NationStates Jolt Archive

HIGH COURT REFUSES TO CHALLENGE DOMA

California men had challenged a state decision that barred their right to 'marry.'

By The Associated Press
Wed, Oct. 11 2006 07:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused to intervene Tuesday in a legal fight over same-sex ''marriage,'' declining an appeal from a gay California couple who were denied a license to wed.

Continues here. . . (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061011/25159.htm)

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(

Sanctity? Ok, when you can no longer have a 54 hour marriage you can talk about sanctity.

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(

I know right. We lost the fight to deny equal rights to blacks, hopefully this wont happen with the gays. I'm glad theres people out there like you willing to take up the fight. Heil Hitler! [/maj scrsm]

Sanctity? Ok, when you can no longer have a 54 hour marriage you can talk about sanctity.

I agree. Tatoos are more permanent than marraiges these days.

Couple of points to make. First, here's an interesting quote:The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in May that the couple should await the outcome of the state court challenge.So what the right-wing likes to claim is the most overturned court in the nation (which it isn't) basically said in their ruling is that until the state finishes its business, the feds have no cause to get involved. Since the Supremes rejected the case without comment, there's a good chance that they agreed with the 9th Circuit on this, and are waiting to see what comes out of the state before dealing with DOMA.

Second, if you want to talk about the sanctity of marriage, talk about Vegas first, then talk about whether consenting adults of the same sex ought to be allowed to marry. Talk about no-fault divorce first.

But most importantly, talk about whether the issue of sanctity ought to even be an issue in a secular nation. Then we can talk about the rest.

HIGH COURT REFUSES TO CHALLENGE DOMA

California men had challenged a state decision that barred their right to 'marry.'

By The Associated Press
Wed, Oct. 11 2006 07:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused to intervene Tuesday in a legal fight over same-sex ''marriage,'' declining an appeal from a gay California couple who were denied a license to wed.

Continues here. . . (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061011/25159.htm)

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(

In other news, homosexuals now have to go to the back of the bus.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Isn't it funny how certain religions love it when the government breaks the first amendment to side with them, but go apeshit when it goes against them?

If Homosexuals are allowed to marry in the United States, the sanctity of marriage would be compromised. In fact, I predict the divorce rate will double. That's right. A 112% divorce rate. How is it possible? Homosexuality will find a way.

Seriously, this is another example of the "Air America is going belly up" phenomenon. The christian right is going gaga over this, but it doesn't mean anything yet, just like the California Court of Appeals ruling a couple of weeks ago didn't mean anything. This won't be over for another year at least, if not more.

Seriously, this is another example of the "Air America is going belly up" phenomenon. The christian right is going gaga over this, but it doesn't mean anything yet, just like the California Court of Appeals ruling a couple of weeks ago didn't mean anything. This won't be over for another year at least, if not more.

It'd be nice of the Christian Right would realize that a Christian United States would be the beginning of the fall of Christianity in America, if not the world over.

If Homosexuals are allowed to marry in the United States, the sanctity of marriage would be compromised. In fact, I predict the divorce rate will double. That's right. A 112% divorce rate. How is it possible? Homosexuality will find a way.

Quickie divorces will get so quick that the divorce ceremony will actually take place before the wedding.

Isn't it funny how certain religions love it when the government breaks the first amendment to side with them, but go apeshit when it goes against them?

Um, the appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court isn't part of the 1st amendment. Check Article III for that.

Basically, SCOTUS has done what it usually does with questions about homosexuality and sidestepped giving any interpretation to constitutional issues dealing with sexual orientation. They haven't touched the issue in the past, despite many chances to do so, and they probably won't. It's not an issue of implicitly condemning or supporting one side, they are maintaining silence for some reason.

Um, the appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court isn't part of the 1st amendment. Check Article III for that.

Basically, SCOTUS has done what it usually does with questions about homosexuality and sidestepped giving any interpretation to constitutional issues dealing with sexual orientation. They haven't touched the issue in the past, despite many chances to do so, and they probably won't. It's not an issue of implicitly condemning or supporting one side, they are maintaining silence for some reason.

So what was Lawrence v Texas about then?

