Prop 8 Overturned

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But the main point is perfectly accurate: the number one goal of gay marriage is achieving emotional satisfaction of equality and a (now commanded) public affirmation that homosexual relationships are “just as good” as heterosexual ones. Whether or not this is a good thing or bad is a different question, but unquestionably this is what this has always been about.[/quote]

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]

Why shouldn’t a platonic friendship be “just as good” as either?

142

[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.

143

Eh, never mind. No time for one of these debates.

144

[quote]Eli B wrote:
right decision. I for one believe in civil rights.[/quote]

I’m sure you believe in the destruction of community as well?

145

[quote]formerfatboy wrote:
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]

Why should government even say that?

146

Oy Vey @ the argument that because gays can’t get married, they suffer are exactly like blacks pre-civil rights.

147

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:
I just don’t see why anybody who is not homophobic should care. I don’t see how gay marriages take anything away from straight ones. [/quote]
OK… have you read this thread?

From HG Thrower:

“Note: I don’t give a shit whether gays get married or not. I am however, VERY concerned about the legal process that allows the will of the people of CA to be overturned by a FEDERAL judge on multiple occasions.”[/quote]

The idea that courts can check other branches of government (by declaring a law unconstitutional) has been around since 1803 and was established by the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. That case does have its critics, and the whole idea of judicial review has obviously been criticized extensively.

Judicial review is a double-edged sword. With it, laws that people want can get overturned. Without it, there really is no way to enforce the provisions of the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court reversed Virginia’s law that prohibited interracial marriages. Yeah, I know - race and homosexuality are different. That’s not my point. My point is that without judicial review, how long would it have taken for Southern states to allow interracial marriages? Hard to say, but I’ve met people who to this day believe that people should marry “their own kind.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia[/quote]
I see what you are saying. My biggest gripe is that government should have no business whatsoever in the FIRST place with marriage…

From http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/04/californias-gay-marriage-ban-lacks-a-rational-basis/

“I should also add that this all could have been averted if government just got out of the marriage business entirely: have civil unions for whoever wants them â?? which would be a contractual basket of rights not unlike business partnerships â?? and let religious and other private institutions confer whatever sacraments they want. If the state provides the institution of marriage, however, it has to provide it to all people.”

148

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
right decision. I for one believe in civil rights.[/quote]

I’m sure you believe in the destruction of community as well?[/quote]

incorrect.

149

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:
I just don’t see why anybody who is not homophobic should care. I don’t see how gay marriages take anything away from straight ones. [/quote]
OK… have you read this thread?

From HG Thrower:

“Note: I don’t give a shit whether gays get married or not. I am however, VERY concerned about the legal process that allows the will of the people of CA to be overturned by a FEDERAL judge on multiple occasions.”[/quote]

The idea that courts can check other branches of government (by declaring a law unconstitutional) has been around since 1803 and was established by the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. That case does have its critics, and the whole idea of judicial review has obviously been criticized extensively.

Judicial review is a double-edged sword. With it, laws that people want can get overturned. Without it, there really is no way to enforce the provisions of the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court reversed Virginia’s law that prohibited interracial marriages. Yeah, I know - race and homosexuality are different. That’s not my point. My point is that without judicial review, how long would it have taken for Southern states to allow interracial marriages? Hard to say, but I’ve met people who to this day believe that people should marry “their own kind.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia[/quote]
I see what you are saying. My biggest gripe is that government should have no business whatsoever in the FIRST place with marriage…

From http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/04/californias-gay-marriage-ban-lacks-a-rational-basis/

“I should also add that this all could have been averted if government just got out of the marriage business entirely: have civil unions for whoever wants them â?? which would be a contractual basket of rights not unlike business partnerships â?? and let religious and other private institutions confer whatever sacraments they want. If the state provides the institution of marriage, however, it has to provide it to all people.”[/quote]

I’m with you on this one. I tend to agree with much of what the Cato Institute says.

150

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
right decision. I for one believe in civil rights.[/quote]

I’m sure you believe in the destruction of community as well?[/quote]

I have yet to understand how gay marriage destroys anything. I could argue that it has the opposite affect. At a time when divorce rates are high, having a marginalized group fight hard for the right to be married suggests that marriage just might be a valuable thing. I, for one, cannot even contemplate how gay marriage would devalue my own marriage for the simple reason that I define the importance of my marriage by my own standards, not anyone else’s.

