NationStates Jolt Archive

In 2000, California voters supported a statewide ballot initiative to retain the traditional concept of marriage--a union between one man and one woman. That initiative, titled "Proposition 22: Defense of Marriage Act" passed overwhelmingly with 61.4% of voters voting for and 38.6% voting against.

This week, along party lines, the Democratic legislative majority in both houses passed a bill that would directly overturn the will of the people and legalize homosexual "marriages". California already offers full recognition of homosexual partnerships, include property and death benefits. "Domestic partners" can even file joint tax returns. The Governor, expressing that he personally has no problem with gay marriages, has indicated that he will veto the bill when it reaches his desk because, aside from overturning the clear will of the people, a legislative overturn of a passed proposition has never been attempted and the action would probably therefore be unconstitutional under California's state constitution.

Vik Amar, a constitutional authority at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who agrees with what Leno (the bill's Democratic sponsor) is trying to achieve, said Schwarzenegger is on solid legal ground in vetoing the bill. "If I was the governor's legal adviser," Amar said, "I would probably advise him that as much as I wish he could sign the bill there's probably not a decent argument that the bill is valid."

The Governor's office released a statement that "The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action - which would be unconstitutional - but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state."

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/gay_marriage/story/13533614p-14374262c.html

My question is what the heck kind of chutzpah does the Democratic leadership in California have to try to pass an illegal law that would directly deny the will of the people they represent anyway? It seems to me that, at least on this matter (and probably others, but I won't go there) the Democrats are so driven by the radical leftist special interest elements within their party that they are willing to completely abandon the people who put them there. Is their grip of power so tight that they feel that they can act with impunity?

I started with gay marriages because the bill is so blatently unconstitutional and unequivocally against the will of the people, as evidence through Proposition 22. But it doesn't stop there--the Democrats, once again, are attempting to pass a bill through the state legislature that would allow illegal/criminal aliens to get drivers' licenses. Aside from the minor fact that the cost burden of those operations would fall entirely on the legal tax-paying residents of California, the process would allow illegal/criminal aliens the power to vote (illegally of course) in California elections (including national elections) because displaying a drivers' license is sufficent proof of citizenship status for the purpose of voting. For those who would argue that this is not the motivation, consider that previous proposed amendments to the bill (California SB 60, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_60&sess=CUR&house=B&author=cedillo) that would have shown their citizenship inelligibility to vote be displayed was rejected by the Democratic leadership. In other words, even though the the special licenses would keep them from being able to vote but still permit them to legally drive (even though they're illegally here to begin with), that wasn't good enough--yet they say that this isn't about letting illegal immigrants illegally vote. 80% of Californians reject the notion of granting driver licenses to illegal aliens.

What the heck is up? I'm not even talking about how terrible their ideas are--have they completely abandoned the people they're suppose to represent?

How exactly does being given a driver's licence mean you can vote?

The public does not have the right to deny minorities their rights. I'm not a supporter of gay marriage per se, but I know what's fair.

I would argue that there are some issues that cannot be decided in the democratic process.
You cannot vote for the right of black people to ride the bus, you cannot vote for the right of women to go to work and you cannot vote for the right to marry. A right that every civilised country should uphold for all its citizens, as it is in the Declaration of Human Rights.

The public does not have the right to deny minorities their rights. I'm not a supporter of gay marriage per se, but I know what's fair.

Since California's "domestic partners" have all the state rights of married partners, what rights are being denied?

The public does not have the right to deny minorities their rights. I'm not a supporter of gay marriage per se, but I know what's fair.

Yes, but when the public denies the minority their rights its the job of the courts, not the legislators, to set things straight. If the California Supreme Court made this decision, that would be another issue altogether.

Since California's "domestic partners" have all the state rights of married partners, what rights are being denied?

The right to get married.

What part of "no" do they not understand?
the part that is discriminatory and unconstitutionnal to deny rights to the same-sex couples that the other couples have?

furthermore, having a law contradict a previous law is neither illegal nor unconstitutionnal. It happens all the time. So if that law was not vetoed, it would have been a perfectly legitimate law.

And the people elected them to make these kinds of decision in their place. That's how the system work. Don't like it? write to your congresman, or better yet: raise the issue before voting for him. SO they are doing what they feel they must to protect the rights of their constituents against the oppression of the majority.

The legislature is supposed to moderate the will of the people and protect minority rights, not enforce the majority's ideology. If people don't like it, they are free to vote these people out of office. Otherwise, the decision is made with the implicit consent of the governed.

Frankly, if the people of California actually voted for their representitives, then they, as the choosen political leader of california, have the power to make decisions such as this. This is how government is designed to work. More so in my country than them boys and girls to the south of us, but alas, the point is still valid. The people gave the power to the legislative body to make laws as they see fit, if they dont' like it, vote for different people next time. That is the point of elections.

Yes, but when the public denies the minority their rights its the job of the courts, not the legislators, to set things straight. If the California Supreme Court made this decision, that would be another issue altogether.
I disagree. It is the job of the legislators. The courts can only void some laws because they are unconstitutionnal. It is not their place to legislate. It is their place to strike down unconstitutionnal laws, such as proposition 22.

The legislature is supposed to moderate the will of the people and protect minority rights, not enforce the majority's ideology. If people don't like it, they are free to vote these people out of office. Otherwise, the decision is made with the implicit consent of the governed.

...and if the people of California are so vehemently opposed to gay marriage as we are led to believe, then the legislators pushing this through will most likely be voted out of office, and new ones voted in who can overturn this law.

I disagree. It is the job of the legislators. The courts can only void some laws because they are unconstitutionnal. It is not their place to legislate. It is their place to strike down unconstitutionnal laws, such as proposition 22.

Exactly. It is their place to say whether a law is right or wrong, not to say what the right law would be.

The legislature is supposed to moderate the will of the people and protect minority rights, not enforce the majority's ideology. If people don't like it, they are free to vote these people out of office. Otherwise, the decision is made with the implicit consent of the governed.

On the other hand, by requesting a public vote on the issue it would seem that the legislature has agreed to abide by the results of that vote. In any case minority rights situations are a matter of constitutionality and thus should be being dealt with by the court system, not the legislative branch.

How exactly does being given a driver's licence mean you can vote?

To vote in California, you have to demonstrate u.s. citizenship and residency. Unless this bill is passed, you have to prove citizenship and state residency to be issued a drivers' license with supporting documents. For example, when I moved to the state, I had to show my birth certificate, my social security card, and a utility bill from my place of residence to establish my eligibility for a driver's license.

Because all of these things also make me eligible to vote, I can prove eligibility to register to vote by just producing my driver's license. It proves that the state has established that I am a citizen and a resident of California.

If illegal aliens are permitted unrestricted driver's licenses, they will be able to register to vote under the current system, unless the current system changes. That would entail citizen voters to have to produce additional documentation to prove their eligibility to vote, such as birth certificates, passports, utility bills, et cetra. Such a change is not included in this bill, nor can I forsee it happening at any point in the future--especially since the Democrats have been on the "let everyone vote no matter what" righteous indignation crusade since the 2000 election.

So that's how having a driver's license means you can vote in California. Does that answer your question?

I disagree. It is the job of the legislators. The courts can only void some laws because they are unconstitutionnal. It is not their place to legislate. It is their place to strike down unconstitutionnal laws, such as proposition 22.

I think the point is that the old law needs to be struck down before a new law can replace it, and the striking down must be done by the courts.

I would argue that there are some issues that cannot be decided in the democratic process.
You cannot vote for the right of black people to ride the bus, you cannot vote for the right of women to go to work and you cannot vote for the right to marry. A right that every civilised country should uphold for all its citizens, as it is in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Correct, because those restrictions are illegal under the federal constitution. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

Correct, because those restrictions are illegal under the federal constitution. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

While there isn't directly, there also isn't a right to interracial marriage. Both are assumed under the right to equal treatment.

Correct, because those restrictions are illegal under the federal constitution. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

I don't know the US constituation by heart, sorry. But I seem to remember that the US signed the Declaration of Human Rights, and it is a right there...

I don't know the US constituation by heart, sorry. But I seem to remember that the US signed the Declaration of Human Rights, and it is a right there...

Incorrect. The US did not sign the UNDHR, though we were involved in its composition. Same thing with the ICC and some stuff about blowing up children with land mines.

I think the point is that the old law needs to be struck down before a new law can replace it, and the striking down must be done by the courts.
Not so. A new law can strike down an old law. Such an amendment to the constitution was made to remove a previous amendment banning alcohol.

The right to get married.

That is almost a good point... except that they can get married. They just can't marry each other. Neither can straight people. Nobody has that right. It's not something specifically denied to gays.

Incorrect. The US did not sign the UNDHR, though we were involved in its composition. Same thing with the ICC and some stuff about blowing up children with land mines.

Oh, well... sorry, my misconception.

furthermore, having a law contradict a previous law is neither illegal nor unconstitutionnal. It happens all the time. So if that law was not vetoed, it would have been a perfectly legitimate law.

In California, laws can be established by the legislature and by ballot initiatives. California state laws established by ballot initiatives cannot be overturned by the legislature, although laws established by the legislature can be overturned by ballot initiatives. Your statement is incorrect.

And the people elected them to make these kinds of decision in their place. That's how the system work. Don't like it? write to your congresman, or better yet: raise the issue before voting for him. SO they are doing what they feel they must to protect the rights of their constituents against the oppression of the majority.

Or put an initiative on the ballot?

That is almost a good point... except that they can get married. They just can't marry each other. Neither can straight people. Nobody has that right. It's not something specifically denied to gays.

Before we go further, could somebody please provide the exact wording of US law regarding marriage?

Not so. A new law can strike down an old law. Such an amendment to the constitution was made to remove a previous amendment banning alcohol.

You're missing his point. He's saying you have to strike down the old law, then make a new one. The alcohol thing is not contradictory to this, and is a bad analogy. The amendment that struck down the amendment banning alcohol was simply a repeal. It did not form new alcohol laws.

On the other hand, by requesting a public vote on the issue it would seem that the legislature has agreed to abide by the results of that vote. In any case minority rights situations are a matter of constitutionality and thus should be being dealt with by the court system, not the legislative branch.

Well, it's probably a litmus test for the public's feelings about the matter, especially since the issue is more prominent than it was when Prop. 22 passed in 2000.

If there is still a strong opposition to it, they may reconsider, but overall the legislature has to do what it thinks is best for the state and people, not just what the people think. Too often, people are motivated by reasons that would appear, in retrospect, totally ridiculous and/or wrong. The legislature has to be the voice of reason, not just a mirror of public sentiment.

welp, when it comes to gay marriage there are several potential justifications for trying to pass a law allowing it

public opinion on gay marriage is in flux and for the most part is migrating toward the "for" and away from the "against" position. it may be that since that vote in 2000, the majority of californians now support gay marriage (not that id know)

it may be that the democratic legislature felt that it is important to uphold human rights even if it IS against the will of the majority

it may be that they decided to pander to their liberal base by passing a gay marriage law that they knew would be vetoed. "no harm, no foul"

it may be that they decided to vote in a gay marriage law to emphasize schwartzeneggers republican point of view so as to make it less likely that he will be re-elected next time.

if i is indeed very much against the will of the people of california then these legislators will have put themselves in a position of not getting re-elected themselves.

in the end, the people of california will decide.

Before we go further, could somebody please provide the exact wording of US law regarding marriage?

I think we're still going by DOMA. I know Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source, but it seems accurate in describing the laws on this case:

First, it allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to recognize or deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state.
Second, it explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Or put an initiative on the ballot?
I was not aware of that particular part of california laws. In that case, you seem right that they have to strike it down before enacting the new law.

But I do stand by my statement that a new law can strike down a previous law, unless prohibited by some rule like the one you quoted.

But! nothing stops the state of california for allowing same-sex marriages in a law while still viewing marriage as "the union of a man and a woman". They merely accept that same-sex couples can marry religiously. Not that the state will recognize their marriage because of proposition 22.

welp, when it comes to gay marriage there are several potential justifications for trying to pass a law allowing it

public opinion on gay marriage is in flux and for the most part is migrating toward the "for" and away from the "against" position. it may be that since that vote in 2000, the majority of californians now support gay marriage (not that id know)

it may be that the democratic legislature felt that it is important to uphold human rights even if it IS against the will of the majority

it may be that they decided to pander to their liberal base by passing a gay marriage law that they knew would be vetoed. "no harm, no foul"

it may be that they decided to vote in a gay marriage law to emphasize schwartzeneggers republican point of view so as to make it less likely that he will be re-elected next time.

if i is indeed very much against the will of the people of california then these legislators will have put themselves in a position of not getting re-elected themselves.

in the end, the people of california will decide.

You haven't by any chance read "The Art of Political Manipulation", have you? Because that's exactly what that guy would say.

In any case, whether or not its useful to them to propose such a bill, its outside of their authority. In California the legislature does not have the power to overturn the popular vote, that remains the sole domain of the courts. What I don't understand is why the courts aren't all over this issue right now.

I would argue that there are some issues that cannot be decided in the democratic process.
You cannot vote for the right of black people to ride the bus, you cannot vote for the right of women to go to work and you cannot vote for the right to marry. A right that every civilised country should uphold for all its citizens, as it is in the Declaration of Human Rights.

But you CAN vote for these things in a society that says that that is the rule
for deciding things such as these..!!

Democracy, as such, in it's more PURE form, GUARANTEES and DEMANDS that
that be the case..!!

And that is why we live in a republic, with multiple branches of government to
check each others power.

Criminals are denied the right to ride on the bus (if they're incarcerated, and
unless it's a JAILHOUSE bus).

Criminals are denied the right to work.

So not all people have a right to do these things.

The issue will be decided by the forces that wish their point of view made
into "law" who invest the most energy into making it happen.

It's not a matter of "right and wrong", regardless of your protestations. It's a
matter of who will go to battle longest and hardest to make it happen.



The reason it's not a matter of right and wrong is that those qualities are
societal norms within subgroups of the population in question. Each group can
decide what is right or wrong to them based on whatever they want to base
them on.

Contrary to popular (and PC) belief, there is no absolute "right and wrong" in
this realm, therefore, it's a matter of warfare,.. where force attempts to
overpower force.

Luckily, the force in this case is merely verbal.

So,.. continue your blathering.


-The REAL Iakeo

Before we go further, could somebody please provide the exact wording of US law regarding marriage?
This one seems all that is needed to cover marrage:

Section. 8. -
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

But then again, IANAL.

That is almost a good point... except that they can get married. They just can't marry each other. Neither can straight people. Nobody has that right. It's not something specifically denied to gays.

Good point. A homosexual adult has every right to get married in any state in the country, just as every straight adult person has. Two straight men have no more of a right to marry each other than two gay men.

Good point. A homosexual adult has every right to get married in any state in the country, just as every straight adult person has. Two straight men have no more of a right to marry each other than two gay men.
So, in effect, you are for segregation since every black man had the right to marry, just not to a white woman... :rolleyes:

Before we go further, could somebody please provide the exact wording of US law regarding marriage?

Marriage is regulated at the state level, not the national level. Except for Louisiana, all states follow the "common law" system of government. This means that the foundation of the law is in the traditions derived from the English system of government, dating back to pre-written law. So basically, if it's not written down, you look at what the law has been historically to make a determination. In the case of marriage, under the common law, marriage is the legal union of one man with one woman. However, this definition can change by statutory law--as is being attempted by the legislature. Proposition 22 merely put into statute what had already been under common law. Does that make sense?

welp, when it comes to gay marriage there are several potential justifications for trying to pass a law allowing it

public opinion on gay marriage is in flux and for the most part is migrating toward the "for" and away from the "against" position. it may be that since that vote in 2000, the majority of californians now support gay marriage (not that id know)

it may be that the democratic legislature felt that it is important to uphold human rights even if it IS against the will of the majority

it may be that they decided to pander to their liberal base by passing a gay marriage law that they knew would be vetoed. "no harm, no foul"

it may be that they decided to vote in a gay marriage law to emphasize schwartzeneggers republican point of view so as to make it less likely that he will be re-elected next time.

if i is indeed very much against the will of the people of california then these legislators will have put themselves in a position of not getting re-elected themselves.

in the end, the people of california will decide.

I think that this is an excellent analysis.

Marriage is regulated at the state level, not the national level. Except for Louisiana, all states follow the "common law" system of government. This means that the foundation of the law is in the traditions derived from the English system of government, dating back to pre-written law. So basically, if it's not written down, you look at what the law has been historically to make a determination. In the case of marriage, under the common law, marriage is the legal union of one man with one woman. However, this definition can change by statutory law--as is being attempted by the legislature. Proposition 22 merely put into statute what had already been under common law. Does that make sense?
Sounds iffy. I'm sticking with my interpretation.

I think we're still going by DOMA. I know Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source, but it seems accurate in describing the laws on this case:

I am an attorney. You know my position on things, so I hope you find it credible when I say that DOMA is unconstitutional--not because of it's position, but because the federal government doesn't have the authority that DOMA attempts to take.