If Homosexuals are allowed to marry in the United States, the sanctity of marriage would be compromised. In fact, I predict the divorce rate will double. That's right. A 112% divorce rate. How is it possible? Homosexuality will find a way.
Teh gay makes everything more fabulous, even divorce.

I agree. Tatoos are more permanent than marraiges these days.

That is sadly true in many cases. I'm not particularly worried about gay folks getting marriages, considering what a mockery straight folks have already made of it. Maybe the gay folks will actually do something good with it.

So what was Lawrence v Texas about then?

Personal liberty to engage in private, consentual sexual acts, at least according to the majority opinion. O'Connor's concurring opinion is the only one to suggest that the sodomy law was unconstitutional because it specifically targeted homosexuals.

So what was Lawrence v Texas about then?

Case names should be italicised. ;)

Personal liberty to engage in private, consentual sexual acts, at least according to the majority opinion. O'Connor's concurring opinion is the only one to suggest that the sodomy law was unconstitutional because it specifically targeted homosexuals.
Yeah, but Scalia's dissent was all about the immorality of the gays. That was at least a major point of contention, no matter how the final decision skirted the issue.

Oddly enough, Scalia's decision noted that, based on Lawrence v Texas (happy, Philosopy? ;), there could be no constitutional issue with gay marriage. Not that he'd support such a ruling if SCOTUS got such a case--indeed, he'd argue that Lawrence was incorrectly decided, and if he were in the majority, he'd no doubt try to overturn it at the same time.

First of all, why is "marriage" placed in quotes? The men in question are seeking a marriage. Not a "marriage". The quotes make it seem like "oh, itsn't that precious? The little queers want to play house!"

and second of all, if you want to discuss the "sanctity" of a legal contract, look no further than the Fox network, which aired "Married by America". Or all those upright, Christian states that constantly bitch about gay marriage, but have higher divorce rates than the states that either do or will soon permit gay marriages...

States currently allowing gay marriage/civil unions and their divorce rates (per 1000 marriages):

Massachusetts: 2.4
Connecticut: 2.8
New Jersey: 3.0
Vermont: 4.0
Hawaii: 4.2

National average is 4.6. MA, CT, and NJ are the three lowest in the nation. MA is currently the only state that permits gay marriage, CT permits civil unions with full benefits, and has proposed full marriage on the table. NJ provides "marriage-like" benefits at the state level. VT has civil unions, providing all state benefits. HI has DOMA laws, but provides some benefits to homosexual couples.

Sanctity of marriage, my ass.

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(

Indeed. Heaven forbid that people could get the silly idea that marriage should be about love or trust or loyalty or in fact anything but reproduction.

Yeah, but Scalia's dissent was all about the immorality of the gays. That was at least a major point of contention, no matter how the final decision skirted the issue.

Oddly enough, Scalia's decision noted that, based on Lawrence v Texas (happy, Philosopy? ;), there could be no constitutional issue with gay marriage. Not that he'd support such a ruling if SCOTUS got such a case--indeed, he'd argue that Lawrence was incorrectly decided, and if he were in the majority, he'd no doubt try to overturn it at the same time.

The wonderful thing about dissents is that they don't count as part of constitutional interpretation or Supreme Court policy, and neither do the negotiations. Only majority opinions matter to law and future cases, so that no matter the personal issues a justice may have, the final decision reached is one that reflects legal principle. Dissents and concurrences can suggest different legal policies or outline interpretations that can be used in future cases, but that's about it.

Scalia has very interesting dissents, and I thank God (if there is one) they don't form precedent. Too many are based on accusations that the majority was swayed by politics, like his dissent in this case. His claim that this decision puts homosexual marriage out of constitutional law runs counter to the explicit statement of the majority opinion, and hence the precedent, that the case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter". That passage was in the opinion precisely to leave the question of homosexual marriage open, maintaining SCOTUS's neutrality on the issue. Scalia's argument in an interpretation that will have to become a majority opinion before it becomes valid, and I agree that if he gets the opportunity he'll go for it and try to get Lawrence overturned. Until then, the issue is open to the Court to decide when it chooses.

I need to type this up once, save it somewhere, and just copy and paste it every time this comes up. Anyways ...

