have children, just not with each other) special wherein consenting adults of whatever orientation or desired romantic design cannot be allowed the same standard?

So to be clear on the word usage for me, when I say relationship I mean those that are in a romantic loving relationship, not just friends or drinking buddies.

Although, again, many hetero marriages are sham marriages, so why do they get benefits? Why does the government regulate romantic relationships?

How would you quantify a valid marriage for hetero people?

224

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?[/quote]

This has become silly. None of this is a state secret - go read the Constitution itself, go read up on the Reconstruction Amendments, go read up on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, go read up on the Establishment Clause. Rce and religion have always had a unique place in our law and history for, what should be, obvious reasons.

It’s clear you no very little about this issue, and to be frank, I don’t have time to do a color-by-numbers approach on it. Best of luck.

EDIT: added underlined.[/quote]

The Constitution can be amended when there is evidence of need for a change. Because there isn’t a protection yet does not mean there shouldn’t be.

225

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
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…[/quote]

This statement just about summed up everything I was thinking. With the state of California on the brink of utter collapse, this is what they worry about. Skyrocketing crime, whole police departments being disbanded, a massive budget deficit, 20% unemployment, huge illegal immigration problems, a drug war on the border, a collapsing educational and pension system and zero job growth.

Yet…gay marriage is at the top of the agenda. That is right up there with worrying about steroids in baseball.

I am beginning to think that the whole reason they pull out stuff like this is distract people from the real problems that are surrounding them.

226

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
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…[/quote]

This statement just about summed up everything I was thinking. With the state of California on the brink of utter collapse, this is what they worry about. Skyrocketing crime, whole police departments being disbanded, a massive budget deficit, 20% unemployment, huge illegal immigration problems, a drug war on the border, a collapsing educational and pension system and zero job growth.

Yet…gay marriage is at the top of the agenda. That is right up there with worrying about steroids in baseball.

I am beginning to think that the whole reason they pull out stuff like this is distract people from the real problems that are surrounding them.[/quote]

If people put off fighting for what they believe to be their right until the optimal time, nothing would ever get done.

There will never be a time of no urgent pressing issues.

227

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

You have horrible reasoning and you do not know the law well enough to post on the matter.

Race is not in a “different” class. Race and sexual orientation are both protected classes (one of the 7) that cannot be discriminated against.[/quote]

Good Lord.

Laws affecting race are subject to strict scrutiny, the heighest form of review under Equal Protection. Sexual orientation is not subject to this review, and never has been. Most assuredly, race and sexual orientation are “different” classes.

And, bozo, sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level.

This topic, strangely, brings out the idiots. I have no idea why.[/quote]

Thunderbolt is right on this one. If you don’t know the answer to something why would you just make it up? Of course, the entire argument is a red herring because that’s not what the decision was based on.

228

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
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…[/quote]

This statement just about summed up everything I was thinking. With the state of California on the brink of utter collapse, this is what they worry about. Skyrocketing crime, whole police departments being disbanded, a massive budget deficit, 20% unemployment, huge illegal immigration problems, a drug war on the border, a collapsing educational and pension system and zero job growth.

Yet…gay marriage is at the top of the agenda. That is right up there with worrying about steroids in baseball.

I am beginning to think that the whole reason they pull out stuff like this is distract people from the real problems that are surrounding them.[/quote]

If people put off fighting for what they believe to be their right until the optimal time, nothing would ever get done.

There will never be a time of no urgent pressing issues.
[/quote]

Gay marriage was an urgent pressing issue? By who’s standards?

I think it has less to do with civil rights and much more to do with forcing people to accept their lifestyle choices. The crux of the argument is that they weren’t allowed to use the word “marriage”.

Look, I could give a shit if gays want to get married. Go right ahead, marry away. The whole institution of marriage has been so cheapened since the 60’s that it doesn’t even matter anymore.

What heterosexual man in his right mind would want to get married in this society now anyway? All of the cards are stacked against him. I guess, at least with two men or two women getting married there would be less of a chance of bias in the courtroom.

229

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

The Constitution can be amended when there is evidence of need for a change. Because there isn’t a protection yet does not mean there shouldn’t be.[/quote]

Perfectly stated. If we need to recognize it as a heightened status, we most definitely should change it via democratic means.

You make an excellent point - you are arguing what we should do, rather than incorrectly stating what currently is. Perfectly valid, and I respect that line of thinking, even if I disagree with it.

230

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
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…[/quote]

This statement just about summed up everything I was thinking. With the state of California on the brink of utter collapse, this is what they worry about. Skyrocketing crime, whole police departments being disbanded, a massive budget deficit, 20% unemployment, huge illegal immigration problems, a drug war on the border, a collapsing educational and pension system and zero job growth.

Yet…gay marriage is at the top of the agenda. That is right up there with worrying about steroids in baseball.