I was not aware of that particular part of california laws. In that case, you seem right that they have to strike it down before enacting the new law.

But I do stand by my statement that a new law can strike down a previous law, unless prohibited by some rule like the one you quoted.

You would ordinarily be right. California is an oddity.

But! nothing stops the state of california for allowing same-sex marriages in a law while still viewing marriage as "the union of a man and a woman". They merely accept that same-sex couples can marry religiously. Not that the state will recognize their marriage because of proposition 22.

I see what you're saying. California has a "domestic partnership" status that already gives same-sex couples all the legal entitlements of married couples. They just don't call it marriage. This goes back to some of the discussions on page one of this thread. Homosexual couples are not seeking equality, but trying to change the definition of marriage, which the supermajority of Californians find repulsive.

So, in effect, you are for segregation since every black man had the right to marry, just not to a white woman... :rolleyes:

Can two rocks marry each other?

Ywhich the supermajority of Californians find repulsive.

Four million out of twenty-five million people is a supermajority?

Can two rocks marry each other?

Has anybody asked them?

Can two rocks marry each other?
Rocks being land I would have to say yes, if the Constitution says so -

Article 6 - The United States
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Four million out of twenty-five million people is a supermajority?

61.4% out of 100% is.

Bah, the govt shoud get out of marriage altogehter - return it rightfully to religious institutions

So, in effect, you are for segregation since every black man had the right to marry, just not to a white woman... :rolleyes:

No, because at that point people's rights were different rather than the same. Any black man could marry any black woman, and any white man could marry any white woman. In contrast, any gay man can marry any woman, just as can a straight man.

61.4% out of 100% is.

Of those that voted on the issue. Sure.

But it's not a supermajority of Californians as you don't know what all Californians think on the issue.

Despite the fact that I'm an ironclad supporter of homosexual marriage, I'd have to say that Swarzenegger (that can't be spelled right, but oh well) is on solid legal footing on this one.

The thing in California that currently defines marriage as between one man and one woman is not a law passed in the legislature, nor one given legal authority by voter referendum. It is an amendment to the California State Constitution. As such, any law that is passed which says something other than "marriage is between one man and one woman" is by definition unconstitutional in California. Furthermore, the court can't overturn that law outlawing homosexual marriage, because courts only have the power to determine whether or not laws are consistent with the Constitution, not whether or not the Constitution itself makes a boneheaded point.

As such, there are really only two ways to change the situation. The first is to pass a constitutional amendment in California that annuls the prior amendment. The second is for the U.S. Supreme Court to find the amendment unconstitutional (probably because it is inconsistent with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment), and with the power vested in the US government by the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment, strike that part of the California constitution down. Passing a law is a great way for people in California to show that four years ago they were wrong, but nevertheless it is still a fruitless maneuver on their part, because it will be struck down by the California state courts.

No, because at that point people's rights were different rather than the same. Any black man could marry any black woman, and any white man could marry any white woman. In contrast, any gay man can marry any woman, just as can a straight man.

. . .And the distinction between the two is. . .what?

So BF, I am curious.

What threat does Gay Marriage pose?

Bah, the govt shoud get out of marriage altogehter - return it rightfully to religious institutions

Nahh you need the civil marriages. Catholics for example will not marry you if they see you are divorsed.....

The public does not have the right to deny minorities their rights. I'm not a supporter of gay marriage per se, but I know what's fair.
it completely does. atleast it does here(until we get another leader or atleast some reasonable form of government to replace the past one).

Bah, the govt shoud get out of marriage altogehter - return it rightfully to religious institutions


From what I have read... marriage originated as a civil instituion. So it's right where it belongs.

oh linkage: http://www.oldandsold.com/articles10/marriage-1.shtml

So BF, I am curious.

What threat does Gay Marriage pose?

It's a threat to the fantasy rendering of America that only lives on in the minds of Republicans. Therefore, it must be destroyed.

it completely does. atleast it does here(until we get another leader or atleast some reasonable form of government to replace the past one).
It can but that does not mean it has the right to do so.

it completely does. atleast it does here(until we get another leader or atleast some reasonable form of government to replace the past one).

They can do it, but it doesn't make it a right. The majority does not always think in its best interests, and the purpose of minority rights are to keep the majority from both destroying itself and to ensure the best path of action is followed. Tyranny of the majority is always going to end in disaster.

Can two rocks marry each other?

Yes, because in the eyes of the law a rock and a human are equal. :rolleyes: Your analogy is spurious. However, in the eyes of the law, according to the fourteenth amendment, a man and a woman are equal to each other and, by extrapolation, a man and a man are equal to a man and a woman. Descrimination by sex is no longer acceptable in the US.

And by the way, the point you were referring to was exactly the argument used against interracial marriage. The argument that was struck down by the courts around fifty years ago.

"People already have equal rights. [Blacks] can marry anyone they want of [their own race]. [Whites] can marry anyone they want of [their own race]."

Argument struck down.

"People already have equal rights. [Gays] can marry anyone they want of [the opposite gender]. [Straights] can marry anyone they want of [the opposite gender]."

It's the same argument and it's only a matter of time before the 14th amendment is enforced.

*snipped for length*
Here's what I find funny:

When the judicial branch of the government makes rulings regarding the Constitutionality of gay marriage, homophobes scream "judicial activism!!!" and insist that Congress be allowed to make the call. Then, when the legislative branch makes laws allowing gay marriage, the homophobes scream for "the people" to get to vote on the subject (because aparently representative democracy is totally queer). Then, when the majority of the population is shown to support legalizing gay unions with equal legal status to marriage, and when a significant and growing minority are shown to support gay marriage, the homophobes yell that "religious freedom" is being violated and demand that the courts uphold their right to forbid anybody to practice non-homophobic marriages.

It's like a homophobic snake biting it's own tail. Except that's a vaguely homoerotic image, so maybe it's more like a very very heterosexual man whimpering like a spoiled child because "teh gays" are getting rights (the filthy faggots!). It would be hilarious, if it weren't so depressing...these are the same pathetic squeals that the racists gave 50 years ago, when it was suggested that maybe black people and white people should be allowed to marry each other. If these scaredy-cats would take five minutes out of their busy penis-in-vagina-worshipping and just read a freaking history book, perhaps they would get some perspective on their ignorance and hatred. Maybe they would learn that "activist judges" were the ones who gave black people the vote, despite opposition from "the people." Maybe they would learn that "the people" would never have given women the right to vote either, but that "activists" won equality on that front as well. Maybe they would realize that every significant civil rights victory in American history has been imposed over the screaming and bitching of "the people," since the majority of Americans seem quite content to oppress whichever minority it is fashionable to hate at that time.

Perhaps they would get a sense of how history will regard them.

Can two rocks marry each other?
Can rocks enter into legally binding contracts? Can rocks give consent? Can dogs, cats, horses, blenders, children, or corpses?

It's a crappy, tired, weak argument. You 'phobes need to get new material.

Bottle I am so smitten with your beautiful mind

My question is what the heck kind of chutzpah does the Democratic leadership in California have to try to pass an illegal law that would directly deny the will of the people they represent anyway?Because when you're in a position of elected leadership, you sometimes have to make unpopular decisions that go against what your constituency has said it wants because it's the morally right thing to do. Denying the equal protection of the laws to a group of citizens because of their sexual orientation is not only unconstitutional, but it's flat out wrong.

If our lawmakers had strictly followed "what the people want," without even remote consideration of doing the right thing, we might only now be allowing interracial marriage. Hell, we might only now be ending racial segregation. Those weren't right, and neither is denying two people who love each other and are willing to commit their lives to one another the right to have all legal protections available to them just because they happen to be two men or two women.

The public does not have the right to deny minorities their rights. I'm not a supporter of gay marriage per se, but I know what's fair.

Since when is marriage a right?

Since when is marriage a right?

Since the supreme court said so?

Since when is marriage a right?
Marriage itself is not a right. However, the Supreme Court ruled (several decades ago) that if the government is going to recognize legal marriages as it does then it must allow all consenting adults to choose their pairings...in other words, the government cannot recognize the marriages of certain couples of consenting adults while denying the marriages of other consenting adults. To do so violates the right of all citizens to be equal under the law.

So it works like this: the government can either not recognize any marriages, or it can recognize gay marriages along with straight marriages. Personally, I would prefer the former, but either one is okay.

The public does not have the right to deny minorities their rights. I'm not a supporter of gay marriage per se, but I know what's fair.but when a Minority or a few dictate laws that must be followed by the Majority, (especially when it's shown that the majority is against that law[s]) isn't that Depotism or at least a Dictatorship and not a Democracy?

If President Bush suddenly ordered and enforced a law forcing everyone to spend 2 hours in a place of Worship (you don't have to do anything, just spend 2 hours in there,) wouldn't people be crying that President Bush is forcing his views on them?

Bottle I am so smitten with your beautiful mind
Drat. When, oh when, will I find somebody who will use me for my body?!

:) j/k

Thanks.

Lafier']but when a Minority or a few dictate laws that must be followed by the Majority, (especially when it's shown that the majority is against that law[s]) isn't that Depotism or at least a Dictatorship and not a Democracy?

America is not a democracy. Never has been. In fact, the Founders spent a tremendous amount of time and energy ensuring that America would not be a democracy, and several of them regarded democracy as a horrible and oppressive system (which it usually is).
Lafier']
If President Bush suddenly ordered and enforced a law forcing everyone to spend 2 hours in a place of Worship (you don't have to do anything, just spend 2 hours in there,) wouldn't people be crying that President Bush is forcing his views on them?
Yes, because he would be. The difference lies with the Constitution. Our Constitution states that all citizens are equal under the law...for one person to dictate how all the rest must worship is a violation of that equality. But the real beauty is that it would be EVERY BIT AS WRONG if 90% of Americans voted to force everybody to spend 2 hours in a place of worship. That was the genius of the Founders.

The majority DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. The majority did not have the right to keep blacks in slavery. The majority did not have the right to deny women the vote. The majority did not have the right to keep schools segregated. The majority did not have the right to block whites from marrying blacks. And the majority does not have the right to deny consenting same-sex adult couples from entering into legal marriage contracts, so long as the legal marriage contracts of straight couples are recognized.

Since when is marriage a right?

I'm trying to remember. I think the Supreme court declared it so over a century ago, but I could be off a bit.

Lafier']but when a Minority or a few dictate laws that must be followed by the Majority, (especially when it's shown that the majority is against that law[s]) isn't that Depotism or at least a Dictatorship and not a Democracy?

If President Bush suddenly ordered and enforced a law forcing everyone to spend 2 hours in a place of Worship (you don't have to do anything, just spend 2 hours in there,) wouldn't people be crying that President Bush is forcing his views on them?

It's called a republic and it is designed to prevent Tyranny by the majority. The reason President Bush couldn't do that is that it violates the first amendment. Gay marriage does not violate the constitution. In fact, the ban on it does.

Drat. When, oh when, will I find somebody who will use me for my body?!

:) j/k

Thanks.

I could use your body for research purposes.

*shifty eyes*

Marriage itself is not a right. However, the Supreme Court ruled (several decades ago) that if the government is going to recognize legal marriages as it does then it must allow all consenting adults to choose their pairings...in other words, the government cannot recognize the marriages of certain couples of consenting adults while denying the marriages of other consenting adults. To do so violates the right of all citizens to be equal under the law.

So it works like this: the government can either not recognize any marriages, or it can recognize gay marriages along with straight marriages. Personally, I would prefer the former, but either one is okay.

Actually, marriage itself was actually declared a right by the Supreme Court and I think it was BEFORE that landmark case.

The right to get married.

No such right exists.

-modified-

Or perhaps it is.

Zablocki v. Redhail
In 1978, the United States Supreme Court declared marriage to be "of fundamental importance to all individuals". The court described marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" and "the most important relation in life." The court also noted that "the right to marry is part of the fundamental 'right to privacy'" in the U.S. Constitution.

Actually, marriage itself was actually declared a right by the Supreme Court and I think it was BEFORE that landmark case.
Hmm...that could be. I know the Court recognized that the right to freedom to marriage is essentially meaningless without the right to choose one's partner, so maybe that's the case you are thinking of. I honestly don't remember.

Personally, I don't believe in any "right" to marry under the law. I don't believe government should concern itself with such things at all. But I do believe that IF the government is going to recognize marriage at all then it must recognize all marriages involving consenting adults, because all consenting adults are supposed to be equal under the law. It would be so much easier to just dump legal marriage, though...*sigh* I can dream...

Marriage itself is not a right.

Incorrect. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)


However, the Supreme Court ruled (several decades ago) that if the government is going to recognize legal marriages as it does then it must allow all consenting adults to choose their pairings...

Incorrect. No such determination has been made. (Unless you're talking about a country other than the United States, then I have no comment).

in other words, the government cannot recognize the marriages of certain couples of consenting adults while denying the marriages of other consenting adults.

Incorrect. No such determination has been made.

To do so violates the right of all citizens to be equal under the law.

This has yet to decided. Lawrence v. Texas--majority acknowledging that decision to overrule anti-sodomy law does not impact laws forbidding homosexual marriage.

So it works like this: the government can either not recognize any marriages, or it can recognize gay marriages along with straight marriages. Personally, I would prefer the former, but either one is okay.

Option 3 is to recognize heterosexual marriages but not recongize homosexual marriages.

p.s. there are plenty of good family law books out there. pick one up sometime.

Drat. When, oh when, will I find somebody who will use me for my body?!

:) j/k

Thanks.

I could give it a shot :p

In a Democracy/Republic, the majority has the right to pass its laws, while the minority has the right to be heard.

I suspect that the confusion over this stems from the John Roberts smokescreen being put up by (the minority) Senate Democrats.

I don't see why gay marriage should be the subject of any kind of referendum, any more than what I have for dinner should be voted for by the public. And as for the majority of people who voted against gay marriage, who the hell do they think they are? How dare they oppress other people and deny them civil rights? Not approving of gay marriage is fine, but having the arrogance to pass laws against it defies belief. The country may be a democracy, but peoples personal lives are not.

About that idea of giving drivers licences to illegal immigrants, though, thats just stupid. Unless it's a trick to get their address on record so they can be deported.

In a Democracy/Republic, the majority has the right to pass its laws, while the minority has the right to be heard.

I suspect that the confusion over this stems from the John Roberts smokescreen being put up by (the minority) Senate Democrats.

And yet the Whitehouse locks up some documents for what reason?

If it's a smokescreen then let them have access. If nothing is there, then they will look worst.

But hey, we know the Republicans would only measure a judge and not worry the fact if he was a liberal right?

I don't see why gay marriage should be the subject of any kind of referendum, any more than what I have for dinner should be voted for by the public. And as for the majority of people who voted against gay marriage, who the hell do they think they are? How dare they oppress other people and deny them civil rights? Not approving of gay marriage is fine, but having the arrogance to pass laws against it defies belief. The country may be a democracy, but peoples personal lives are not.

About that idea of giving drivers licences to illegal immigrants, though, thats just stupid. Unless it's a trick to get their address on record so they can be deported.


I think it's a matter of hate. People hate that someone might be living a life they themselves don't approve of even if it doesn't hurt them personally or anybody else for that matter. People can be very petty.

When the law no longer justifies their homophobia they might be forced to think about their beliefs, possibly even question them.

I think it's a matter of hate. People hate that someone might be living a life they themselves don't approve of even if it doesn't hurt them personally or anybody else for that matter. People can be very petty.

I just don't care for people perverting a good institution.

I just don't care for people perverting a good institution.
Yeah, because heteros do such a good job of keeping marriage sacred. :rolleyes:

As if marriage is sacred. It's originated as a civil institution... from what I read on teh link I posted earlier anyway.

Anyway, how does allowing two men or women who love each other to legally marry pervert the institution of marriage?

Since California's "domestic partners" have all the state rights of married partners, what rights are being denied?
It's at odds with religious freedom. If a recognised religion wants to marry their homo followers, then what right does the state have to interfere?

America is not a democracy. Never has been. In fact, the Founders spent a tremendous amount of time and energy ensuring that America would not be a democracy, and several of them regarded democracy as a horrible and oppressive system (which it usually is).but do we not ELECT our government officials? Do we not cast our VOTE when our Government asks? isn't that a Democratic process?
Yes, because he would be. The difference lies with the Constitution. Our Constitution states that all citizens are equal under the law...for one person to dictate how all the rest must worship is a violation of that equality. But the real beauty is that it would be EVERY BIT AS WRONG if 90% of Americans voted to force everybody to spend 2 hours in a place of worship. That was the genius of the Founders. and where does it state that the will of the majority shall be overturned by the will of the minority.

The majority DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. The majority did not have the right to keep blacks in slavery. The majority did not have the right to deny women the vote. The majority did not have the right to keep schools segregated. The majority did not have the right to block whites from marrying blacks. And the majority does not have the right to deny consenting same-sex adult couples from entering into legal marriage contracts, so long as the legal marriage contracts of straight couples are recognized.but wasn't it voted upon in congress and by the people to make the changes in the Constitution to give blacks their rights? wasn't it put to vote to give women their rights? wasn't it put to vote to remove segregation?

