Also interesting, Judge Walker is a Reagan Appointee, whose nomination was obstructed by Pelosi et al.
I am all for this. What is the reason for banning polygamous marriages? I am more a fan of that than of them being single parents getting assistance.
I just don’t get why I would have the right to tell another person “NO! you cannot marry as you choose.”
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Were not talking about marriage as a tradition or social concept, but as a government contract. You can go to a church and get married without a license, that never changed. heterosexual marriage never left or went anywhere, i did not need reaffirming, especially at the waste of my tax dollars. enacting a law denying a group the benefits of their own government and tax dollars is inherently doing harm and marginalizing, not to mention unconstitutional.
heterosexual marriage doesn’t collapse when gays are allowed to marry, us straight people are pretty good at trashing our own institution of marriage on our own. the concept of heterosexual marriage was never a invidious move, youre correct, however prop 8 was. im glad its dead and its gonna stay dead.
yes us California voters are entitled to believe that rational, however are not entitled to turn that into a law. letting voters decide which consensual relationships are allowed or not…has been stricken down in history time and time again. ill move the mid east if i want a government who will allow that.
under prop 8 consenting homosexuals were not allowed to apply for government marriage licenses because prop 8 excluded them by creating a government definition of marriage. no one in California, except the prop 8 fundraisers a lot of whom are not Californians, benefited from prop 8[/quote]
^^^This.
PS: Would it not be funny, if a measure introduced to counter the introduction of gay marriage might help push it forward in the longer term? That would make prop 8 truly a game changer in this battle of the culture wars, just not in the way it was originally intended.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I am all for this. What is the reason for banning polygamous marriages? I am more a fan of that than of them being single parents getting assistance.
I just don’t get why I would have the right to tell another person “NO! you cannot marry as you choose.”
[/quote]
Polygamous marriage, IMO, would simply be too complicated. Also, there are some reasonable arguments against it on the basis that it tends to be detrimental to women (whereas men continue to marry new, younger wives as time goes on). Then again, with no fault divorce, there isnt anything from stopping men to do that now… so…I dont know.
Thing is, I’m polyamorous myself, but I wouldnt suggest the government recognizing multiple party marriages.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
Sad thing is many people DO consider that “Fair”.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
Sad thing is many people DO consider that “Fair”.[/quote]
and how is it not fair, exactly?
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Were not talking about marriage as a tradition or social concept, but as a government contract. You can go to a church and get married without a license, that never changed. heterosexual marriage never left or went anywhere, i did not need reaffirming, especially at the waste of my tax dollars. [/quote]
This is a political argument that a majority of voters disagreed with at the time - the voters decided to reaffirm traditional marriage as the only version of marriage. Your point of view is perfectly valid, but it lost. It happens.
You wouldn’t know if it was or wasn’t “unconstitutional”, that much is clear.
Let’s make one thing completely crystal clear - “unconstitutional” doesn’t mean, and has never meant, “policy I think is bad/mean/unfair/stupid”.
And, no, there is no inherent harm or marginilization any more than polygamous and polyamorous relationships are being marginalized by marriage laws, or any more than nudists are marginalized by anti-public nudity laws.
It’s not dead, and this case is headed nowhere.
Sexual orientation is not even recognized as a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws - is that unconstitutional, too? The federal tax code doesn’t recognize gay marriages - is that unconstitutional, too? All of these thousands of laws - enacted with no bad faith or invidious motive - are all unconstitutional?
You’re a fool if you think one motivated federal judge has somehow ended all this with one flawed opinion.
Uh, yeah, you are - that’s why it’s called rational basis. Good Lord.
No, it hasn’t - see polygamy. Is polygamy legal?
Irrelevant.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
Sad thing is many people DO consider that “Fair”.[/quote]
and how is it not fair, exactly?[/quote]
LMAO!!
No, seriously, some people really think that. Its not funny anymore, Irish.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
Poor reasoning or not, it was the right decision.
[/quote]
x2[/quote]
But reason matters. After all, the same reasoning - or lack thereof - could give you a political result you’d abhor.
I remember this same argument about Roe v. Wade; even many on the left thought it was poor jurisprudence, but they applauded the result. Unfortunately for them, the arguments used and the precedence created may very well come back to haunt them.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
Poor reasoning or not, it was the right decision.
[/quote]
x2[/quote]
Translation: as long as we got to a policy conclusion I like, it doesn’t matter how we got there!
Awesomely awesome - what could go wrong with such an approach?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
But reason matters. After all, the same reasoning - or lack thereof - could give you a political result you’d abhor.
I remember this same argument about Roe v. Wade; even many on the left thought it was poor jurisprudence, but they applauded the result. Unfortunately for them, the arguments used and the precedence created may very well come back to haunt them. [/quote]
This is wise in a sea of nothing but unwisdom in this thread.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
RFLMAO. This was so out of left field. I am crying I am laughing so hard.[/quote]
How is that remotely out of left field? It get’s thrown out every one of these retarded threads.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
RFLMAO. This was so out of left field. I am crying I am laughing so hard.[/quote]
How is that remotely out of left field? It get’s thrown out every one of these retarded threads.[/quote]
I usually stay out of the threads that deal with Gays. I had never seen that before. I found it rather humerous plus it was late at night, and I find a lot of things humerous after my bed time.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
RFLMAO. This was so out of left field. I am crying I am laughing so hard.[/quote]
How is that remotely out of left field? It get’s thrown out every one of these retarded threads.[/quote]
I usually stay out of the threads that deal with Gays. I had never seen that before. I found it rather humerous plus it was late at night, and I find a lot of things humerous after my bed time.[/quote]
I’ve seen one or two threads about gays, and, yeah, it always comes up.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
^this. /thread
[quote]Mr. Frost wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
^this. /thread
[/quote]
Its not funny from you either.