In all the states I know about, marriage is a purely secular contract. Yes, you can have it sanctified by the church of your choice, but if you listen closely, at the end of the ceremony the officiating personage usually says, "By the power vested in me by the Big Smiley Sky-Guy (or whomever) and the great State of [fill in the state of your chioce], I now pronounce you ..." And then the happy couple gets to sign the government-issued marriage license and mail it in, because if they don't, they aren't legally married.

If churches don't want to sanctify my union with my Lady, fine by me, we don't want to be blessed by them. Churches get a pass on marrying divorced people, or even people not of their denomination, so they needn't worry about this.

All I want are the rights I thought I had under the Constitution of the United States. And if being gay deprives me of those rights, I'd like someone to point out where it says that in the Constitution or the US Code.

Here endeth the Rant. :D

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(

What about the fight for the sanctity of driver's licenses?

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.

Bill Georges, a proponent of the bill, explained the reasoning behind it:

“Well, I don’t hate the gays or anything. I mean, I had a gay friend once, until he stopped talking to me when I told him that his lifestyle was dirty and vile. Anyways, this isn’t discrimination or anything, it’s really just natural. You see, Henry Ford invented cars, and he was against gays. So gays shouldn’t be allowed to drive them. It’s ok if they own cars and pretend like they are normal, straight drivers, as long as they keep the car in their own driveway and don’t drive it where we normal people can see.”

When faced with the fact that policy based completely on what Henry Ford may or may not have said may be unconstitutional, he had this to say:

“Well, I mean, the whole purpose of driving a car is to drive your kids around. And the gays can’t have kids, so why would they need a car? We can’t deny driver’s licenses to straight people who don’t have kids, because they can drive other people’s kids around and one day might have their own. But the gays can’t have kids and nobody wants to let them drive their kids around, right? And we know Henry Ford was against the blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them drive.

“Then there’s the fact that they just aren’t safe drivers. I mean, they tend to drive other people’s cars more than their own. And I read a study somewhere once that said that they do more drugs and drink more before they drive. The gays are going to destroy the roadways if we let them drive!

“Plus, there is no right to drive a car, it’s a privilege that the government gives you and they can regulate it however they want. There is absolutely no reason why the gays should be able to drive cars legally.”

And to the question of whether or not homosexuals might lose their jobs, and then their homes and assets:

“Well, that’s all about money and it’s just greedy. Driving a car isn’t about money, it’s about the children. Henry Ford made the car and he didn’t like the gays. So they shouldn’t drive.”

Penny Lane had the following to say:

“If Henry Ford were here today, he’d slap all the gays that are driving cars! Gays have no place in cars!”

John Lane added:

“We have to protect the tradition of driving! Driving has a fine tradition in this country stretching all the way back to the frontier days when good, God fearing men drove their families all the way across the country in nothing more than a covered wagon. It’s bad enough we gave women and blacks the right to drive, but we will stand firm when we defend the tradition of driving and will keep gays off our roads! It’s their choice to be gay and if they’re going to make that choice, then not having a license is just a price they’re going to have to pay!”

Steven Doe acknowledged that while gays in other countries have the right to acquire license that,

“The US doesn’t bow to international pressure! Who cares that other countries have given gays licenses? We know better than all of them and we’re the ones that make the rules in our country. Things like civil rights, human rights, and social policies should not be influenced just because a bunch of other countries in the “Old World” and Canada have a different view. Why should we care what they think? The international community is full of a bunch of sissies anyway! This is America and in America, Americans make the laws! Not the freedom hating British, French, or those damn, druggie, hippie, commie-bastard Scandinavians. Where is Scandinavia anyway?! Is it even a country, I ask you?!”

Michigan lawmakers insist that this amendment will help to protect the roadways and ensure that the gays are kept in their proper place.

Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive, but only on days with odd numbers and only in the right lane.

Yeah, but Scalia's dissent was all about the immorality of the gays. That was at least a major point of contention, no matter how the final decision skirted the issue.

Oddly enough, Scalia's decision noted that, based on Lawrence v Texas (happy, Philosopy? ;), there could be no constitutional issue with gay marriage. Not that he'd support such a ruling if SCOTUS got such a case--indeed, he'd argue that Lawrence was incorrectly decided, and if he were in the majority, he'd no doubt try to overturn it at the same time.