151

[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]

In the future, if the people decide to ban a religion from their state, say for example Islam, then don’t you think it’s the supreme courts responsibility to uphold the constitution and overturn that law?

Laws cannot override constitutional rights. The fact is that a ban on gay marriage assumes straight marriages are superior to gay marriages. That is 100% unconstitutional.

152

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

In the future, if the people decide to ban a religion from their state, say for example Islam, then don’t you think it’s the supreme courts responsibility to uphold the constitution and overturn that law? [/quote]

Yes, it is, and the constitution expressly addresses religion in the First Amendment. This was a dumb and irrelevant question, since religion is not the same thing under the constitution and never has been.

No, it isn’t and never has been. Laws routinely assume that one category of “people” or “things” are superior to another and there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about it. It only becomes unconstitutional when the categorizations are based in arbitrariness or ill motive or are otherwise irrational. There is no credible showing that a law privileging traditional marriage over other forms of marriage is “irrational” (despite the very poor defense of the law in the case). We decided long ago that alternative forms of marriage are inferior to traditional marriage, and it was perfectly constitutional then (and is so now).

If it is unconstitutional “now”, then all forms of privileging traditional marriage “then” are “now” unconstitutional under the same principle, and that is an absurd conclusion, unless you happen to think that bans on polygamy are “now” unconstitutional.

Here’s the thing - “unconstitutional” has never meant “stuff I don’t like or think is unfair”. When you say “that is 100% unconstitutional”, have a clue as to what you are talking about.

153

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

In the future, if the people decide to ban a religion from their state, say for example Islam, then don’t you think it’s the supreme courts responsibility to uphold the constitution and overturn that law? [/quote]

Yes, it is, and the constitution expressly addresses religion in the First Amendment. This was a dumb and irrelevant question, since religion is not the same thing under the constitution and never has been.

No, it isn’t and never has been. Laws routinely assume that one category of “people” or “things” are superior to another and there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about it. It only becomes unconstitutional when the categorizations are based in arbitrariness or ill motive or are otherwise irrational. There is no credible showing that a law privileging traditional marriage over other forms of marriage is “irrational” (despite the very poor defense of the law in the case). We decided long ago that alternative forms of marriage are inferior to traditional marriage, and it was perfectly constitutional then (and is so now).

If it is unconstitutional “now”, then all forms of privileging traditional marriage “then” are “now” unconstitutional under the same principle, and that is an absurd conclusion, unless you happen to think that bans on polygamy are “now” unconstitutional.

Here’s the thing - “unconstitutional” has never meant “stuff I don’t like or think is unfair”. When you say “that is 100% unconstitutional”, have a clue as to what you are talking about.[/quote]

General welfare clause.

Or interstate commerce clause.

Its in there somewhere, we just did not realize yet.

154

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
right decision. I for one believe in civil rights.[/quote]

I’m sure you believe in the destruction of community as well?[/quote]

I have yet to understand how gay marriage destroys anything. I could argue that it has the opposite affect. At a time when divorce rates are high, having a marginalized group fight hard for the right to be married suggests that marriage just might be a valuable thing. I, for one, cannot even contemplate how gay marriage would devalue my own marriage for the simple reason that I define the importance of my marriage by my own standards, not anyone else’s.[/quote]

If ever a cogent argument could be put together that it does, perhaps the decision could be overturned on the grounds that there would then be a rational basis for distinguishing between straight and gay marriage.

155

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
right decision. I for one believe in civil rights.[/quote]

I’m sure you believe in the destruction of community as well?[/quote]

I have yet to understand how gay marriage destroys anything. I could argue that it has the opposite affect. At a time when divorce rates are high, having a marginalized group fight hard for the right to be married suggests that marriage just might be a valuable thing. I, for one, cannot even contemplate how gay marriage would devalue my own marriage for the simple reason that I define the importance of my marriage by my own standards, not anyone else’s.[/quote]

The shallow individualistic, “I’m an island, your an island, individuals of the next generation will be islands,” line of thinking needs to die the true death. Man hasn’t been, isn’t, and never will be an island. This kind of thought has pretty much rolled out every cultural degradation responible for the already sad state of marriage. The ability to even debate this issue, as if wasn’t anything but a farce, is not an indication of marriage’s attractiveness and vitality. It’s a friggen symptom of how deep of a hole we’ve already dug for ourselves. And you folks just insist you’re going to keep on digging.