Lafier']but wasn't it voted upon in congress and by the people to make the changes in the Constitution to give blacks their rights? wasn't it put to vote to give women their rights? wasn't it put to vote to remove segregation?
Segregation was not put to a vote by the people and neither was womens rights. People boycotted, pressured congress, and did a number of other things to bring attention to their problem. Ultimately congress is the one who gave blacks their rights and women their rights.

Segregation was not put to a vote by the people and neither was womens rights. People boycotted, pressured congress, and did a number of other things to bring attention to their problem. Ultimately congress is the one who gave blacks their rights and women their rights.
Thank you. I didn't know that.

is it in the constitution that such rulings are guarenteed, even when voted against by a majority of the populace?

Edit: actually, tho, Congress did vote upon it, right. granting the rights.

It's at odds with religious freedom. If a recognised religion wants to marry their homo followers, then what right does the state have to interfere?

Well, you could say that about pretty much anything. The courts have ruled that a state can impede on religious liberties if the infringement is rationally related to a legitimate purpose.

Using veto powers denying senate vote results, that grant people civil and social rights, that they should allready be entitled to, could put you out of a job in other countries.

I, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, believe that black people should not have been given the right to vote because the people, even less than 5 years before the abilitity was given to them, disapproved of the matter.

Ok, let's keep them at seperate names (as the one in CA that I can't remember). Ooh, how about we give them seperate water fountains too, who knows where those mouths has been! I think it's time to give them seperate schools so they don't corrupt our children with their devilish ways!
:rolleyes:
That declaration of different names is seperate but equal. The US government has already realized that it is wrong and doesn't work. Stop whining, Conservatives.

On a last note, I'm glad I live in MA, where gays can be married legally.

I just don't care for people perverting a good institution.

60% divorse rate so how much more can they "pervert" it?

Well, if you want to be technical about it, our own constitution isn't admended through a vote of the people. The Congress and state legislatures take it upon themselves to do so, so it seems that the presidence of legistlation being decided without the direct consent of the people seems to be well established.

Besides, if memory serves, the bill removes the man and women only clause out of the California marrage statue, which was placed there in 1977. It's hardly saying "YES! We will destory marriage by allowing gays to get married!"

California enacted the first laws allowing interacial marriage (something I'm happy is now cross country), I think it's time that this nation actually lives up to its ideals and allow equal treatment for all.

And no, attempting to say, 'But it isn't unequal treatment because gays can get married to women!' doesn't cut it. That bit of legal sophistry doesn't impress me. It is akin to saying, 'It doesn't matter if we force you to go to the Church of England because in the end, you're allowed to worship right?'

As if marriage is sacred. It's originated as a civil institution... from what I read on teh link I posted earlier anyway.

Anyway, how does allowing two men or women who love each other to legally marry pervert the institution of marriage?

homosexual partnerships merely mimic marriage. Marriage is an institution wherein husband and wife, for hormonal, biological, physiological, genetic... whatever... reasons connect to each other in a way that can't be replicated in a homosexual relationship.

Generally:

heterosexual marriages produce offspring that the average parent would be unable or unwilling to tolerate if not for the biological component.

heterosexual marriages provide the foundation for rearing children with the proper social skills to interact with both men and women. (sorry, but men and women are wired differently.)

heterosexual marriages provide greater permanency and therefore stability than homosexual partnerships.

Plus, pervert means to put to an improper or unnatural use. A homosexual's parts don't fit together.

Well, you could say that about pretty much anything. The courts have ruled that a state can impede on religious liberties if the infringement is rationally related to a legitimate purpose.
I fail to see the relevance. If same sex unions are already allowed, why should religious ceremonies designed to accomplish the same thing not be protected by the right to religious freedom?

Also, since you're a law peddler, let me ask you. Isn't there something in an amendment about marriage being part of the right to persue happiness?

If that's right, then your argument about homo's marrying the opposite sex can't possibly hold water, as it defies the purpose of the right.

. . .And the distinction between the two is. . .what?

Sorry, got off to do some shit. Assuming no one answered you, the difference is that while gays and straights both have the right to marry women, black and white men did not have the right to marry white woman, nor did black and white men have the right to marry white men. Their rights were different, as opposed to with this issue.

That declaration of different names is seperate but equal. The US government has already realized that it is wrong and doesn't work. Stop whining, Conservatives.
.

Actually, you guys are the ones whining.

What harm is there in allowing gay marriages? It seems so many people hate the idea, but none of them can give an honest answer as to what's wrong. Instead they generally spout out some bs pretending it's immoral or goes against the sanctity of marriage or any other code words they can dream up. If you're interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage you'd ignore this issue completely and focus on outlawing divorces and if you're interested in what's moral you'd realize that it's morally wrong to put force people into a lower social status just for being themselves.

Of course it is the California way to make life as difficult as possible for everyone...

I fail to see the relevance. If same sex unions are already allowed, why should religious ceremonies designed to accomplish the same thing not be protected by the right to religious freedom?

They can have the religious ceremonies. They can have the rights associated with marriage. Just don't call it marriage, because it's not.

Also, since you're a law peddler, let me ask you. Isn't there something in an amendment about marriage being part of the right to persue happiness?

If that's right, then your argument about homo's marrying the opposite sex can't possibly hold water, as it defies the purpose of the right.

Well there's not, so worry not.

So, because five years ago the voters decided one thing, it can never be reviewed again?

I'm all for a periodic revisiting of these matters -- people do change their minds. The people of CA should vote on this again. Otherwise, given the logic of the original post, the descendants of Africans in America should still be slaves because once made slaves, it should never have been reconsidered again.

Let's put it in another way, this resembles somthing that happend many years ago it went something like this:

In the 1800 somthing, somewhere voters supported a statewide ballot initiative to retain the traditional concept of democracy --The right for a white man to vote. That initiative, titled "Proposition xx: Defense of Democracy Act" passed overwhelmingly with 61.4% of voters voting for and 38.6% voting against.

This week, along party lines, the Democratic legislative majority in both houses passed a bill that would directly overturn the will of the people and legalize black voters. Somewhere already offers full recognition of black citizenships, include property and the right to vote. Blacks can even join political parties. The Governor, expressing that he personally has no problem with black citizenship, has indicated that he will veto the bill when it reaches his desk because, aside from overturning the clear will of the people, a legislative overturn of a passed proposition has never been attempted and the action would probably therefore be unconstitutional under Somewhere's state constitution.

Bud Bundy, a constitutional authority at Polk High College of the Law in Some Town who agrees with what Leno (the bill's Democratic sponsor) is trying to achieve, said Schwarzenigger is on solid legal ground in vetoing the bill. "If I was the governor's legal adviser," Bud said, "I would probably advise him that as much as I wish he could sign the bill there's probably not a decent argument that the bill is valid."

The Governor's office released a statement that "The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action - which would be unconstitutional - but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state."

etcetera etcetera etcetera


My question is what the heck kind of chutzpah (whatever that word means) do you have to write in order to prove that the wil of the majority is not allway the right thing to do and sometimes unconstitutional things just have to pass in order to see that the constitution just contradicts itself when it comes to all men are created equal. What needs to be done for everybody to have equal rights????

homosexual partnerships merely mimic marriage. Marriage is an institution wherein husband and wife, for hormonal, biological, physiological, genetic... whatever... reasons connect to each other in a way that can't be replicated in a homosexual relationship.


:rolleyes:

Do you know any homosexuals? Oh wait probably not...dumb question.

The only thing that isn't "mimiced" is the biological production of children.

So if two steril people decide to marry; are they simply mimicing marriage?


Generally:

heterosexual marriages produce offspring that the average parent would be unable or unwilling to tolerate if not for the biological component.

heterosexual marriages provide the foundation for rearing children with the proper social skills to interact with both men and women. (sorry, but men and women are wired differently.)


Oh come one now. I know of many people that makes me think people should have a permit to breed. Good parenting doesn't come from being married. You tend to use how you were raised......


heterosexual marriages provide greater permanency and therefore stability than homosexual partnerships.

Hetro divorse has reached 60%


Plus, pervert means to put to an improper or unnatural use. A homosexual's parts don't fit together.

Ahh now we are seeing your true colours. Pass the Bible brother......

What harm is there in allowing gay marriages? It seems so many people hate the idea, but none of them can give an honest answer as to what's wrong. Instead they generally spout out some bs pretending it's immoral or goes against the sanctity of marriage or any other code words they can dream up. If you're interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage you'd ignore this issue completely and focus on outlawing divorces and if you're interested in what's moral you'd realize that it's morally wrong to put force people into a lower social status just for being themselves.

Of course it is the California way to make life as difficult as possible for everyone...

Because there is no reason not to call it something else, while there are a few reasons to call it something else. To name a couple, marriage is defined as and has been the union of one man and one woman for thousands of years. To change a definition that well-founded because a minority wants it to recognize them is stupid. Secondly, changing the name won't piss as many people off. By changing the definition of marriage, you piss off many of the religious, but if you make a new word with a definition entailing the wedding of homosexuals it won't piss so many people off. I don't see a point in pissing off one minority for the sake of another minority when it can be so easily avoided by not being uppity.

This whole mess is why I hate democracy. It’s also why the US is not a democracy. We are a constitutional representative republic in which the people own the government. Not the majority of the people, all the people.

heterosexual partnerships merely mimic marriage. Marriage is an institution wherein husband and husband, for hormonal, biological, physiological, genetic... whatever... reasons connect to each other in a way that can't be replicated in a heterosexual relationship.

Generally:

heterosexual marriages produce offspring that the average heterosexual parent would be unable or unwilling to tolerate if not for the biological component. In homosexual marriages, however, adults have enough compassion, love and understanding to raise children, even if they aren't blood related.

homosexual marriages provide the foundation for rearing children with the proper social skills to interact with both men and women (sorry, but humans are wired similarily, unless indoctrinated with biblical gender discriminating bullshit).

homosexual marriages provide greater permanency and therefore stability than homosexual partnerships.

Plus, pervert means to put to an improper or unnatural use. A heterosexual's parts don't fit together.
Sorry, I had to correct the deranged bullshit you offered. I'm amazed you're willing to make such an ass of yourself in public.

In 2000, California voters supported a statewide ballot initiative to retain the traditional concept of marriage--a union between one man and one woman. That initiative, titled "Proposition 22: Defense of Marriage Act" passed overwhelmingly with 61.4% of voters voting for and 38.6% voting against.

This week, along party lines, the Democratic legislative majority in both houses passed a bill that would directly overturn the will of the people and legalize homosexual "marriages". California already offers full recognition of homosexual partnerships, include property and death benefits. "Domestic partners" can even file joint tax returns. The Governor, expressing that he personally has no problem with gay marriages, has indicated that he will veto the bill when it reaches his desk because, aside from overturning the clear will of the people, a legislative overturn of a passed proposition has never been attempted and the action would probably therefore be unconstitutional under California's state constitution.

Vik Amar, a constitutional authority at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who agrees with what Leno (the bill's Democratic sponsor) is trying to achieve, said Schwarzenegger is on solid legal ground in vetoing the bill. "If I was the governor's legal adviser," Amar said, "I would probably advise him that as much as I wish he could sign the bill there's probably not a decent argument that the bill is valid."

The Governor's office released a statement that "The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action - which would be unconstitutional - but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state."

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/gay_marriage/story/13533614p-14374262c.html

My question is what the heck kind of chutzpah does the Democratic leadership in California have to try to pass an illegal law that would directly deny the will of the people they represent anyway? It seems to me that, at least on this matter (and probably others, but I won't go there) the Democrats are so driven by the radical leftist special interest elements within their party that they are willing to completely abandon the people who put them there. Is their grip of power so tight that they feel that they can act with impunity?

I started with gay marriages because the bill is so blatently unconstitutional and unequivocally against the will of the people, as evidence through Proposition 22. But it doesn't stop there--the Democrats, once again, are attempting to pass a bill through the state legislature that would allow illegal/criminal aliens to get drivers' licenses. Aside from the minor fact that the cost burden of those operations would fall entirely on the legal tax-paying residents of California, the process would allow illegal/criminal aliens the power to vote (illegally of course) in California elections (including national elections) because displaying a drivers' license is sufficent proof of citizenship status for the purpose of voting. For those who would argue that this is not the motivation, consider that previous proposed amendments to the bill (California SB 60, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_60&sess=CUR&house=B&author=cedillo) that would have shown their citizenship inelligibility to vote be displayed was rejected by the Democratic leadership. In other words, even though the the special licenses would keep them from being able to vote but still permit them to legally drive (even though they're illegally here to begin with), that wasn't good enough--yet they say that this isn't about letting illegal immigrants illegally vote. 80% of Californians reject the notion of granting driver licenses to illegal aliens.

What the heck is up? I'm not even talking about how terrible their ideas are--have they completely abandoned the people they're suppose to represent?

The most important thing that politicians can do is protect the rights of the miority so as to ensure equality, simply because more people are in favor of one thing than something else isnt a valisd reason to accept it, not to long ago the majority of the country was against african american rights, a little before that women's, if the minority isnt protected than how can any society ever be free and eqalitarian?

marriage is defined as and has been the union of one man and one woman for thousands of years. To change a definition that well-founded because a minority wants it to recognize them is stupid. Secondly, changing the name won't piss as many people off. By changing the definition of marriage, you piss off many of the religious, but if you make a new word with a definition entailing the wedding of homosexuals it won't piss so many people off. I don't see a point in pissing off one minority for the sake of another minority when it can be so easily avoided by not being uppity.

actually it's more like 400 years or so. Before that the catholic church actually married gay couples. though for most of the period they did that they didn't call it marriage but "a celebration of brotherhood". It meant they granted marriage rights for same sex couples who where gonna live together. So We could actually turn back the clock on this one and grant marriage rights to same sex couples and call it "celebrating brotherhood" or sisterhood if that's what you want.

My question is what the heck kind of chutzpah (whatever that word means) do you have to write in order to prove that the wil of the majority is not allway the right thing to do and sometimes unconstitutional things just have to pass in order to see that the constitution just contradicts itself when it comes to all men are created equal. What needs to be done for everybody to have equal rights????

All American citizens do have equal rights, except, I suppose, for white males. I believe they're the only ones not currently benefitting from affirmative action. White females may also not benefit, I'm not sure. Someone's going to have to check that one for me. Other than that, everyone has equal rights. In your story, the principles in the Constitution had not yet been met - all men were not equal.

actually it's more like 400 years or so. Before that the catholic church actually married gay couples. though for most of the period they did that they didn't call it marriage but "a celebration of brotherhood". It meant they granted marriage rights for same sex couples who where gonna live together. So We could actually turn back the clock on this one and grant marriage rights to same sex couples and call it "celebrating brotherhood" or sisterhood if that's what you want.

I'm not arguing against a different name that grants the same benefits to homosexual couples, so this post is pointless. A celebration of brotherhood was not marriage. Marriage still meant then what it does today. They used a different term for the wedding of gays, as they should now.

Sorry, I had to correct the deranged bullshit you offered. I'm amazed you're willing to make such an ass of yourself in public.

Pretty sure that's illegal. I'm not one to report people, and don't plan to be, but I don't think you're allowed to quote people and change the words to read what they never said. If that's not a rule, I'd be surprised. Just so you know.

This whole mess is why I hate democracy.
Democracy probably isn't the best form of government you can think of, especially when you know that people often don't know whats good for them especially when it comes to long term issues

It’s also why the US is not a democracy.
You are right it isn't

We are a constitutional representative republic in which the people own the government. Not the majority of the people, all the people.
actually that's questionable, it is how it is supposed to be (more or less) but it's very questionable

Pretty sure that's illegal. I'm not one to report people, and don't plan to be, but I don't think you're allowed to quote people and change the words to read what they never said. If that's not a rule, I'd be surprised. Just so you know.
I doubt very much I break any rules when I clearly state that I edited it. But thanks for the warning.

Democracy probably isn't the best form of government you can think of, especially when you know that people often don't know whats good for them especially when it comes to long term issues

I agree. :rolleyes:

You are right it isn't

No, he's not, it's a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy. There have been entire threads on this.

I doubt very much I break any rules when I clearly state that I edited it. But thanks for the warning.

No problem, but I would still say it's a good idea to change the "Quote by" part to read "....

Nevermind, I just scrolled down for his name and apparently you changed it right after I clicked reply. My bad.

What harm is there in allowing gay marriages? It seems so many people hate the idea, but none of them can give an honest answer as to what's wrong. Instead they generally spout out some bs pretending it's immoral or goes against the sanctity of marriage or any other code words they can dream up. If you're interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage you'd ignore this issue completely and focus on outlawing divorces and if you're interested in what's moral you'd realize that it's morally wrong to put force people into a lower social status just for being themselves.

Of course it is the California way to make life as difficult as possible for everyone...

Well, I already gave my explanation, so you either didn't see it, or just ignored it. Can't help you there.