I am beginning to think that the whole reason they pull out stuff like this is distract people from the real problems that are surrounding them.[/quote]

If people put off fighting for what they believe to be their right until the optimal time, nothing would ever get done.

There will never be a time of no urgent pressing issues.
[/quote]

Gay marriage was an urgent pressing issue? By who’s standards?

I think it has less to do with civil rights and much more to do with forcing people to accept their lifestyle choices. The crux of the argument is that they weren’t allowed to use the word “marriage”.

Look, I could give a shit if gays want to get married. Go right ahead, marry away. The whole institution of marriage has been so cheapened since the 60’s that it doesn’t even matter anymore.

What heterosexual man in his right mind would want to get married in this society now anyway? All of the cards are stacked against him. I guess, at least with two men or two women getting married there would be less of a chance of bias in the courtroom.

[/quote]

I didn’t say it was an urgent and pressing issue. Reread my post.

[i][b][quote] If people put off fighting for what they believe to be their right until the optimal time, nothing would ever get done.

There will never be a time of no urgent pressing issues.[/i][/b][/quote]

Why do you have to accept someone else’s life choice? When does anyone have the right to decide about someone else’s consensual adult relationship? Only hetereos get a pass.

Why does the government get in to this anyways? Will they start disallowing divorces because apparently some people think married hetero couples are the way to save civilization.

231

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Setting aside the legal aspects and focusing on the political aspects, I think this sums it up just so:

[i]It’s not about couples and love. The marriage ruling is all about you.
By Patrick McIlheran of the Journal Sentinel
Aug. 5, 2010 |(157) Comments

Let’s look at how the gay-marriage thing in California has unfolded so far:

The stateâ??s Supreme Court in 2008, on a one-vote margin, decides to redefine marriage to dump one key parameter that had always and everywhere in human history been part of marriage: that it be between complementary sexes, not identical ones.[/quote]

Except that this is not true at all.

232

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

And what’s wrong with homosexual relationships being “just as good” as hetero ones? Why shouldn’t they be “just as good” as hetero ones?
[/quote]

Whether they are or aren’t is a separate question, but to the point - public policy does not need to be in the business of self-esteem repair, and certainly federal judges have no charge to be in this business.[/quote]

But public policy should be in the business of self esteem boosting by rewarding heterosexual couples an exclusive pedestal for engaging in their preferred behavior?

233

Does anyone else think its funny when people argue that marriage should remain exclusively between heterosexual couples because it’s “always been” exclusively between heterosexual couples.

I mean… isn’t that exactly the problem? The argument is something like this:

“Hey man. Your roof is leaking.”

“Yeah, my roof has always leaked.”

“You should fix that.”

“No. My roof has always leaked.”

“Yes… it has… thats the problem…which you should fix”

“NO. My roof has ALWAYS leaked and therefore it should always leak.”

So, thank you, everyone who has pointed out that marriage is, and has for a very long time, been restricted to opposite sex couples. You’ve identified the problem. Good work.

234

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
You need to know who jesus is to call yourself christian.

attraction to sex doesn’t follow this line.[/quote]

Who says there isn’t a pre-existing attraction to Jesus, for the Christianity-orientated? One that isn’t fullfilled until the predisposed person hears of this Jesus. And upon hearing, all the right pleasure and satisfaction switches are tripped in the old gray matter.[/quote]

i really dont think youre that retarded. Christianity is something we’ve invented,not something that biology has. attraction to theism would make sense.

235

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But public policy should be in the business of self esteem boosting by rewarding heterosexual couples an exclusive pedestal for engaging in their preferred behavior?[/quote]

Good grief, that is not and never has been the public policy of marriage - it is designed to address other social problems, including, but not limited to, illegitimacy, paternity problems, inheritance problems, damage associated with adultery, etc.

That is the crucial point that gay marriage proponents never bother paying any attention to - marriage was never recognized by the state as a “privilege” solely or mainly to reward one class of people at the expense of another - it was designed to reinforce certain norms, mores and taboos that were considered indispensable to civilized society.

236

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But public policy should be in the business of self esteem boosting by rewarding heterosexual couples an exclusive pedestal for engaging in their preferred behavior?[/quote]

Good grief, that is not and never has been the public policy of marriage - it is designed to address other social problems, including, but not limited to, illegitimacy, paternity problems, inheritance problems, damage associated with adultery, etc.
[/quote]

So, for straight folk, marriage provides all these benefits (with the added bonus of said pedestal and respect given to their unions). Yet, for gay folk, its just a matter of wanting that pedestal and respect.

Perhaps a large part of support for gay marriage is that homosexuals could benefit in the same way heterosexuals do (inheritance problems, damage associated with adultery, etc)?