At least he's not like Thomas, arguing against Marbury v. Madison in every other dissent.

Good. The federal government has no business meddling in marriage issues.

What about the fight for the sanctity of driver's licenses?

HAHAHA

Did you write that?

Y
Oddly enough, Scalia's decision noted that, based on Lawrence v Texas (happy, Philosopy? ;)
Much better. :p

Good. The federal government has no business meddling in marriage issues.

Which is why interracial marriage is still illegal.

Which is why interracial marriage is still illegal.

Personally, I don't government should intervene in marriage, period...well, for the most part, at least. As long as all parties concerned consent, are old enough, and are human, I don't see why it should be a government issue. Sexual orientation and ethnicity should not be a concern.

HAHAHA

Did you write that?

Yeah, my fiance and I wrote it a couple of years ago.

Personally, I don't government should intervene in marriage, period...well, for the most part, at least. As long as all parties concerned consent, are old enough, and are human, I don't see why it should be a government issue. Sexual orientation and ethnicity should not be a concern.

Then you'd have to rewrite the tax code, for one, which is maybe not a bad idea. And married couples get rights vis-a-vis each other that single people living together do not, you'd have to make legal provisions for those, too. Sorry, Congo, marriage is very much a government function.

Isn't it funny how certain religions love it when the government breaks the first amendment to side with them, but go apeshit when it goes against them?


Doesn't most averyone like the law when it makes them up but then scorn it when it's against it. People just like to be agreed with.

Quickie divorces will get so quick that the divorce ceremony will actually take place before the wedding.

They'll force all of us, even the unmarried, even fetuses, to get divorced.

Doesn't most averyone like the law when it makes them up but then scorn it when it's against it. People just like to be agreed with.

I disagree. :)

HIGH COURT REFUSES TO CHALLENGE DOMA

California men had challenged a state decision that barred their right to 'marry.'

By The Associated Press
Wed, Oct. 11 2006 07:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused to intervene Tuesday in a legal fight over same-sex ''marriage,'' declining an appeal from a gay California couple who were denied a license to wed.

Continues here. . . (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061011/25159.htm)

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(


Let the states side. I agree with the decision, or non-decision. The individual states should decide on this issue, just like Oregon did with Euthanasia.

Let the states side. I agree with the decision, or non-decision. The individual states should decide on this issue, just like Oregon did with Euthanasia.

Just like the states should have been allowed to decide whether or not to allow interracial marriage?

You disgust me. This is intolerance at it's worst. Calling a total trampling of someone's rights "Good news"?

And the "Sanctity of Marriage"? Marriage is a legal transaction, nothing more. You can be married by a judge just as much as you can be married by a priest. I learned this in junior high, why didn't you?


Not to mention that the story put quotes around marriage clearly shows an obvious bias, implying that it is not "real" marriage.

Quickie divorces will get so quick that the divorce ceremony will actually take place before the wedding."aww Honey, I really enjoyed this first date, now, if you sign these devorce papers..."

They'll force all of us, even the unmarried, even fetuses, to get divorced.

In fact, I'm divorcing everyone on NS right now. You're all divorced! Start paying me alimony!

So, is SCOTUS' *inaction* on a hot-button issue going to be spun as another example of an *activist* court? I would think it would not follow logically, but I can see how it might be spun that way...

In fact, I'm divorcing everyone on NS right now. You're all divorced! Start paying me alimony!

Pffft. You make way more money than me -- it's ME that'll get the alimony. :D

Oh my God this thread is tho faaaabulooooouuuuuuussssss!!

20 snaps in a circle! :p

Couple of points to make. First, here's an interesting quote:So what the right-wing likes to claim is the most overturned court in the nation (which it isn't) basically said in their ruling is that until the state finishes its business, the feds have no cause to get involved. Since the Supremes rejected the case without comment, there's a good chance that they agreed with the 9th Circuit on this, and are waiting to see what comes out of the state before dealing with DOMA.

Second, if you want to talk about the sanctity of marriage, talk about Vegas first, then talk about whether consenting adults of the same sex ought to be allowed to marry. Talk about no-fault divorce first.