All American citizens do have equal rights, except, I suppose, for white males. I believe they're the only ones not currently benefitting from affirmative action. White females may also not benefit, I'm not sure. Someone's going to have to check that one for me. Other than that, everyone has equal rights. In your story, the principles in the Constitution had not yet been met - all men were not equal.

If you mean that indeed every man has the right to marry a woman then indeed you are right. If you mean that everyone has the right to marry the one they love you are dead wrong (well in the case where the love is actually mutual)

Sorry, I had to correct the deranged bullshit you offered. I'm amazed you're willing to make such an ass of yourself in public.

Nice flame.

I'm not arguing against a different name that grants the same benefits to homosexual couples, so this post is pointless. A celebration of brotherhood was not marriage. Marriage still meant then what it does today. They used a different term for the wedding of gays, as they should now.
Look, you can't reasonably argue that marriage only means one man to one woman because it's been that way for thousands of years for one simple reason. It's not that way today. There are a number of societies where polygamy is still practiced legally (and has been for quite some time), and it's practiced illegally in this country in places. Same-sex marriage is practiced in any number of countries around the world and in one state in the US.

You've got to come to grips with the notion that social values change over time. They evolve, progress, regress, sometimes blow up in our faces, but one thing they never do is stay static. That's a fact of history. So if you want to make an argument against same-sex marriage, go right ahead, but the idea that marriage has always been one man with one woman won't wash.

I'm not arguing against a different name that grants the same benefits to homosexual couples, so this post is pointless. A celebration of brotherhood was not marriage. Marriage still meant then what it does today. They used a different term for the wedding of gays, as they should now.

He's just making that stuff up anyway. Don't pay it any attention.

If you mean that indeed every man has the right to marry a woman then indeed you are right. If you mean that everyone has the right to marry the one they love you are dead wrong (well in the case where the love is actually mutual)

I'm not sure anyone is guaranteed the right to marry the one they love, be they gay or straight.

He's just making that stuff up anyway. Don't pay it any attention.

Speaking of making stuff up.

What kind of a lawyer are you?

After reading the Cat-Tribe for awhile; there is a noticible difference in arguing styles.

BTW: Prove that he is making stuff up......

No, he's not, it's a democratic republic, which is a form of democracy. There have been entire threads on this.

Well ok it is officially a democratic republic but When you dig further down on the concept of democracy itself.

So a person has a right to vote. But what he/she actually votes is determined by this persons view on the world. And we know this view on the world changes constantly. it is influenced by friends, family, the media etc etc etc.

We also know that policics and media are never really separated (especially in Italy but also in the USA)

We also know politicains lie (sometimes in our best interest (plato already said something about that))

We can therefore say that our view on the world is biased and because our view on the world is biased our vote is.

I believe that democracy therefore not truly exists but it is noble to try to achieve true democracy where people can make an unbiased vote based on logical reason instead of beliefs and opinions

Well, Brian, the wonderful thing about a democracy is that laws aren't written in stone - and given that the population of any given state, nation, municipality, or even a housing co-operative is in flux, with people moving in and people moving out, not to mention people passing away, these things need to examined and re-examined as the needs, wants and desires of these populations in flux, evolve and change over time.

When I moved into my housing co-op, there was a battle royale raging regarding changing the co-op bylaws regarding pets. The first Annual General Meeting was a virtual bloodbath, with one camp steadfastly refusing to amend the bylaw to allow pet dogs, with the other camp demanding our bylaws be updated to reflect municipal bylaws pertaining to housing in the private sector - hence, allowing people to own dogs if they so choose. One fellow stood up and declared that this issue had been 'dealt with' two years previously. And I, feeling nervous as Hell, stood up and countered by saying that while the issue may have been 'dealt with' some time ago, that the transitory nature of urban living, i.e. a population in flux, made it all the more relevant to consult regularly with the co-op membership where bylaws are concerned - apart from there being an obvious need to update bylaws so as to keep up with actual municipal law. The bylaws of our co-op aren't etched in marble - they need to live, breathe and remain relevant, otherwise there's no point in having bylaws.

The same is true with any level of democratic authority - nothing is so permanent that it can't be re-examined, and, if found wanting, amended or disposed of in order to reflect the needs of living, breathing populations in flux. I hardly think it makes any sense to labour under the apprehension that all people living today must live their lives by arcane, unchanged rules set forth in a different era, by people long dead.

Does this not seem reasonable?

Look, you can't reasonably argue that marriage only means one man to one woman because it's been that way for thousands of years for one simple reason. It's not that way today. There are a number of societies where polygamy is still practiced legally (and has been for quite some time), and it's practiced illegally in this country in places. Same-sex marriage is practiced in any number of countries around the world and in one state in the US.

Okay, in that case you can't reasonably argue that murder is the unlawful killing of a human because in other countries murder may mean something else, or the word may not exist at all. Also, I'm not sure where the one place in the United States that practiced gay marriage would be, as it seems to me that this would go against federal law.

You've got to come to grips with the notion that social values change over time. They evolve, progress, regress, sometimes blow up in our faces, but one thing they never do is stay static. That's a fact of history. So if you want to make an argument against same-sex marriage, go right ahead, but the idea that marriage has always been one man with one woman won't wash.

I disagree. I'm a big fan of definitions remaining static, and it annoys me when words slowly come to mean different things: for instance, "gay." It's a matter of personal opinion. If this is not an opinion you share, then I would refer you to my point that naming it something else pisses fewer people off.

Nice flame.
Thank you, I think so too. Much better than your original ;)

Well ok it is officially a democratic republic but When you dig further down on the concept of democracy itself.

So a person has a right to vote. But what he/she actually votes is determined by this persons view on the world. And we know this view on the world changes constantly. it is influenced by friends, family, the media etc etc etc.

We also know that policics and media are never really separated (especially in Italy but also in the USA)

We also know politicains lie (sometimes in our best interest (plato already said something about that))

We can therefore say that our view on the world is biased and because our view on the world is biased our vote is.

I believe that democracy therefore not truly exists but it is noble to try to achieve true democracy where people can make an unbiased vote based on logical reason instead of beliefs and opinions

Democratia doesn't exist. Democracy is a much more loosely defined term.

I'm not sure anyone is guaranteed the right to marry the one they love, be they gay or straight.

Read the part between the '(' and the ')'
and change the anyone into anytwo that's how I meant it (I do realize that I didn't formulate properly)

Speaking of making stuff up.

What kind of a lawyer are you?

After reading the Cat-Tribe for awhile; there is a noticible difference in arguing styles.

BTW: Prove that he is making stuff up......

God forbid two people knowledgeable on the subject of law differ in style. :rolleyes:

He wasn't "making stuff up," but he was pointing out things completely irrelevant to what I said; coincidentally, I've known Cat-Tribe to argue in a similar manner.

Read the part between the '(' and the ')'
and change the anyone into anytwo that's how I meant it (I do realize that I didn't formulate properly)

I'm not sure "anytwo" are guaranteed that right, either.

the government doesnt care what the people want, neither does the people who want gay marriage, they will make you out to be prejudice and a detrement to society if they have to to get their way, and it doenst matter to them the moral standards or values of the portion of society it affects, so long as they get what they want the children will quit having their tantrums

take this as a lesson, if you want something, be a complete selfish ass about it till you get it, who cares whether anyone likes you or not, as long as you get your way



some people remind me of my annoying neighbors who think they own my property

I'm not sure "anytwo" are guaranteed that right, either.

ok so even gay people have the right to get married. Just not to people of the same sex. The way they would probably view the world is that they do not have the same rights. Altough clearly here we can say they do. now isn't that strange ???

God forbid two people knowledgeable on the subject of law differ in style. :rolleyes:

He wasn't "making stuff up," but he was pointing out things completely irrelevant to what I said; coincidentally, I've known Cat-Tribe to argue in a similar manner.

Well the problem with BT is that I don't get the impression of a lawyer. They argue a different way. Also, his use of case law (from what I read so take for only so much) is rather limited while Cat will pound you with examples.

Cat may argue that way sometimes but most of the time he does not.

He claimed to be a lawyer so it's fair to ask in what......

ok so even gay people have the right to get married. Just not to people of the same sex. The way they would probably view the world is that they do not have the same rights. Altough clearly here we can say they do. now isn't that strange ???

Not really. People say things that aren't logically or factually true all the time when they feel they are being treated unfairly.

Democratia doesn't exist. Democracy is a much more loosely defined term.

And therefore it is much harder to define where it ends. And imo Bush and FOX are pushing very hard towards that end.

W-a-a-ahhh. Nobody wantsta read or respond to my bit. My feewings are hurt...

<Snip>
take this as a lesson, if you want something, be a complete selfish ass about it till you get it, who cares whether anyone likes you or not, as long as you get your way

some people remind me of my annoying neighbors who think they own my property
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

So, mister freelance hypocrite, what exactly gives you the right to decide what I do with my own life? Or to use your "selfish neighbour" bit:

If you're not part of my religious community, what right do you think you have to dictate to my religious community who they can and cannot perform certain rituals for?

If something indeed does give you that right, then your argument is void. Because either I have a right to ru(i)n your life too, or you're a narcisitic despot in dire need of a public execution.

W-a-a-ahhh. Nobody wantsta read or respond to my bit. My feewings are hurt...

Damn Canadian! :p

And therefore it is much harder to define where it ends. And imo Bush and FOX are pushing very hard towards that end.

:rolleyes:

At least we have legitimate, honest, unbiased stations like CNN and MSNBC to report the real news.

W-a-a-ahhh. Nobody wantsta read or respond to my bit. My feewings are hurt...

I'm sorry, dirty canuck. I was busy, something a canuck would not understand. I'll look at it. (sarcasm, obviously) :D

I disagree. I'm a big fan of definitions remaining static, and it annoys me when words slowly come to mean different things: for instance, "gay." It's a matter of personal opinion. If this is not an opinion you share, then I would refer you to my point that naming it something else pisses fewer people off.
You're talking about definitions--not me. I'm talking about social conventions, and try as you might to keep them from changing, you'll never succeed. It's like trying to sweep back the tide.

And I'll tell you something--I used to get upset in these kinds of debates, but I don't anymore. You know why? Because people are becoming more accepting of same-sex relationships. The poll numbers don't lie--the younger the demographic, the more accepting of same-sex relationships they are. The only group still adamantly opposed to them are the group over 55 years old. Everyone else is either split or in favor of them. So we're winning, and sooner or later, same sex couples will be as accepted as hetero couples are, and we'll all be using the same terminology.

What the heck is up? I'm not even talking about how terrible their ideas are--have they completely abandoned the people they're suppose to represent?

They were elected, no? Seems simple to me, just don't vote for them next cycle and throw some people up there who'll repeal those bills.

Well, Brian, the wonderful thing about a democracy is that laws aren't written in stone - and given that the population of any given state, nation, municipality, or even a housing co-operative is in flux, with people moving in and people moving out, not to mention people passing away, these things need to examined and re-examined as the needs, wants and desires of these populations in flux, evolve and change over time.

When I moved into my housing co-op, there was a battle royale raging regarding changing the co-op bylaws regarding pets. The first Annual General Meeting was a virtual bloodbath, with one camp steadfastly refusing to amend the bylaw to allow pet dogs, with the other camp demanding our bylaws be updated to reflect municipal bylaws pertaining to housing in the private sector - hence, allowing people to own dogs if they so choose. One fellow stood up and declared that this issue had been 'dealt with' two years previously. And I, feeling nervous as Hell, stood up and countered by saying that while the issue may have been 'dealt with' some time ago, that the transitory nature of urban living, i.e. a population in flux, made it all the more relevant to consult regularly with the co-op membership where bylaws are concerned - apart from there being an obvious need to update bylaws so as to keep up with actual municipal law. The bylaws of our co-op aren't etched in marble - they need to live, breathe and remain relevant, otherwise there's no point in having bylaws.

The same is true with any level of democratic authority - nothing is so permanent that it can't be re-examined, and, if found wanting, amended or disposed of in order to reflect the needs of living, breathing populations in flux. I hardly think it makes any sense to labour under the apprehension that all people living today must live their lives by arcane, unchanged rules set forth in a different era, by people long dead.

Does this not seem reasonable?

What am I supposed to argue with? This is probably the only thing I have ever agreed with you on. However, I do think five years is a tad bit early to revisit an issue when no drastic changes have occurred in the political composition of the population in question. Seems like a waste of time and money, and seems to be more of an attempt to badger the opposition into giving in, rather than an attempt to legitimately revisit the issue. But I agree with the general point of your post.

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

So, mister freelance hypocrite, what exactly gives you the right to decide what I do with my own life? Or to use your "selfish neighbour" bit:

If you're not part of my religious community, what right do you think you have to dictate to my religious community who they can and cannot perform certain rituals for?

If something indeed does give you that right, then your argument is void. Because either I have a right to ru(i)n your life too, or you're a narcisitic despot in dire need of a public execution.


oh goody another quote fight,


first, you quoted my sarcasm and act as if it were fact, the lesson part, was a joke, somewhat


and i do have annoying neighbors, they always harrass me to change my property to how they see fit, they never succeed of course, but its an example,


and your calling me a hypocrite, for what?, first of all your religious example made little sense to me, so please telll me to what part of my text it was reffering, and at what point in my post did i try to dictate to you what you can or cant do? i simply stated that people who want that will push till they get it, regardless of what others think, that is a fact, whether people like it or not they push the agenda till they get it, i stated my opinion, do you have a problem with this? if so then you are the hypocrite in suggesting that i cannot force you to or not to do anything then suggest that my opinion needs to be executed, then in turn yours does as well based on your own statement, because you are trying to force me to havbe no opinion.



in short, dont put your foot in your mouth ill just shove it in farther

Not really. People say things that aren't logically or factually true all the time when they feel they are being treated unfairly.

having equal rights isn't mathematics what is true for you might not hold true for everyone. everyone has the right to persue happiness but heterosexual couples have the right to get married and homosexual couples don't. so they would argue that they don't have the same rights altough they actually do have the same rights because they do have the right to marry someone of the other sex.

You're talking about definitions--not me. I'm talking about social conventions, and try as you might to keep them from changing, you'll never succeed. It's like trying to sweep back the tide.

The sad thing is, you're probably right. That doesn't mean I have to agree that it is a good thing, nor does it mean that I can't try to convince a few people that a new definition would be better for more people. It's not like I'm off picketing and filling your TV screen with my rant.

and your calling me a hypocrite, for whatI'll call you a hypocrite if only 'cause you haven't left yet. You lying hound, you.

Since California's "domestic partners" have all the state rights of married partners, what rights are being denied?

NONE!!! The institution of marriage is grounded in birthright recognition and religion. When gay couples are granted equal rights as "married" couples with "domestic partners" laws, the entire argument is based on semantics and with the intent of weakening organized religion.

having equal rights isn't mathematics what is true for you might not hold true for everyone. everyone has the right to persue happiness but heterosexual couples have the right to get married and homosexual couples don't. so they would argue that they don't have the same rights altough they actually do have the same rights because they do have the right to marry someone of the other sex.

Ummm, did you just reword what I said, agree with me, and make it seem like you were arguing a different point? Because it sure seemed like it, and if so, it was a damn good job.

This is probably the only thing I have ever agreed with you on. I dunno, is it? I don't know whether that's a good thing or not...

I'll call you a hypocrite if only 'cause you haven't left yet. You lying hound, you.

ah yes, donest thta just bite your ass when someone says they are leaving and then dont? its fantastically ironic and thats why i love it so





dont call me a liar, i have a right to change my mind, oh wait no, according to you i have no rights as a human being, im jsut that ass who showed up and was gonna leave, then decided to stay


go get your bottle and blankey and cry about it jr.

NONE!!! The institution of marriage is grounded in birthright recognition and religion. When gay couples are granted equal rights as "married" couples with "domestic partners" laws, the entire argument is based on semantics and with the intent of weakening organized religion.
You're right!! It's just a lame attempt at forcing some recognised religions not to perform ceremonies in the way they want. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Get the state out of marriages, and let the religious institutions decide who they want to marry.

Ummm, did you just reword what I said, agree with me, and make it seem like you were arguing a different point? Because it sure seemed like it, and if so, it was a damn good job.

Actually I don't disagree with you as far as the fact that the law here grants the same rights to all. I'm saying that the law has different implications for people with a different sexual preference. wich makes life for same sex couples more difficult and it makes gay people feel discriminated.

ah yes, donest thta just bite your ass when someone says they are leaving and then dont? its fantastically ironic and thats why i love it soNo,I prefer having my ass bitten by one of my sexual partners. It's fantastically erotic and that's why I love it so. Thanks anyway.
dont call me a liar, i have a right to change my mind, oh wait no, according to you i have no rights as a human being, im jsut that ass who showed up and was gonna leave, then decided to stayBut... you lied. That makes you a liar. Look it up. Interesting self-deprecatory wit you're employing, by the way. Hope you don't turn 'round and start ascribing this 'ass' business to anyone other than yourself.
go get your bottle and blankey and cry about it jr.Ahh. The almost obligatory tail-end bit of abuse that fails utterly to impact upon me. Which bottle should it be then? The Rum or the Scotch? I'm afraid I don't have a blanket on hand, will an afghan do? It's quite decorative...