156

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
right decision. I for one believe in civil rights.[/quote]

I’m sure you believe in the destruction of community as well?[/quote]

I have yet to understand how gay marriage destroys anything. I could argue that it has the opposite affect. At a time when divorce rates are high, having a marginalized group fight hard for the right to be married suggests that marriage just might be a valuable thing. I, for one, cannot even contemplate how gay marriage would devalue my own marriage for the simple reason that I define the importance of my marriage by my own standards, not anyone else’s.[/quote]

The shallow individualistic, “I’m an island, your an island, individuals of the next generation will be islands,” line of thinking needs to die the true death. Man hasn’t been, isn’t, and never will be an island. This kind of thought has pretty much rolled out every cultural degradation responible for the already sad state of marriage. The ability to even debate this issue, as if wasn’t anything but a farce, is not an indication of marriage’s attractiveness and vitality. It’s a friggen symptom of how deep of a hole we’ve already dug for ourselves. And you folks just insist you’re going to keep on digging. [/quote]

This is just rhetoric and nothing else. Explain with facts and evidence how gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage and I will oppose it. Otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air in an attempt to justify the fact that you find homosexuality disgusting. Hey, I understand. I’m not into the gay thing either - never have, never will be - and I don’t understand how someone could be attracted to someone of the same sex. And because I don’t understand why someone would be gay is precisely why I am completely not threatened by the idea of gays getting married. I simply don’t care - it doesn’t affect me one bit.

Perhaps you feel that the option of gay marriage might cause someone to rethink their heterosexuality and “switch sides,” become gay, and opt for that life as opposed to entering into a heterosexual marriage. You may see this as a negative - I say, GOOD! If someone can be so easily persuaded to change their sexual orientation then I would seriously question whether they have any business to be getting married and raising kids to begin with. You see, I don’t live in a happy world. To be blunt, there are people out there who have no business having children. If they choose another option, so much the better.

157

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

In the future, if the people decide to ban a religion from their state, say for example Islam, then don’t you think it’s the supreme courts responsibility to uphold the constitution and overturn that law? [/quote]

Yes, it is, and the constitution expressly addresses religion in the First Amendment. This was a dumb and irrelevant question, since religion is not the same thing under the constitution and never has been.

[/quote]

You’re quick to point out that sexual orientation is not race, and that sexual orientation is not religion, therefore they are not analogous.

Yet sexual orientation is not multiple partners, nor is sexual orientation age. What makes these more analogous than race or religion?

158

[quote]Sloth wrote:

The shallow individualistic, “I’m an island, your an island, individuals of the next generation will be islands,” line of thinking needs to die the true death. Man hasn’t been, isn’t, and never will be an island.[/quote]

I say it needs to be expanded. We would be a lot better off if people would just mind their own fucking business.

159

[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]

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.

160

[quote]Oldman Powers wrote:
The Judge is Gay.

Not that there’s anything “wrong” with it.[/quote]

And the judge was first appointed by REAGAN and then by GEORGE BUSH SR., not that there’s anything “wrong” with that.

I’m referring to the “leftist nut job conspiracy” that Rush Limbaugh spouted. Stupid fucking radio red neck. I hope he drops dead…like, yesterday.

The state should recognize all unions as “domestic partnerships” that can qualify for certain benefits, whereas each individual church should be allowed to bless a partnership as a “marriage” or not.

Then, everyone should shut the hell up, gays and religious heteros alike.

I’m all for gay marriage but I also believe people who oppose it have a right to their opinion, just that no opinion should serve as the basis of a law that governs the society as a whole. Hence, my suggestion of “domestic partnership” recognition by the state and “marriage” by the church.

That also means a church my grant the title of “marriage” to a relationship by the state may deny that marriage as a domestic partnership, and hence not grant the couple any benefits. But that’s a different matter.