Wait.
You’re not serious, are you?
Please, really, don’t need me to explain it to you. Be smarter than that. Please?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But it does marginalize non-heterosexuals, regardless of if that is/was the intent.[/quote]
Well, dipshit, “intent” matters for a rational basis test. The policy without a doubt treats one class of citizens differently than others - that isn’t the question. The question is “is there a rational basis to treat them differently?”, and if there is no invidious motive - i.e., no desire to “be mean” to a class of individuals - then rational basis is a very, very low threshold for a legislature to satisfy.
There is a reason for this - if this isn’t the case, you have one judge invalidating the will of the people over “what feels right”. That’s what happened in California today.[/quote]
I’m half asleep, but I felt like looking at this a little anyway. Thanks for taking the time to put forth an argument (the argument?) that will be used against this. Given who I am quoting, I realize I’ll probably just receive insults and personal questions (attacks) from this post, but I thought I might as well post anyway.
The following is from an above link:
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.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll simply ask: Is there a constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis as he claims? If so, does that impact the “rational basis” argument? If so, how? Further, you seem to have advanced a “rational basis” for the argument, but, by the wording of this anyway, he is claiming that prop 8 fails to do so. Does prop 8 do so? Does it need to? Again, I’m no lawyer, so I guess I’m asking for someone who is to explain the process a bit here.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.
Does prop 8 violate their equal protection and due process rights as he claims? Also, is this result really surprising given that California officials themselves have not chosen to defend the proposition? The governor actually applauded the decision.
As I recall from (multiple) previous threads, those supporting this decision generally support gay marriage and those against this decision generally are against the decision. It seems from a drunken and half-asleep perspective, that personal bias has greatly affected the reaction to this decision on both sides.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Mr. Frost wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
^this. /thread
[/quote]
Its not funny from you either.
Wait.
You’re not serious, are you?
Please, really, don’t need me to explain it to you. Be smarter than that. Please?[/quote]
LOL no you don’t have to explain. I was kidding
But I still supported Proposition 8.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Mr. Frost wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
^this. /thread
[/quote]
Its not funny from you either.
Wait.
You’re not serious, are you?
Please, really, don’t need me to explain it to you. Be smarter than that. Please?[/quote]
I was joking when I posted it - but since you got your panties in a wad over it - let’s wander on down that line of argument . . .
A man can have as many lovers as he choses and 1 wife at a time - applies to all men . . . cannot be any fairer than that - all other issues can be addressed by wills and other legal docs . . .
what you got?
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Were not talking about marriage as a tradition or social concept, but as a government contract. You can go to a church and get married without a license, that never changed.[/quote]
And so could gays. Tanya the transgender lesbian bartender could declare Bruce and Steve married. But why should Bruce and Steve’s relationship receive anymore recognition from the government than the friendship of two fishing buddies? Becuase they screw each other?
This has never been a fight over rights. What an absurd and emasculated people we’ve become. You people have gone ga-ga for some teeny-tiny minority who can swap rings and promise to have sex with only each other. This is, a marriage that can’t produce it’s own biological children within an intact home. A form of marriage that can’t propogate our citizenry, or order the present into pairs which could. You are weak-willed activists looking for a fight. I really hope you’re not the same group that shows up on ‘get a life’ bitching about how ‘wussified’ the present day male is. You’re all too damn simple to recognize that some things aren’t the same by nature. And you’re too damn weak-hearted to stand firm on it.
You’re set to use the government to redefine, spread thin, the definition of the absolutely most important institution this–or any other–country has. The Constitution is rough toilet paper–and of no more use–compared to the importance of marriage. Where you should be trying to strengthen it’s stature in our society, you’ve turned marriage into a public toilet. “The gays can’t use that toilet! No fair!”
[quote]Thunderbolt wrote:
If you’re right and I’m wrong, tell me, what consenting adult relationship isn’t eligible for mariage?[/quote]
This. This illsustrates just how absurd the anti-marriage crowd is. Oh yes, the ‘anti-marriage’ crowd. This isn’t a question they’ll address. They don’t want to own up to their own ‘bigotry,’ after all. They understand that when forced to define marriage in their own words, they’d have to discriminate against some consenting adults, and against some kinds of association/relationship. And discrimination is the greatest evil evah!
In the end, this is, ultimately, for the feminist and her feminized male followers, about destroying a “Patriarchal” institution . Or, a libertarian fantasy (multiple partners involved in cocaine-induced orgies, with the consequences settled beforehand through private contracts).
Hey, I’m for an entire neighborhood being recognized as married, if they choose. If those fraternity brothers want the same status, give it them! I’m the ultimate anti-bigot.
We’re the captive audience to what’s becoming the most absurd show on earth. You people are turning the greatness of the west into a circus. A great big Jerry Springer episode. Congrats!