Oh, and you might need to re-think the 'junior' throwaway. I'll be 36 next week...

Lafier']but do we not ELECT our government officials? Do we not cast our VOTE when our Government asks? isn't that a Democratic process?
and where does it state that the will of the majority shall be overturned by the will of the minority.

but wasn't it voted upon in congress and by the people to make the changes in the Constitution to give blacks their rights? wasn't it put to vote to give women their rights? wasn't it put to vote to remove segregation?

They established the Supreme Court specifically to prevent tyranny by the majority. Otherwise by electing a new congress, the majority could deny others rights.

Oh, and they didn't vote to allow interracial marriage. The supreme court required the states to honor it because to do otherwise violates the 14th amendment. They also outlawed 'seperate but equal' which you've endorsed. The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you, AGAIN.

. In any case minority rights situations are a matter of constitutionality and thus should be being dealt with by the court system, not the legislative branch.
That's very much untrue. The only reason the courts should have to get involved is when the legislature is failing in its job to abide by the constitution. If the courts were expected to enforce constitutional issues on their own, we would be in serious trouble. We are certainly headed in that direction.

Actually I don't disagree with you as far as the fact that the law here grants the same rights to all. I'm saying that the law has different implications for people with a different sexual preference. wich makes life for same sex couples more difficult and it makes gay people feel discriminated.

And I can understand that, to an extent. What I don't understand is why they would feel discriminated against if they had the same rights and wed under a different title. What would be so wrong with that, aside from the fact that they would piss off the religious?

first, you quoted my sarcasm and act as if it were fact, the lesson part, was a joke, somewhat
Sorry. Sarcasm can be a bitch to get across on a forum. I didn't get it.
and your calling me a hypocrite, for what?
Because of the bit below. I'll clarify.
and i do have annoying neighbors, they always harrass me to change my property to how they see fit, they never succeed of course, but its an example,
So when people tell you what you can & cannot do with & on your own property, you think they're annoying and ignore them?

But when a couple of gays do the same, they should obey you?

That's hypocrisy, and thus I called you a hypocrite. Perhaps you should explain how your position isn't hypocrisy if you wish me to retract the comment.
first of all your religious example made little sense to me, so please telll me to what part of my text it was reffering, and at what point in my post did i try to dictate to you what you can or cant do?
Ignore it. You provided a far better analogy above.
i simply stated that people who want that will push till they get it, regardless of what others think, that is a fact, whether people like it or not they push the agenda till they get it, i stated my opinion, do you have a problem with this? if so then you are the hypocrite in suggesting that i cannot force you to or not to do anything then suggest that my opinion needs to be executed, then in turn yours does as well based on your own statement, because you are trying to force me to havbe no opinion.
You have every right to your opinions, whatever they may be. You don't have the right to force them on others against their will. That's what despots do, why they're universally hated, and why people execute them when they can get away with it.
in short, dont put your foot in your mouth ill just shove it in farther
Normally I'd love to see you try, but it took me 5 minutes to decipher the last part of your post. So don't be suprised if I skip any future ones.

And I can understand that, to an extent. What I don't understand is why they would feel discriminated against if they had the same rights and wed under a different title. What would be so wrong with that, aside from the fact that they would piss off the religious?

You know what I think something like that was proposed already with another issue. What if we just seperate all the black kids from the white kids and put them in different but equal schools? How did that one work out?

And I can understand that, to an extent. What I don't understand is why they would feel discriminated against

I don't know what they would feel discriminated against, I'm not a feelings expert it just seems they do.


if they had the same rights and wed under a different title. What would be so wrong with that, aside from the fact that they would piss off the religious?

Nothing realy actually pissing off the religious isn't that wrong either (well maybe I'm being overly atheistic right now) but why give it a different name if the implications are the same?

and from this point we probably could go on like this forever. But it's 03.49 in this part of the world and I have a course in modeling and simulation in about nine hours from now.

And I can understand that, to an extent. What I don't understand is why they would feel discriminated against if they had the same rights and wed under a different title. What would be so wrong with that, aside from the fact that they would piss off the religious?
It's the same as saying, "We'll let black people have 'civil unions,' and they can have all the same legal rights as white marriages, but they just can't call them MARRIAGES because that's the white people's word."

Speaking of making stuff up.

What kind of a lawyer are you?

After reading the Cat-Tribe for awhile; there is a noticible difference in arguing styles.

BTW: Prove that he is making stuff up......

I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would have this much trouble with writing a convincing argument. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would be unaware of the 'seperate but equal' rulings, the right to marriage rulings and the interacial marriage rulings by the Supreme Court. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would be unaware that his arguments defy legal precedent and almost directly emulate the losers in each of those cases. Mostly, I just find it hard to believe he actually has any knowledge of law whatsoever.

That's very much untrue. The only reason the courts should have to get involved is when the legislature is failing in its job to abide by the constitution. If the courts were expected to enforce constitutional issues on their own, we would be in serious trouble. We are certainly headed in that direction.

The legislature does not have jurisdiction on marriage so only the Supreme Court can enforce the fact that gay marriage bans violate the US Constitution. That is the job of the SCOTUS.

Oh, and they didn't vote to allow interracial marriage. The supreme court required the states to honor it because to do otherwise violates the 14th amendment. They also outlawed 'seperate but equal' which you've endorsed. The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you, AGAIN.??? Never said anything about 'Seperate but Equal' in this thread... :confused:

You know what I think something like that was proposed already with another issue. What if we just seperate all the black kids from the white kids and put them in different but equal schools? How did that one work out?

But last time I checked, "black" isn't a birth or developmental defect.

And I can understand that, to an extent. What I don't understand is why they would feel discriminated against if they had the same rights and wed under a different title. What would be so wrong with that, aside from the fact that they would piss off the religious?

It would be a violation of a Supreme Court ruling that says that 'Seperate but Equal' is not equal and is a violation of the US Constitution (14th Amendment).

NONE!!! The institution of marriage is grounded in birthright recognition and religion. When gay couples are granted equal rights as "married" couples with "domestic partners" laws, the entire argument is based on semantics and with the intent of weakening organized religion.
Newsflash for those who don't like reading history: marriage was around before any of the current organized religions. Marriage does not belong to religion. If you think organized religion will be "weakened" by people pointing out that yes, even organized religion must share its toys with the other children, then why the hell would you want to save it anyhow?

But last time I checked, "black" isn't a birth or developmental defect.

And as soon as you show that it isn't genetic like being black is then you might have an argument. Unfortunately for you, the evidence tends to disagree with you.

But last time I checked, "black" isn't a birth or developmental defect.
Neither is homosexuality. What's your point?

But last time I checked, "black" isn't a birth or developmental defect.
Nor is homosexuality ;)

But considering how many more violent psychos are heteros, perhaps you could argue that heterosexuality is a birth defect or mental disorder.

And as soon as you show that it isn't genetic like being black is then you might have an argument. Unfortunately for you, the evidence tends to disagree with you.
I wonder when the 'phobes will start suggesting we use leeches to cure "The Gay"? That seems to be about the point at which their medical advancement ended...

You know what I think something like that was proposed already with another issue. What if we just seperate all the black kids from the white kids and put them in different but equal schools? How did that one work out?

The difference being that while blacks were being separated and discriminated against despite the Constitution, homosexuals aren't actually being discriminated against, nor would granting their union a different title be separating them. They would still have the option to be wed in either manner. They would choose to be wed under the new option. Blacks did not have the option when we tried to make them separately equal - not to mention the fact that they weren't actually treated in an equal manner.

It's the same as saying, "We'll let black people have 'civil unions,' and they can have all the same legal rights as white marriages, but they just can't call them MARRIAGES because that's the white people's word."

Wrong, because they're doing the same thing as the white people but under a different word. Gays are doing something different than straight people, so giving them a different word is perfectly reasonable, so long as the benefits of either option are the same.

Wrong, because they're doing the same thing as the white people but under a different word. Gays are doing something different than straight people, so giving them a different word is perfectly reasonable, so long as the benefits of either option are the same.
Black people are not the same as white people. They aren't inserting a white penis into a white vagina to make white babies. Therefore, they aren't doing the same thing, and they shouldn't get to use our white word.

The only way you can claim gay marriages "aren't doing the same thing" as straight marriages is if you decide to make marriage all about sticking a penis into a vagina. Because that's pretty much the only thing a gay couple isn't going to do. They love, honor, and cherish. They make families, rear children, build homes together, and live as partners in life. If you want to say that sticking a cock into a **** is the defining quality of your marriage then that's your business, but I will thank you to not degrade the concept of marriage by forcing everybody else to become as sex-obsessed as homophobe subculture.

The difference being that while blacks were being separated and discriminated against despite the Constitution, homosexuals aren't actually being discriminated against, nor would granting their union a different title be separating them. They would still have the option to be wed in either manner. They would choose to be wed under the new option. Blacks did not have the option when we tried to make them separately equal - not to mention the fact that they weren't actually treated in an equal manner.
We already gave them another seperate category for their relationships and look how that worked out. Really what is so increadibly groundbreaking about letting the government recognize homosexual couples as married? Do you think suddenly the term marriage will disapear. And also marriage has been declining for a long time in this country. Anyone who says its a sacred institution need only look at married by america to see how sacred it is.



Wrong, because they're doing the same thing as the white people but under a different word. Gays are doing something different than straight people, so giving them a different word is perfectly reasonable, so long as the benefits of either option are the same.
How are they different?

Lafier']??? Never said anything about 'Seperate but Equal' in this thread... :confused:

Yeah, I mixed you with another poster. You didn't endorse it.

However, the SCOTUS was responsible for ending segregation ('Seperate but Equal').

So many people on NationStates blindly accept gay marriages. Why? Who knows. They probably support adults marrying children as well, since children can 'love' too.
Hey, while we're at it, why can't a man and a horse marry? They can love each other.

Seriously, all these leftist pro-gay people are grazy. Even when the argument of far-left vs. far-right comes up (aka, Stalin vs Hitler), far-left is worse. Hitler may have killed many Jews, but Stalin was responsible for more deaths. Thus proving that liberals are evil.

;) If you read all that and are angry, tough. I can sleep easy knowing that(outside America's little brother, Canada) gays won't marry. Maybe in a few crazy, soon-to-be-pedophile states, but thats it.
HURRAH for sanity!

And feel free to reply to anything I said, and to tear apart each bit; I don't care. If you bother to even reply to what I said, thats means I've made you angry, and we right-wing O'Reilly fans love to do that. Letting us know we've done it makes us feel better.

Gays-> :fluffle: :mp5: <-O'Reilly

It would be a violation of a Supreme Court ruling that says that 'Seperate but Equal' is not equal and is a violation of the US Constitution (14th Amendment).

I disagree, because the basis for the Supreme Court ruling on the issue of rights being separate but equal was the practical inequality. Also, gay people in this scenario are not being separated, but are, more accurately, separating themselves. Being wed under an option that allowed for same-sex marriage would be the choice of the homosexual individual in question.

So many people on NationStates blindly accept gay marriages. Why? Who knows. They probably support adults marrying children as well, since children can 'love' too.
Hey, while we're at it, why can't a man and a horse marry? They can love each other.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Man-on-dog, man-on-blender, blah blah blah.

50 years ago, you would have been telling us that letting a negro marry a white woman was like letting dogs marry cats. Get some new material.

Can a child consent to sex? Can a child enter a legally binding contract on its own? Can a horse, or a dog, or a blender?

Now, can a gay adult? Hmm, or maybe that's what pisses you off...that gay people can do things. That they CAN enter contracts, hold jobs, rear children, pay taxes, drive cars, and fall in love, just like "normal" people. That's what pisses the racists off, after all, and you folk really do have so much in common.

The difference being that while blacks were being separated and discriminated against despite the Constitution, homosexuals aren't actually being discriminated against, nor would granting their union a different title be separating them. They would still have the option to be wed in either manner. They would choose to be wed under the new option. Blacks did not have the option when we tried to make them separately equal - not to mention the fact that they weren't actually treated in an equal manner.

The court did not rule that if it were actually an equal manner it would be legal. They said that to offer seperate rights to different groups of people CANNOT be equal because the seperation is in and of itself unequal. You cannot create a seperate institution for same-sex couples because it woulf violate both the verbiage and the spirit of the ruling.


Wrong, because they're doing the same thing as the white people but under a different word. Gays are doing something different than straight people, so giving them a different word is perfectly reasonable, so long as the benefits of either option are the same.
It is not different. The fourteenth amendment says that you cannot deny a right based on a protected class. This means that if a man can marry a woman a woman must also be permitted to marry a woman or you are descriminating by sex, a clear violation of the amendment. Rights are not granted couples they are granted to individuals.

So many people on NationStates blindly accept gay marriages. Why? Who knows. They probably support adults marrying children as well, since children can 'love' too.
Hey, while we're at it, why can't a man and a horse marry? They can love each other.
Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Show me where kids and animals fit into consenting adults.

Seriously, all these leftist pro-gay people are grazy. Even when the argument of far-left vs. far-right comes up (aka, Stalin vs Hitler), far-left is worse. Hitler may have killed many Jews, but Stalin was responsible for more deaths. Thus proving that liberals are evil.
I think we are all alittle grazy but thats just me. :rolleyes:

;) If you read all that and are angry, tough. I can sleep easy knowing that(outside America's little brother, Canada) gays won't marry. Maybe in a few crazy, soon-to-be-pedophile states, but thats it.
HURRAH for sanity!
Oh boy I guess you didn't get the memo. Other states like Spain and Sweden let gays marry. Opps

Correct, because those restrictions are illegal under the federal constitution. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is your constitutional right here. Just because a right is not included in the constitution, we are not to assume that the right is in the hands of the government.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Thanks to Wikipedia for that quote.

It is not different. The fourteenth amendment says that you cannot deny a right based on a protected class. This means that if a man can marry a woman a woman must also be permitted to marry a woman or you are descriminating by sex, a clear violation of the amendment. Rights are not granted couples they are granted to individuals.
Well phrased. It's hard to put these things in clear language, because legalese is such a pain in the butt. Good job.

We already gave them another seperate category for their relationships and look how that worked out. Really what is so increadibly groundbreaking about letting the government recognize homosexual couples as married? Do you think suddenly the term marriage will disapear. And also marriage has been declining for a long time in this country. Anyone who says its a sacred institution need only look at married by america to see how sacred it is.

Don't make shit up, I never said or implied anything remotely like this. It's not groundbreaking, it's just pissing people off, and isn't worth the time and money being spent on it when the situation could be solved so easily with compromise. The homosexual minority must meet the religious minority half-way, as the latter has seniority and the former is pushing for more rights for all, rather than equal ones.

How are they different?

One is marrying the opposite sex, one is marrying the same sex.

I disagree, because the basis for the Supreme Court ruling on the issue of rights being separate but equal was the practical inequality. Also, gay people in this scenario are not being separated, but are, more accurately, separating themselves. Being wed under an option that allowed for same-sex marriage would be the choice of the homosexual individual in question.

False. They said that 'Seperate but Equal' is not equal by it's very nature, not by practice. That was the point. Please go and read the decision.

They are seperating themselves? Really? So then you don't mind if they join in the instutitution of marriage. It is once again the majority trying to give keep the minority out of their institution claiming they have a seperate but equal institution. The law has already established this as unconstitutional on its face.

I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would have this much trouble with writing a convincing argument.

I suspect that no one alive, lawyer or otherwise, is going to convince you that homosexuals marriages, if they could exist, would pervert that institution.


I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would be unaware of the 'seperate but equal' rulings, the right to marriage rulings and the interacial marriage rulings by the Supreme Court.

So would I.




OH! lol :) Um, why wouldn't I know the case law on those things? I even discussed the right to marry in an earlier post in this thread?

I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would be unaware that his arguments defy legal precedent

Um, well there's no legal precedent that says that homosexuals have a right to enter into same-sex marriages... so...


and almost directly emulate the losers in each of those cases.

I see? Again, you're talking about stuff that hasn't happened.

Mostly, I just find it hard to believe he actually has any knowledge of law whatsoever.

Well, I don't care :)

This is your constitutional right here. Just because a right is not included in the constitution, we are not to assume that the right is in the hands of the government.



Thanks to Wikipedia for that quote.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of that clause, as applied.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of that clause, as applied.

It's okay. The Supreme Court supports our interpretation of the US Constitution. Case law supports it. No one really needs your support.

The court did not rule that if it were actually an equal manner it would be legal. They said that to offer seperate rights to different groups of people CANNOT be equal because the seperation is in and of itself unequal. You cannot create a seperate institution for same-sex couples because it woulf violate both the verbiage and the spirit of the ruling.

But different groups of people are not being offered separate rights, here. Read for a second before you reply. We've argued this for three pages, where have you been? Homosexuals have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the opposite sex as anyone else. They have no fewer rights, they are not being given equal rights in allowing them to wed, they are being given more rights - along with everyone else.