[quote]

That is the crucial point that gay marriage proponents never bother paying any attention to - marriage was never recognized by the state as a “privilege” solely or mainly to reward one class of people at the expense of another - it was designed to reinforce certain norms, mores and taboos that were considered indispensable to civilized society.[/quote]

So why not reinforce those norms, mores, and taboos within the gay community?

Doesn’t that further reinforce the message that everyone (including gays) should get married?

237

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Does anyone else think its funny when people argue that marriage should remain exclusively between heterosexual couples because it’s “always been” exclusively between heterosexual couples.

I mean… isn’t that exactly the problem? The argument is something like this:

“Hey man. Your roof is leaking.”

“Yeah, my roof has always leaked.”

“You should fix that.”

“No. My roof has always leaked.”

“Yes… it has… thats the problem…which you should fix”

“NO. My roof has ALWAYS leaked and therefore it should always leak.”

So, thank you, everyone who has pointed out that marriage is, and has for a very long time, been restricted to opposite sex couples. You’ve identified the problem. Good work.[/quote]

Just dumb. You want to know why your analogy is so terrible? Your dialogue doesn’t recognize that the owner of the house doesn’t think he has a leak to fix. Fixed:

“Hey man. Your roof is leaking.”

“No, it isn’t - look at it, it’s fine. No leak.”

“Yes it is, yes it is, yes it is!”

“Uh, no - my house is dry. No leak. Looked, didn’t find one.”

“Yes, yes, there is a leak!!”

“Look around - where is the water?”

“I don’t see any water, but I am firmly convinced there has to be a leak somewhere!!!”

“Nope. And I damn sure am not going to tear up my roof and my siding just to learn there is no leak to fix.”

“But, you don’t get it - there is a leak!!! Why are you so bigoted against leaks??!!!”

“Nope, run along. Roof is fine. Go pester someone else.”

238

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So, for straight folk, marriage provides all these benefits (with the added bonus of said pedestal and respect given to their unions). Yet, for gay folk, its just a matter of wanting that pedestal and respect.[/quote]

Correct - largely because those benefits apply to unique problems of siring and raising children - procreation.

Not particularly, because there are no looming social problems as a result of this, because the lack of procreation. In short, it’s be creating a solution in search of a problem.

There isn’t a compelling reason to - there is no evidence of a looming social problem that gay marriage fixes. We aren’t worried about homosexuals fathering children and running off or having children out of wedlock or ordering relationships.

It’s not something we’re worried about as a society - there are no pressing issues in need of this “solution”.

Marriage ameliorates certain inherent social problems that are unique to heterosexuals and procreation. Outside of the therapeutic benefits to the individual (cultural affirmation), gay marriage simply doesn’t help solve any of the problems marriage was enacted to help.

239

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
You need to know who jesus is to call yourself christian.

attraction to sex doesn’t follow this line.[/quote]

Who says there isn’t a pre-existing attraction to Jesus, for the Christianity-orientated? One that isn’t fullfilled until the predisposed person hears of this Jesus. And upon hearing, all the right pleasure and satisfaction switches are tripped in the old gray matter.[/quote]

i really dont think youre that retarded. Christianity is something we’ve invented,not something that biology has. attraction to theism would make sense.[/quote]

You say attraction to theism can only make sense, but apparently different people are attracted to different and specific faiths. So are you dropping the word attraction?

240

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So, for straight folk, marriage provides all these benefits (with the added bonus of said pedestal and respect given to their unions). Yet, for gay folk, its just a matter of wanting that pedestal and respect.[/quote]

Correct - largely because those benefits apply to unique problems of siring and raising children - procreation.

Not particularly, because there are no looming social problems as a result of this, because the lack of procreation. In short, it’s be creating a solution in search of a problem.

There isn’t a compelling reason to - there is no evidence of a looming social problem that gay marriage fixes. We aren’t worried about homosexuals fathering children and running off or having children out of wedlock or ordering relationships.

It’s not something we’re worried about as a society - there are no pressing issues in need of this “solution”.

Marriage ameliorates certain inherent social problems that are unique to heterosexuals and procreation. Outside of the therapeutic benefits to the individual (cultural affirmation), gay marriage simply doesn’t help solve any of the problems marriage was enacted to help.
[/quote]

TB, your assessment of why there is marriage to begin with is spot on. I studied evolutionary biology in college and your findings are pretty much right in line with why it arose and the whole purpose of it. It is a very big piece of how societies are held together.

That being said, the whole institution of marriage today in Western countries is a complete joke. Many of my friends who got married, spent ludicrous amounts of money on the ceremony and ended up divorced a couple of years later. (Which by the way was in large part due to the bride wanting to have a lavish wedding). It has turned into a circus. Big rings, big ceremonies and big divorce settlements.

Marriage today is an excuse to throw a big party and show off to friends. So really, you can’t blame gay people for wanting to get married. It’s like having a party for graduating college or high school. They want to be included to.