It is not different. The fourteenth amendment says that you cannot deny a right based on a protected class. This means that if a man can marry a woman a woman must also be permitted to marry a woman or you are descriminating by sex, a clear violation of the amendment. Rights are not granted couples they are granted to individuals.

I disagree. It means that if a man can marry a woman, or marry a person of the opposite sex, a woman must also be permitted to marry a man, a member of the opposite sex.

Don't make shit up, I never said or implied anything remotely like this. It's not groundbreaking, it's just pissing people off, and isn't worth the time and money being spent on it when the situation could be solved so easily with compromise. The homosexual minority must meet the religious minority half-way, as the latter has seniority and the former is pushing for more rights for all, rather than equal ones.
How was I making shit up. I asked you a question I never said that you have been saying this or that. So next time you decide to get hostile read the post. The homosexual minority must meet the religious minority stuff is bullshit plain and simple. No one said blacks had to meet half way with the racists. No one said that women had to meet half way with the men who wanted them to stay in the kitchen. And seniority means jack shit. Just because you've been here longer does not garuntee you any special privledges. Also how are they pushing for more rights? I thought all they wanted was to have the same rights as heterosexual couples hence only wanting equal rights.



One is marrying the opposite sex, one is marrying the same sex.
So. They are still 2 individuals who love eachother, who will live together, who could adopt or through artificial means have children. I mean come on this is the same type of arguement as blacks cant marry whites because they are of a different skin color.

But different groups of people are not being offered separate rights, here. Read for a second before you reply. We've argued this for three pages, where have you been? Homosexuals have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the opposite sex as anyone else. They have no fewer rights, they are not being given equal rights in allowing them to wed, they are being given more rights - along with everyone else.

You cannot qualify by sex. I already pointed that out. This is exactly how they tried to qualify marriage relating to interracial marriage. It was struck down by the court. The fourteenth amendment says that the race or sex (both protected classes) of either partner cannot be defined or it is a violation.

"Homosexuals have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the opposite sex"

"Blacks have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the same race"

The SCOTUS has already struck down this argument. You can look up the ruling if you like. It pretty clearly can be applied equally to Same-sex marriages.

I disagree. It means that if a man can marry a woman, or marry a person of the opposite sex, a woman must also be permitted to marry a man, a member of the opposite sex.
You can disagree all you like. Again rights are granted to individuals and not couples. You cannot define the sex or race of either member of the couple or you violate the fourteenth amendment. Again, please read the decision. Perhaps then you can try to make arguments that have not already been struck down by SCOTUS.

How was I making shit up. I asked you a question I never said that you have been saying this or that. So next time you decide to get hostile read the post.

I did read the post. By questioning me on positions that you knew I did not hold, you implied that they were my sentiments, and prompted me to defend them as if they were mine.

The homosexual minority must meet the religious minority stuff is bullshit plain and simple. No one said blacks had to meet half way with the racists. No one said that women had to meet half way with the men who wanted them to stay in the kitchen. And seniority means jack shit. Just because you've been here longer does not garuntee you any special privledges.

My mention of the seniority of the religious minority simply points out that they have defined the word as such for years, and to alter its meaning when there is no question of unequal rights is unfair to them, and serves only to cause more tension between the two groups. The difference with your examples is that rights were unequal at the time rights were being pursued.

Also how are they pushing for more rights? I thought all they wanted was to have the same rights as heterosexual couples hence only wanting equal rights.

Because homosexuals want to be able to enter into marriage with the same sex, something that no one is allowed to do, be they gay or straight. Homosexuals currently have just as much right to wed a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. No rights are being withheld. They are, however, demanding more, at the expense of a time-honored definition and the frustration of another minority, and so a compromise should be made and is in the best interest of both groups.

So. They are still 2 individuals who love eachother, who will live together, who could adopt or through artificial means have children. I mean come on this is the same type of arguement as blacks cant marry whites because they are of a different skin color.

But the right for two individuals who love each other to be married doesn't exist. It's not a protected piece of legislation. And, no, for the last time, it is not the same as blacks vs. whites. It's completely different. I'm tired of explaining it to you.

Speaking of making stuff up.

What kind of a lawyer are you?

After reading the Cat-Tribe for awhile; there is a noticible difference in arguing styles.

BTW: Prove that he is making stuff up......

You're the guy who said that my brother was selfish for wanting to adopt a young kid instead of an older one. I perceive you as a mean person and I care to minimize my interactions with you. But other people in this thread thought to raise the same question, so I think I'll go ahead and address it.

1. I am a solo practitioner, licensed in California; My background includes personal injury and criminal prosecution, but I am trying to shift my focus toward estate planning. I had the opportunity to handle some constitutional law work during law school, but it comes up very seldomly in practice. I have been in business for myself for just a few months so I've had some time to kill because I'll be building my client base for a while, but things seem to be picking up slowly but surely.

If you can think of a practical way for me to validate my attorney status or demonstrate my legal knowledge without compromising my personal safety, I am glad to do so.

2. I don't know the extent of Cat-Tribe's legal background or what you perceive to be his/her style, but it doesn't matter. It seems like you think that lawyers come out of law school in a cookie-cutter shape or something. If lawyers had the same style of arguments, then why are some lawyers more successful litigators than others?

I dare to say that I would run circles around Cat-Tribe in the courtroom. --No insult to Cat-Tribe's abilities, and not to turn this into a pissing contest. But the only case I've ever taken to trial and lost was because a witness went awol the day of the trial. I don't care who believes that because I'm in here as a hobby, not to impress a bunch of sub-literate 13 year olds :)

3. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. If you care to equate this to the rules of evidence, consider that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff in civil trials, on the prosecution in criminal trials. "the world will end tomorrow. prove me wrong." ridiculous.

Seriously, I'm bored. Can someone make an argument that wasn't struck down fifty years ago or more?

The right to marriage exists per SCOTUS, you know those folks that interpret the US Constitution. That right cannot be abridged based on the limiting protected class of one participant in relation to the other participant, also per SCOTUS. Seperate but Equal was dismissed as unconstitutional not only in practice but in theory. All SCOTUS decisions are available on the internet. Please read these decisions and try, just try, to come up with an argument that wasn't already decided to be unconstitutional. Just a request to make this more interesting for those on my side of the argument. Next we'll be arguing about whether it's legal to own slaves or to deny voting rights to a portion of the adult population based on their race or sex.

It's okay. The Supreme Court supports our interpretation of the US Constitution. Case law supports it. No one really needs your support.

Which is why federal courts have compelled every state to issue marriage licences to same sex couples?

There does not exist a right to same sex marriage under the Federal Consitution. Even the First Dept. in NYS recently said as much. You can make a good faith argument that there should be such a right, but you are declaring victory without having a single ruling in your favor. And until you get that ruling, the people who say there is no right to gay marriage are correct.

It's okay. The Supreme Court supports our interpretation of the US Constitution. Case law supports it. No one really needs your support.

This supports my perception that liberals invent their own reality. I would love to see the case law that supports the notion that homosexuals have a fundamental right to marry each other under the equal protection clause (or other clause, if you care) of the U.S. Constitution.



If you can't support your claim, I'll understand :)

Which is why federal courts have compelled every state to issue marriage licences to same sex couples?

There does not exist a right to same sex marriage under the Federal Consitution. Even the First Dept. in NYS recently said as much. You can make a good faith argument that there should be such a right, but you are declaring victory without having a single ruling in your favor. And until you get that ruling, the people who say there is no right to gay marriage are correct.


Someone who gets it. Thank you.

You cannot qualify by sex. I already pointed that out.

And I disputed it. What's the point of saying this?

This is exactly how they tried to qualify marriage relating to interracial marriage.

No, it isn't.

"Homosexuals have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the opposite sex"

"Blacks have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the same race"

You're comparing a statement based on orientation to a statement based on race. A more accurate statement would have been that blacks have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the opposite sex, or homosexuals have just as much right to marry members of the opposite sex from any race. Either way, the two quotes are made incomparable when properly adjusted.

You can disagree all you like. Again rights are granted to individuals and not couples. You cannot define the sex or race of either member of the couple or you violate the fourteenth amendment. Again, please read the decision. Perhaps then you can try to make arguments that have not already been struck down by SCOTUS.

Exactly. Homosexuals are individuals. Agreed? Good. Individuals may marry members of the opposite sex. No rights are being denied to homosexuals.

What part of No didn't Lincoln understand when he freed the slaves?

What part of No didn't the brave legislators understand when they granted blacks voting rights? When they overthrew Segregation? When the allowed Interracial Marriage?

What part of No didn't they understand when they gave women the vote?

Lesson : the People are not always right. That's why we're a constitutional republic, not a tyrrany by majority.

Which is why federal courts have compelled every state to issue marriage licences to same sex couples?

There does not exist a right to same sex marriage under the Federal Consitution. Even the First Dept. in NYS recently said as much. You can make a good faith argument that there should be such a right, but you are declaring victory without having a single ruling in your favor. And until you get that ruling, the people who say there is no right to gay marriage are correct.

A case has to be brought before them for them to act. It's only a matter of time.

We are declaring victory because relevant case law supports our take on the matter. Yes, case law that says that marriage is an individual right and cannot be amended on the race (protected class) of either participant is relevant or how those races relate to one another (regarding interracial marriage). Sex is also a protected class. It is exactly the same issue.

<Snip>

But the right for two individuals who love each other to be married doesn't exist. It's not a protected piece of legislation. And, no, for the last time, it is not the same as blacks vs. whites. It's completely different. I'm tired of explaining it to you.
This, it seems, is what you built your argument on. I realize you're tired of explaining it, but I just can help ask you about it (especially since I don't think you've explained it at all).
I'm going to assume the following is true:

People marry because they love eachother. While there may be other considerations, love is the motivation.

People have a right to marry. It's a natural extension of their right to persue happiness.

The concept of marriage (in this day & age), is there to help facilitate a loving, stable family unit.

If you consider these true - I do - don't you agree that the basis for your argument serves no logical purpose, and unly serves to undermine the intention of both the concepts of "rights" and "marriage"?

Seriously, I'm bored. Can someone make an argument that wasn't struck down fifty years ago or more?

The right to marriage exists per SCOTUS, you know those folks that interpret the US Constitution. That right cannot be abridged based on the limiting protected class of one participant in relation to the other participant, also per SCOTUS. Seperate but Equal was dismissed as unconstitutional not only in practice but in theory. All SCOTUS decisions are available on the internet. Please read these decisions and try, just try, to come up with an argument that wasn't already decided to be unconstitutional. Just a request to make this more interesting for those on my side of the argument. Next we'll be arguing about whether it's legal to own slaves or to deny voting rights to a portion of the adult population based on their race or sex.

If it's so well settled, perhaps you can explain why of all the federal courts throughout the entire country, the same-sex marriage bans in every state (including mass., where the unconstitutional ruling was ruled to abridge the state constitution) have never been successfully challeged in federal court under the equal protection clause (or any other clause, for that matter)? You're making the argument, but you're neglecting to see that your argument hasn't been substantiated.

Common law dictates that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Neither constitutional law nor case law contradicts this. Sorry, bub :(

A case has to be brought before them for them to act. It's only a matter of time.

We are declaring victory because relevant case law supports our take on the matter. Yes, case law that says that marriage is an individual right and cannot be amended on the race (protected class) of either participant is relevant or how those races relate to one another (regarding interracial marriage). Sex is also a protected class. It is exactly the same issue.

People try and bring the case all the time. Twice in NYS alone same sex marriage licenses have been issued, the State Court system has voided them, and the federal district courts have refused to hear the constitutional issue - saying there is none. So don't pull that.

And if you feel so strongly about it, go on down to federal court tommorow and try and get an injunction ordering your local government to issue a same sex marriage license. It is that easy to initiate. Otherwise, stop claiming this is a right, and the matter has already been decided.

I did read the post. By questioning me on positions that you knew I did not hold, you implied that they were my sentiments, and prompted me to defend them as if they were mine.
I am sorry if you thought those questions were directed at you. They were more of a random rant type question directed at the people who believe that. I probably should have worded it better in that instance.


My mention of the seniority of the religious minority simply points out that they have defined the word as such for years, and to alter its meaning when there is no question of unequal rights is unfair to them, and serves only to cause more tension between the two groups. The difference with your examples is that rights were unequal at the time rights were being pursued.
1. Marriage has been around much longer then religions so to say that they have a sort of ownership of the word is preposterous.
2. Well lets look at what same sex couples that are not married do not have that same sex married couples do.
Without marriage, same sex families are not eligible for 1,138 federal benefits including Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, tax relief and immigration rights. With civil unions, you aren't even covered under federal law to take off work to care for a sick domestic partner.-Uncivil Unions by Wayne Besen
December 7, 2004
This seems to be unequal if you ask me.



Because homosexuals want to be able to enter into marriage with the same sex, something that no one is allowed to do, be they gay or straight. Homosexuals currently have just as much right to wed a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. No rights are being withheld. They are, however, demanding more, at the expense of a time-honored definition and the frustration of another minority, and so a compromise should be made and is in the best interest of both groups.
Thats the whole thing gays are argueing against. Who says they aren't allowed to marry? If a girl can marry a guy why cant a girl marry a girl?



But the right for two individuals who love each other to be married doesn't exist. It's not a protected piece of legislation. And, no, for the last time, it is not the same as blacks vs. whites. It's completely different. I'm tired of explaining it to you.
So if the government today would abolish all marriages and remove all rights associated with them you wouldnt at all say that the government can't do that?

And I disputed it. What's the point of saying this?

You can qualify by sex? Are you even familiar with the fourteenth amendment.

No, it isn't.

You're right. Then they were qualify it by the relationship of the races of the participants. Now it is the relationship of the sexes of the participants. They are both protected classes under the fourteenth amendment. So it's the same.


You're comparing a statement based on orientation to a statement based on race. A more accurate statement would have been that blacks have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the opposite sex, or homosexuals have just as much right to marry members of the opposite sex from any race. Either way, the two quotes are made incomparable when properly adjusted.

This isn't about orientation. Same-sex marriage requires no estimation of the orientation of the individual, only the sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian now. This is not about orientation. This is about sex. Sex is a protected class, exactly as race is.

Exactly. Homosexuals are individuals. Agreed? Good. Individuals may marry members of the opposite sex. No rights are being denied to homosexuals.
You cannot qualify 'opposite sex' or on any protected class. It is equivalent to qualifying 'same race'. You try to make this about orientation, but it's about sex and this is a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

This, it seems, is what you built your argument on. I realize you're tired of explaining it, but I just can help ask you about it (especially since I don't think you've explained it at all).
I'm going to assume the following is true:

People marry because they love eachother. While there may be other considerations, love is the motivation.

People have a right to marry. It's a natural extension of their right to persue happiness.

The concept of marriage (in this day & age), is there to help facilitate a loving, stable family unit.

If you consider these true - I do - don't you agree that the basis for your argument serves no logical purpose, and unly serves to undermine the intention of both the concepts of "rights" and "marriage"?

LOL, oddly enough, I can't really answer this question, because I don't consider these to be true. I'm a very cynical person, and I've never known couple for more than a few visits without quickly learning that at least one of them did not love, but rather lusted for, the other when they were wed, rather than actually finding true love and settling down. I would say that the lattermost event is so incredibly rare that no, I don't think that love is a prerequisite for marriage.

What part of No didn't Lincoln understand when he freed the slaves?

The majority of Americans were opposed to slavery at the time. That's why Lincoln was able to be elected in the first place.

What part of No didn't the brave legislators understand when they granted blacks voting rights?

When they overthrew Segregation? When the allowed Interracial Marriage?

What part of No didn't they understand when they gave women the vote?

You're assuming that all of these actions were unpopular at the time. They weren't. You're making assumptions.

Lesson : the People are not always right.

Amen.

That's why we're a constitutional republic, not a tyrrany by majority.

Oddly enough, I think I agree with you.

But I'm curious how you, as a liberal, feel about the electoral college.

People try and bring the case all the time. Twice in NYS alone same sex marriage licenses have been issued, the State Court system has voided them, and the federal district courts have refused to hear the constitutional issue - saying there is none. So don't pull that.

And if you feel so strongly about it, go on down to federal court tommorow and try and get an injunction ordering your local government to issue a same sex marriage license. It is that easy to initiate. Otherwise, stop claiming this is a right, and the matter has already been decided.

I'm sorry where did you mention the SCOTUS. Oh, you didn't. The federal court contradict the SCOTUS all the time. We both know who wins in those case, don't we?

I'm sure there is already a case that is on it's way to the SCOTUS. The only way to decide differently than what we are saying is to throw out precedent. Legal precedent has already stated that you cannot descriminate in marriage license based on qualifying the protected class status of the participants. If sex is a protect class, just as race is, and it is, then the case is the same. You know this. You just want for it not to be true. There were people that were arguing that interracial marriage would never be allowed, but here we are. It just takes time.

What part of No didn't Lincoln understand when he freed the slaves?

Lesson : the People are not always right. That's why we're a constitutional republic, not a tyrrany by majority.

You just contradicted yourself. A constitutional republic would imply that our duly elected representatives passed a bill banning slavery.
Lincoln's proclamation was not passed with congress's approval, and since the president has no right to interfere in such a manner, it was unconstitutional, and void.
Plus, he only 'freed' slaves in states that left the Union, and basically said that if they came back, they could keep their slaves.
Congress, after Lincoln's death, was what truly and legally ended slavery. While it was a vile institution, it still had to be gotten rid of in the right, constitutional, manner. Lincoln's piece of paper was just proganda.

Why mention Lincoln anyway?
Plus, what if Bush emulated Lincoln? What if he decided that Lincoln 'freeing' the slaves without congress meant that he could interfere in people's lives, and ban same-sex marriages?
Place more faith in Congress(I know, its hard) and less in the Presidents. Don't forget that Lincoln once represented a man trying to get his slave back, and won.

So many people on NationStates blindly accept gay marriages. Why? Who knows. They probably support adults marrying children as well, since children can 'love' too.
Hey, while we're at it, why can't a man and a horse marry? They can love each other.

Seriously, all these leftist pro-gay people are grazy. Even when the argument of far-left vs. far-right comes up (aka, Stalin vs Hitler), far-left is worse. Hitler may have killed many Jews, but Stalin was responsible for more deaths. Thus proving that liberals are evil.

;) If you read all that and are angry, tough. I can sleep easy knowing that(outside America's little brother, Canada) gays won't marry. Maybe in a few crazy, soon-to-be-pedophile states, but thats it.
HURRAH for sanity!

And feel free to reply to anything I said, and to tear apart each bit; I don't care. If you bother to even reply to what I said, thats means I've made you angry, and we right-wing O'Reilly fans love to do that. Letting us know we've done it makes us feel better.

Gays-> :fluffle: :mp5: <-O'Reilly

You can knock it off with the flamebait comments immediately.

"If you bother to even reply to what I said, that means I've made you angry."

So anyone responding to you is automatically upset, and not continuing on with the debate? I suggest you quit it with the hostile attitude immediately. If you're going to debate, do it properly, rather than purposely trying to upset others.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of that clause, as applied.

Do you also disagree with Madison's interpretation?

LOL, oddly enough, I can't really answer this question, because I don't consider these to be true. I'm a very cynical person, and I've never known couple for more than a few visits without quickly learning that at least one of them did not love, but rather lusted for, the other when they were wed, rather than actually finding true love and settling down. I would say that the lattermost event is so incredibly rare that no, I don't think that love is a prerequisite for marriage.
have you ever considered that what you personally define as love isn't relevant to anyone but your potential partner(s)?

You just contradicted yourself. A constitutional republic would imply that our duly elected representatives passed a bill banning slavery.
Lincoln's proclamation was not passed with congress's approval, and since the president has no right to interfere in such a manner, it was unconstitutional, and void.
Plus, he only 'freed' slaves in states that left the Union, and basically said that if they came back, they could keep their slaves.
Congress, after Lincoln's death, was what truly and legally ended slavery. While it was a vile institution, it still had to be gotten rid of in the right, constitutional, manner. Lincoln's piece of paper was just proganda.

Why mention Lincoln anyway?
Plus, what if Bush emulated Lincoln? What if he decided that Lincoln 'freeing' the slaves without congress meant that he could interfere in people's lives, and ban same-sex marriages?
Place more faith in Congress(I know, its hard) and less in the Presidents. Don't forget that Lincoln once represented a man trying to get his slave back, and won.

Fine, I messed up. I should have said What part of no did Congress not understand when they freed the slaves. I went to public, American school, so when I think freed the slaves, I think Lincoln, even though I know that technically that's not true.

And I haven't placed faith in any president in my life. I would have put faith in Carter, Kennedy and FDR, but they were all before my time. Of course nowadays I don't like Congress much either, but I'm not placing faith in Presidents. I just messed up.

If you can think of a practical way for me to validate my attorney status or demonstrate my legal knowledge without compromising my personal safety, I am glad to do so.

Telegram me your bar number and I will gladly verify your license.

You can qualify by sex? Are you even familiar with the fourteenth amendment.

Yes, I am. There are clauses that allow for qualification by sex, for example if it serves to meet a governmental objective. If things like this didn't exist, many more things would not be allowed to happen, e.g. affirmative action, maternal leave, et cetera.

You're right. Then they were qualify it by the relationship of the races of the participants. Now it is the relationship of the sexes of the participants. They are both protected classes under the fourteenth amendment. So it's the same.

But you are comparing unlike statements. You can't logically compare a statement related to race to a statement related to sex, even if said classes are similarly protected.

This isn't about orientation. Same-sex marriage requires no estimation of the orientation of the individual, only the sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian now. This is not about orientation. This is about sex. Sex is a protected class, exactly as race is.

Okay, I perhaps chose the wrong word. The rest of the point, which you ignored, works regardless of whether I introduced it with sexual orientation or not, that being: "A more accurate statement would have been that blacks have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the opposite sex, or homosexuals have just as much right to marry members of the opposite sex from any race. Either way, the two quotes are made incomparable when properly adjusted."

You cannot qualify 'opposite sex' or on any protected class. It is equivalent to qualifying 'same race'. You try to make this about orientation, but it's about sex and this is a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

The "opposite sex" is a matter of sex, as well as of orientation.

Anyway, it's bed time. I've got shit to do tomorrow. Later all.

The majority of Americans were opposed to slavery at the time. That's why Lincoln was able to be elected in the first place.



You're assuming that all of these actions were unpopular at the time. They weren't. You're making assumptions.



Amen.



Oddly enough, I think I agree with you.

But I'm curious how you, as a liberal, feel about the electoral college.

Actually interracial marriage and ending segregation were wildly unpopular at the time. At least as unpopular as gay marriage is today.

I'm sorry where did you mention the SCOTUS. Oh, you didn't. The federal court contradict the SCOTUS all the time. We both know who wins in those case, don't we?

I'm sure there is already a case that is on it's way to the SCOTUS. The only way to decide differently than what we are saying is to throw out precedent. Legal precedent has already stated that you cannot descriminate in marriage license based on qualifying the protected class status of the participants. If sex is a protect class, just as race is, and it is, then the case is the same. You know this. You just want for it not to be true. There were people that were arguing that interracial marriage would never be allowed, but here we are. It just takes time.

Then you appeal the dissmissal. And no, the district courts do not just ignore SCOTUS. When they do they get overturned, by the circuit courts. And in the incredibly unlikely event that a circuit court blatantly ignores black letter law - something I not you are not talking about, but rather vague generalizations based upon analogy rather than fixed precedent - then cert would be granted almost immeadiately.

And as I read your posts, you sure do talk about the equal protection clause, but I am not sure you entirely understand how it works. Not everyone has to be treated equally you know, and sometimes it is even okay to discriminate amongst the protected classes. Moreoever, you also have yet to demonstrate that sexual orientation falls into the same catagory as race, insofar as it should be a protected class. (And just try geting a court to take judicial notice that being gay is not a choice, that is not going to happen).

Frankly, your entire argument is "this is just like loving v. virginia" and "so what if no-one is allowing it, that's because everyone ignores the supreme court". That hardly makes it a recognized right under the federal constitution. The plain fact is, gay people have no right to get married under the federal constitution, and no court has said that they do. Until a court says it they don't have it. Just like african americans didn't have the right to marry white people (or vice versa) until the a court said it. Claiming that it is a right until then is silly. The most you can claim is that it should be a right, or that it ought to be a right. (Which is a reasonable claim).

Telegram me your bar number and I will gladly verify your license.

Not all states use bar numbers. There at least 70,000 attorneys that don't have one.

Not all states use bar numbers. There at least 70,000 attorneys that don't have one.

California does.

California does.

Yes it does. I stand corrected in this instance.

Yes, I am. There are clauses that allow for qualification by sex, for example if it serves to meet a governmental objective. If things like this didn't exist, many more things would not be allowed to happen, e.g. affirmative action, maternal leave, et cetera.

True. None of you have suggested a compelling government interest. Finally, someone has decided to make an argument that hasn't already been shot down by the courts. You can violate the class protection if there is a compelling interest. Would anyone care to argue what this compelling interest is?

But you are comparing unlike statements. You can't logically compare a statement related to race to a statement related to sex, even if said classes are similarly protected.

Why? They saw fit to place them in the same amendment. Perhaps they thought they were comparable.

Okay, I perhaps chose the wrong word. The rest of the point, which you ignored, works regardless of whether I introduced it with sexual orientation or not, that being: "A more accurate statement would have been that blacks have just as much right to marry straight individuals of the opposite sex, or homosexuals have just as much right to marry members of the opposite sex from any race. Either way, the two quotes are made incomparable when properly adjusted."

You can't qualify opposite sex. See above.

The "opposite sex" is a matter of sex, as well as of orientation.
Ha. Wow. You guys make the argument that gays have the same rights as straights that they can marry the opposite sex and then suggest that this limitation is related to orientation. You can't make both arguments. They don't fit. Either you are limiting by orientation, in which case you admit there isn't equal rights, or you are limiting by sex, in which case you are limiting a right based on a protected class without a compelling government interest. Are you allergic to being right? Drop the orientation argument. It's not even as strong as the seperate but equal argument.

Then you appeal the dissmissal. And no, the district courts do not just ignore SCOTUS. When they do they get overturned, by the circuit courts. And in the incredibly unlikely event that a circuit court blatantly ignores black letter law - something I not you are not talking about, but rather vague generalizations based upon analogy rather than fixed precedent - then cert would be granted almost immeadiately.

And as I read your posts, you sure do talk about the equal protection clause, but I am not sure you entirely understand how it works. Not everyone has to be treated equally you know, and sometimes it is even okay to discriminate amongst the protected classes. Moreoever, you also have yet to demonstrate that sexual orientation falls into the same catagory as race, insofar as it should be a protected class. (And just try geting a court to take judicial notice that being gay is not a choice, that is not going to happen).

Frankly, your entire argument is "this is just like loving v. virginia" and "so what if no-one is allowing it, that's because everyone ignores the supreme court". That hardly makes it a recognized right under the federal constitution. The plain fact is, gay people have no right to get married under the federal constitution, and no court has said that they do. Until a court says it they don't have it. Just like african americans didn't have the right to marry white people (or vice versa) until the a court said it. Claiming that it is a right until then is silly. The most you can claim is that it should be a right, or that it ought to be a right. (Which is a reasonable claim).

Yes, the court must apply the precedent which is simply a matter of time. As has been point out, FINALLY, you cannot limit a right based on a protected class without a compelling government interest. Sex and race are both protected classes. That makes Loving an appropriate precedent. Precedent supports it as a right. It merely has yet to reach the SCOTUS. And I'm certain it is being appealed. I'm not defending orientation. This is about the sex of the participants. Gays are permitted to marry so long as their sexes are different. The case is about sex not orientation. It's not difficult to tell the difference.

And the part you left out when you sometimes you are allowed to discriminate is 'there must be a compelling government interest in doing so'. You might want to add that little clause so you can be right. Try it. Being right is fun.

In 2000, California voters supported a statewide ballot initiative to retain the traditional concept of marriage--a union between one man and one woman. That initiative, titled "Proposition 22: Defense of Marriage Act" passed overwhelmingly with 61.4% of voters voting for and 38.6% voting against.
...

What the heck is up? I'm not even talking about how terrible their ideas are--have they completely abandoned the people they're suppose to represent?

I have to say, I agree with you about both the dubious constitutionality of the move and the more than slightly suicidal attitude of the legislators in question, however, I suspect the intent of the law to cause a case to come to court, so that a court would have the option of overturning the ballot initiative.
In that cause, I give the courts of California my full support, Seperate but equal was never equal, and the "will of the people" can take a flying fark at the moon if they think that numbers makes right.

<sarcasm>It would have it's conveniences though, cause then we could just vote to arrest anyone with more than, say 200,000 dollars, and apply their assets to the national debt. Or sterilize everyone on welfare, to control that problem. </sarcasm>

F**K the will of the people.
I'm interested in everyone's rights, not just the rights of the popular.

Yes, the court must apply the precedent which is simply a matter of time. As has been point out, FINALLY, you cannot limit a right based on a protected class without a compelling government interest. Sex and race are both protected classes. That makes Loving an appropriate precedent. Precedent supports it as a right. It merely has yet to reach the SCOTUS. And I'm certain it is being appealed. I'm not defending orientation. This is about the sex of the participants. Gays are permitted to marry so long as their sexes are different. The case is about sex not orientation. It's not difficult to tell the difference.

And the part you left out when you sometimes you are allowed to discriminate is 'there must be a compelling government interest in doing so'. You might want to add that little clause so you can be right. Try it. Being right is fun.

Actually you can restrict for sex at a lower standard, you just have to show an important state interest, not a compeling one. So no, loving is not a completely appropriate precendent, because it does not involve the sex of the participants (it is however, I admit, highly persuasive). Further, the most your sex argument could get you is the right for lesbians to marry, as men are not a protected class.

I am also well aware of the compelling government interest caveat (which in this case as you are arguing for the right for lesbians to get married, is important state interest). However, it may well be that a court decides that there are in fact important state interests that are protected by disallowing this type of marriage.

I think you also need to reread footnote 4.

Further, the most your sex argument could get you is the right for lesbians to marry, as men are not a protected class.



I thought sex/gender/'whatever general term you apply to people who have the same thing between their legs as you do' was a protected class, not just being female.

EDIT: I mean, I know they made gender/sex/whatever a protected class because of the feminist movement/sufferage/etc., but it still applies to both men and women.

Sorry I'm just picking that small part of your post, but, I'm not good with the whole debate thing, nor am I educated enough in the U.S legal history to come up with examples, as you guys have been doing, so, I'm gonna stick with what I know for the minute.

Actually you can restrict for sex at a lower standard, you just have to show an important state interest, not a compeling one. So no, loving is not a completely appropriate precendent, because it does not involve the sex of the participants (it is however, I admit, highly persuasive). Further, the most your sex argument could get you is the right for lesbians to marry, as men are not a protected class.

I am also well aware of the compelling government interest caveat (which in this case as you are arguing for the right for lesbians to get married, is important state interest). However, it may well be that a court decides that there are in fact important state interests that are protected by disallowing this type of marriage.

I think you also need to reread footnote 4.
HA! That's perfect. You don't actual think the equal rights amendment discriminates? The fourteenth amendment has been used to protect white people and men already. When a class is protected it is always protected and a class is like RACE or SEX. It's not a particular race or a particular sex.

Can you show me where it was decided that sex requires an important interest and sex requires a compelling interest? I'm not aware of that case. All I've ever seen is that to infringe upon a right there must be a 'compelling' state interest (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.).

You're the guy who said that my brother was selfish for wanting to adopt a young kid instead of an older one.

Well if you are a lawyer, nomally such a claim would have the post where it was said. I don't recall it as I am all for adoption. Usually my claims of adopting older children revolve about the abortion debate as adoption is the solution to everything and yet there are many kids that are in the system. Fact remains; most people want the cuddily baby. We digress as this has no bearing to the topic at hand.


I perceive you as a mean person and I care to minimize my interactions with you. But other people in this thread thought to raise the same question, so I think I'll go ahead and address it.


You are a Whittier puppet aren't you? That is the same kind of things he would way.


1. I am a solo practitioner, licensed in California; My background includes personal injury and criminal prosecution, but I am trying to shift my focus toward estate planning. I had the opportunity to handle some constitutional law work during law school, but it comes up very seldomly in practice. I have been in business for myself for just a few months so I've had some time to kill because I'll be building my client base for a while, but things seem to be picking up slowly but surely.


See that didn't hurt didn't it.


If you can think of a practical way for me to validate my attorney status or demonstrate my legal knowledge without compromising my personal safety, I am glad to do so.


Compromising your safety? Wow. Sorry to dissapoint you as I am tad busy to be stalking people one the Net.


2. I don't know the extent of Cat-Tribe's legal background or what you perceive to be his/her style, but it doesn't matter. It seems like you think that lawyers come out of law school in a cookie-cutter shape or something. If lawyers had the same style of arguments, then why are some lawyers more successful litigators than others?

I dare to say that I would run circles around Cat-Tribe in the courtroom. --No insult to Cat-Tribe's abilities, and not to turn this into a pissing contest.


Ok serously. Are you Whittier? That sounds like something he would say as well.


But the only case I've ever taken to trial and lost was because a witness went awol the day of the trial. I don't care who believes that because I'm in here as a hobby, not to impress a bunch of sub-literate 13 year olds :)

I am well past 13. :)


3. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. If you care to equate this to the rules of evidence, consider that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff in civil trials, on the prosecution in criminal trials. "the world will end tomorrow. prove me wrong." ridiculous.

I don't know. Anybody else think this sounds like Whittier?

Ahh well. Just a guess I usualy suck at detection of puppets/aliases......

Actually interracial marriage and ending segregation were wildly unpopular at the time. At least as unpopular as gay marriage is today.

Interracial dating/marriage was issue well up to when I was a kid. I remember people staring and pointing at mixed couples.

Not so much an issue today......

HA! That's perfect. You don't actual think the equal rights amendment discriminates? The fourteenth amendment has been used to protect white people and men already. When a class is protected it is always protected and a class is like RACE or SEX. It's not a particular race or a particular sex.

Can you show me where it was decided that sex requires an important interest and sex requires a compelling interest? I'm not aware of that case. All I've ever seen is that to infringe upon a right there must be a 'compelling' state interest (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.).

Micheal M.v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/michaelm.html)


The justification for the statute offered by the State, and accepted by the Supreme Court of California, is that the legislature sought to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies. That finding, of course, is entitled to great deference. We are satisfied not only that the prevention of illegitimate pregnancy is at least one of the "purposes" of the statute, but also that the State has a strong interest in preventing such pregnancy. At the risk of stating the obvious, teenage pregnancies, which have increased dramatically over the last two decades, have significant social, medical, and economic consequences for both the mother and her child, and the State. Of particular concern to the State is that approximately half of all teenage pregnancies end in abortion. And of those children who are born, their illegitimacy makes them likely candidates to become wards of the State. Emphasis mine.

Further.


The question whether a statute is substantially related to its asserted goals is at best an opaque one. It can be plausibly argued that a gender-neutral statute would produce fewer prosecutions than the statute at issue here.

As to using the EPC, to protect white people, if you are talking about Bakke, then that was to do with the civil rights act of 1964 as well, a somewhat different issue than presented here.

And I do think that the protected class system discriminates. Historically this type of jurisprudence comes from a case called Carolene Products (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=304&invol=144), specifically footnote 4.

There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten Amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 , 370 S., 51 S.Ct. 532, 535, 536, 73 A.L.R. 1484; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , 58 S.Ct. 666, decided March 28, 1938.

It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation. On restrictions upon the right to vote, see Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 , 47 S.Ct. 446; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 , 52 S.Ct. 484, 88 A.L. R. 458; on restraints upon the dissemination of information, see Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 , 713-714, 718-720, 722, 51 S.Ct. 625, 630, 632, 633; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 , 56 S.Ct. 444; Lovell v. Griffin, supra; on interferences with political organizations, see Stromberg v. California, supra, 283 U.S. 359, 369 , 51 S.Ct. 532, 535, 73 A.L.R. 1484; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 , 47 S.Ct. 655;

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , 373-378, 47 S.Ct. 641, 647, 649; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 , 57 S.Ct. 732; and see Holmes, J., in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673 , 45 S.Ct. 625; as to prohibition of peaceable assembly, see De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 , 57 S.Ct. 255, 260.

Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468, or national, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 , 43 S.Ct. 625, 29 A.L.R. 1446; Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 , 43 S.Ct. 628; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 , 47 S.Ct. 406, or racial minorities. Nixon v. Herndon, supra; Nixon v. Condon, supra; whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry. Compare McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428; South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177 , 58 S.Ct. 510, decided February 14, 1938, note 2, and cases cited.

Now, I hardly think that you can claim in good faith that men are a discrete and insular minority, and so historically, the answer in that case should be the ballot box.

I don't know. Anybody else think this sounds like Whittier?

Ahh well. Just a guess I usualy suck at detection of puppets/aliases......

The spelling is too good. And he hasn't once talked about his "dreams" or ghosts.

The spelling is too good. And he hasn't once talked about his "dreams" or ghosts.

True. For some reason I just got a vibe that he was.

Oh well in my evilness I offended another person. ;)

Hmmm what does it take to get banned? ;)

No,I prefer having my ass bitten by one of my sexual partners. It's fantastically erotic and that's why I love it so. Thanks anyway.
But... you lied. That makes you a liar. Look it up. Interesting self-deprecatory wit you're employing, by the way. Hope you don't turn 'round and start ascribing this 'ass' business to anyone other than yourself.
Ahh. The almost obligatory tail-end bit of abuse that fails utterly to impact upon me. Which bottle should it be then? The Rum or the Scotch? I'm afraid I don't have a blanket on hand, will an afghan do? It's quite decorative...

Oh, and you might need to re-think the 'junior' throwaway. I'll be 36 next week...


from what i can tell i believe my statement has hit a nerve with you, i dont think your un impacted, i think your trying to play off your anger by acting like im being irrational, also you said one of your partners, are you saying your a manwhore? i assume your male

and if you wanna believe I lied then go ahead, i dont care what you think

as for the bottle your response would only suggest that you might be an alcaholic,

and as for the jr issue, 36? then stop acting like your 15 and wanting to sound older, its embarrassing


also if you cant take crap dont dish it out, i said my mind on this issue, sort of half joking, and you bit, so i bit back

Micheal M.v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/michaelm.html)

Emphasis mine.

Further.



As to using the EPC, to protect white people, if you are talking about Bakke, then that was to do with the civil rights act of 1964 as well, a somewhat different issue than presented here.

And I do think that the protected class system discriminates. Historically this type of jurisprudence comes from a case called Carolene Products (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=304&invol=144), specifically footnote 4.



Now, I hardly think that you can claim in good faith that men are a discrete and insular minority, and so historically, the answer in that case should be the ballot box.

Thanks for the case by the way. I wasn't being sarcastic when I asked for it.

As to the minority issue, how do you explain the Michigan University that was required to stop giving extra points to minorities for admissions under the EPC?

Yes, but when the public denies the minority their rights its the job of the courts, not the legislators, to set things straight. If the California Supreme Court made this decision, that would be another issue altogether.
Whoops. Post count much higher than I thought. Sorry for the late one.

Wrong. The role of the courts, at least in the US system of law, is only to interpret the law, not to make the law (legislative), or even enforce the law (executive, they can make rulings commanding an action be made, but they cannot carry it out, the executive branch must).

This situation is kind of weird. Most states do not have two sources for making laws. California has its legislature, and it has its people, who can make laws by referendum. It seems to me that, when the two are in conflict, the will of the people should prevail.

As to the minority issue, how do you explain the Michigan University that was required to stop giving extra points to minorities for admissions under the EPC?

I'd have to look at it, but there are probably Title VI claims as well, which would change the issue in respect of race being a blanket prohibition on discrimination per se.

And for the record, I am not saying that there is not a lot of persuasive case history that indicates that same sex marriage ought to be recognized. Indeed, I think that there are very good arguments that militate for that outcome. However, I don't think it is completely cut and dry for several reasons; not the least of which is that it is only an analogous situation to that in Loving v. Virgnia, not completely identical, and there are certainly questions in respect of to what extent sex (and also sexual orientation) are to undergo judicial scrutiny. So to claim it as a constitutional right at the present is premature. (Regardless of whether or not you consider it a fundamental right).

In that respect it's a bit like gun control.

I'd have to look at it, but there are probably Title VI claims as well, which would change the issue in respect of race being a blanket prohibition on discrimination per se.

And for the record, I am not saying that there is not a lot of persuasive case history that indicates that same sex marriage ought to be recognized. Indeed, I think that there are very good arguments that militate for that outcome. However, I don't think it is completely cut and dry for several reasons; not the least of which is that it is only an analogous situation to that in Loving v. Virgnia, not completely identical, and there are certainly questions in respect of to what extent sex (and also sexual orientation) are to undergo judicial scrutiny. So to claim it as a constitutional right at the present is premature. (Regardless of whether or not you consider it a fundamental right).

In that respect it's a bit like gun control.
I'm probably out of my depth with you lawyer types, but to say it's like gun control - "So to claim it as a constitutional right at the present is probably premature" - seems wrong. Second Amendment, specifically mentioned, unlike sex or sexual orientation.

Micheal M.v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/michaelm.html)

Emphasis mine.

Further.



As to using the EPC, to protect white people, if you are talking about Bakke, then that was to do with the civil rights act of 1964 as well, a somewhat different issue than presented here.

And I do think that the protected class system discriminates. Historically this type of jurisprudence comes from a case called Carolene Products (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=304&invol=144), specifically footnote 4.



Now, I hardly think that you can claim in good faith that men are a discrete and insular minority, and so historically, the answer in that case should be the ballot box.

To the related case. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Show me where they say the EPC only applies to minorities. It seems like they say making laws that limit marriage by race (a protected class) are unconstitutional because they violate the EPC. The law they were attacking was specifically written to limit interaction with white people. Minorities in that case had more rights than white people (could intermarry as they liked).

Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

Is it such a stretch to think they would equally say they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose... which makes the type of a person's genetalia the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."?

I'm probably out of my depth with you lawyer types, but to say it's like gun control - "So to claim it as a constitutional right at the present is probably premature" - seems wrong. Second Amendment, specifically mentioned, unlike sex or sexual orientation.

I meant more the collective right model v. the individual type model.

Judicially, the collective right folks are in the lead. All the circuits seem to have adopted the view that the second amendment protects the collective model, and not an individual right*. (Just ask Cat-Tribe, he will go into in excruciating detail). However, the Supreme Court has never specifically addressed this issue. (Whatever people tell you about Miller), and there is a large groundswell of very persuasive analysis which indicates that, indeed, the second amendment protects an individual right.

Both sides claim they have the right of it. All I can tell you, as it stands today, there is no recognized individual right to carry/own a gun under the US constitution, however people will tell you that there is, and get very angry when you point out that despite all the good arguments that it does protect an individual right, it has yet to be recognized by any court. That's what I meant about it being like gun control. There is lots of good arguments for; however, it's a case of close, but no cigar (yet!)

(In the interests of full disclosure I support the individual rights interpretation).

*Some dicta in the Fifth indicates a move towards the individual rights model however.

/hijack.

I meant more the collective right model v. the individual type model.

Judicially, the collective right folks are in the lead. All the circuits seem to have adopted the view that the second amendment protects the collective model, and not an individual right*. (Just ask Cat-Tribe, he will go into in excruciating detail). However, the Supreme Court has never specifically addressed this issue. (Whatever people tell you about Miller), and there is a large groundswell of very persuasive analysis which indicates that, indeed, the second amendment protects an individual right.

Both sides claim they have the right of it. All I can tell you, as it stands today, there is no recognized individual right to carry/own a gun under the US constitution, however people will tell you that there is, and get very angry when you point out that despite all the good arguments that it does protect an individual right, it has yet to be recognized by any court. That's what I meant about it being like gun control. There is lots of good arguments for; however, it's a case of close, but no cigar (yet!)

(In the interests of full disclosure I support the individual rights interpretation).

*Some dicta in the Fifth indicates a move towards the individual rights model however.

/hijack.
By collective, I assume you are referring to the interpretation of whether the right applies to the militia, or to an individual. I remember an NPR story a couple of years back that people were in an uproar because the Bush Justice Department was taking the stance of the right for the individual, rather than the militia.
Have the courts always interpreted the amendment as a collective right, or is that a 20th century phenomenon during the Warren or Marshall courts?

To the related case. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Show me where they say the EPC only applies to minorities. It seems like they say making laws that limit marriage by race (a protected class) are unconstitutional because they violate the EPC. The law they were attacking was specifically written to limit interaction with white people. Minorities in that case had more rights than white people (could intermarry as they liked).

Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

Is it such a stretch to think they would equally say they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose... which makes the type of a person's genetalia the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."?

It's not a huge stretch. Like I said, I think it is persuasive, and SCOTUS may very well end up drawing the same conclusion.

Notwithstanding:

1. Racial classifications are treated differently than classifications based upon sex. (see Micheal M. supra).

2. Unlike Loving, the prohibition against same sex marriages is not facially discriminatory independant of its stated aim. Neither sex can marry the same sex, in contrast to Loving wherein inter-racial marriage was only prohibited with respect to whites. (Thus belying the States position that preservation of racial and ancestral identity was the main impetus for the statute and thus invalid on its very face).

So it's entirely possible that SCOTUS could chicken shit out, and say it is a legislative matter.

By collective, I assume you are referring to the interpretation of whether the right applies to the militia, or to an individual. I remember an NPR story a couple of years back that people were in an uproar because the Bush Justice Department was taking the stance of the right for the individual, rather than the militia.

Yes.

Have the courts always interpreted the amendment as a collective right, or is that a 20th century phenomenon during the Warren or Marshall courts?

I think there are state cases from the 19th century that support the individual rights model. The collective rights model predates Warren though. (Early twentieth century I think).

From my perspective, it's fairly clear from the amendment itself that it protects an individual right. (Assuming you adopt the view that nothing is superfluous in the wording of the constitution, otherwise it would have been written, "The Rights of the Several States to raise and equip a well regulated militia shall not be infringed"). I guess it took some pretty fancy Phildelphia Lawyering to end up where we are. But that's the problem, an overabundence of Philadelphia Lawyers.

In any case, what strikes me most about both issues, is that other countries seem to sort all of this out at the ballot box, whereas here, there is a reliance upon the court system as the venue of first resort for these matters. Probably this is why so few people vote anymore.

Yes.



I think there are state cases from the 19th century that support the individual rights model. The collective rights model predates Warren though. (Early twentieth century I think).

From my perspective, it's fairly clear from the amendment itself that it protects an individual right. (Assuming you adopt the view that nothing is superfluous in the wording of the constitution, otherwise it would have been written, "The Rights of the Several States to raise and equip a well regulated militia shall not be infringed"). I guess it took some pretty fancy Phildelphia Lawyering to end up where we are. But that's the problem, an overabundence of Philadelphia Lawyers.

In any case, what strikes me most about both issues, is that other countries seem to sort all of this out at the ballot box, whereas here, there is a reliance upon the court system as the venue of first resort for these matters. Probably this is why so few people vote anymore.
Agreed.
I believe Roe v Wade should have been settled the same way. I should say for the record, however, that I am anti-abortion.

Agreed.
I believe Roe v Wade should have been settled the same way. I should say for the record, however, that I am anti-abortion.

Yah, abortion is a state issue.

Edit: And people put far to much faith in the Courts. This is the same system that let Micheal Jackson go free.

It's not a huge stretch. Like I said, I think it is persuasive, and SCOTUS may very well end up drawing the same conclusion.

Notwithstanding:

1. Racial classifications are treated differently than classifications based upon sex. (see Micheal M. supra).

2. Unlike Loving, the prohibition against same sex marriages is not facially discriminatory independant of its stated aim. Neither sex can marry the same sex, in contrast to Loving wherein inter-racial marriage was only prohibited with respect to whites. (Thus belying the States position that preservation of racial and ancestral identity was the main impetus for the statute and thus invalid on its very face).

So it's entirely possible that SCOTUS could chicken shit out, and say it is a legislative matter.

They actually address the point in the decision that it would still be invalid if all races were not allowed the opportunity to intermarry. It is invalid on it's face as they mention many, many times in the decision because destinctions regarding marriage cannot be made on the basis of race. That's it. Cut and dried.

Given that sex is also a protected class I would argue the precedent extends to cover sex as well for the very reason you highlighted above. The sexes are not treated differently (which as the decisions says means nothing) but the destinction is made regarding marriage on the basis of sex (another protected class). These are two equally protected classes. It would be like saying that racial protections might only include certain minorities, when all minorities are to be protected. Yes, yes, they still have to see the case, but I can't imagine that a good lawyer can't make this argument stick.

Yah, abortion is a state issue.

Edit: And people put far to much faith in the Courts. This is the same system that let Micheal Jackson go free.
Don't forget OJ!

You guys haven't come up with anything new, or any good arguments against yet.

It seems to boil down to, we don't want to allow it BECAUSE we've never done it that way before. Which is a little silly as humanity is about trying things that we haven't done before and seeing if, maybe, just maybe, they'd work better.

Hypothesis: Men that oppose gay marriage think women are inferior

Proof:

1. The state says that men and women have an equal status as persons. Gender is in principle only relevant to law where pregnancy is concerned (right to paid leave for instance).

2. State nor Church considers reproduction a necessary condition for marriage. A nonfertile straight couple can marry. Couples does not have to show proof they can produce children before they marry - in fact the Churches explicitedly prefer them not to have any sex at all.
So pregnancy is not a relevant issue where marriage is concerned.

3. If pregnancy is not an issue, a marriage should be a union between two persons as far as the law is concerned. Setting gender restrictions on either partner would imply one does not consider man and woman to be equal.

4. People opposing same-sex marriages must therefor believe men and women are not equal.

5. Since the most vocal protests are against two males, and most protests generally come from fear, it is logical to assume that the opposing men think a union of two males would be more powerfull than one between man and woman.

This means they consider the woman inferior to a man. QED.

Homework: show that men opposing gay marriage are probably wife beaters.

Hypothesis: Men that oppose gay marriage think women are inferior
<Snip>
Homophobes = Pwn3d

A bit of a moot point, as Ah-nold is going to veto it anyway.

The legislature does not have jurisdiction on marriage so only the Supreme Court can enforce the fact that gay marriage bans violate the US Constitution. That is the job of the SCOTUS.
But a legislature has the inherent right to make laws, and they are supposed to make laws with the constitution in mind. If the legislature thinks that a current law as it stands violates the constitution, they are supposed to change it. It's only when the legislature fails in this job that the court has to step in.