But most importantly, talk about whether the issue of sanctity ought to even be an issue in a secular nation. Then we can talk about the rest.

What Nazz said.

Is anyone actually on Biblical Socialism's side on this thread? Seriously, it's no fun if you don't make an effort.

To the best of my knowledge, you can already have civil contracts that bind same sex couples in the same way as a marriage would - you just aren't allowed to call it a marriage. How pointless is that? Just legalise it already.

Incidently, unless you advocate the anullment of every islamic, buddhist, jewish, athiest, etc wedding, the "Sanctity of Marriage" argument is foolish and hypocritical.

And even then it's still pretty foolish, IMHO.

Is anyone actually on Biblical Socialism's side on this thread? Seriously, it's no fun if you don't make an effort.

To the best of my knowledge, you can already have civil contracts that bind same sex couples in the same way as a marriage would - you just aren't allowed to call it a marriage. How pointless is that? Just legalise it already.

Not in the same way and only something sorta like it in some states.

There actually is no "civil union" type arrangment that provides *all* the same protections as a civil marriage. And only a few states/governments offer any such thing.

HIGH COURT REFUSES TO CHALLENGE DOMA

California men had challenged a state decision that barred their right to 'marry.'

By The Associated Press
Wed, Oct. 11 2006 07:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused to intervene Tuesday in a legal fight over same-sex ''marriage,'' declining an appeal from a gay California couple who were denied a license to wed.

Continues here. . . (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061011/25159.htm)

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(

1st off, this is extremely bad news. Our civil liberties are crumbling now. 2nd, there is no such thing as sanctity of marriage. If that was the case, men and women wouldn't cheat on each other regularly.

Grow up, and stop using the bible to govern national politics. Thats why there is a separation of church and state, so we don't have religious wackos governing our rights.

Not in the same way and only something sorta like it in some states.

There actually is no "civil union" type arrangment that provides *all* the same protections as a civil marriage. And only a few states/governments offer any such thing.

Surely you don't need civil unions for such a thing? Why not just any legal contract, saying things along the lines of "Person A and Person B agree that if one party is caught sleeping with someone else, the other gets a big chunk of thier cash" ? After all, in legal terms that's what the adultery section of a marriage boils down to, and I can't see why a lot of other parts of marriage couldn't be covered in the same way.

The one major issue I can see is child custody, but surely something of such agreements is built into the adoption process?

Surely you don't need civil unions for such a thing? Why not just any legal contract, saying things along the lines of "Person A and Person B agree that if one party is caught sleeping with someone else, the other gets a big chunk of thier cash" ? After all, in legal terms that's what the adultery section of a marriage boils down to, and I can't see why a lot of other parts of marriage couldn't be covered in the same way.

The one major issue I can see is child custody, but surely something of such agreements is built into the adoption process?

There is more to it than that. If you get into a car accident, your significant other can't visit you in the hospital emergency room because they are not part of your family... to name one thing.

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(

You know, I really wish that when people say things like this they would at least hang around long enough to defend their view a little bit.

There is more to it than that. If you get into a car accident, your significant other can't visit you in the hospital emergency room because they are not part of your family... to name one thing.

OK, fair enough. But you can name/be named medical proxy, and you can sign statements saying you do/don't wish certain people (such as unmarried partners) to be informed about the details of your treatment.

OK, fair enough. But you can name/be named medical proxy, and you can sign statements saying you do/don't wish certain people (such as unmarried partners) to be informed about the details of your treatment.

and you know how many times a court has rejected a medical proxy of a gay lover in favor of a family member? Or wills for that matter...or custody disputes...

What Nazz said.
I love it when someone agrees with the way I cut through the bullshit. Especially when it's someone who I often disagree with. ;)

and you know how many times a court has rejected a medical proxy of a gay lover in favor of a family member? Or wills for that matter...or custody disputes...

Yeah, but that is kind of inevitable - you have to give courts a little bit of leeway in all matters in case you come across an unusual situation, and that leeway is sometimes open to abuse, either intentional or not. That's the same reason why mothers almost always get custody, regardless of who stays at home more, who makes more money, etc.

If you didn't give courts that leeway, laws would need to be put back and forth ten times as much and made ten times as complex and confusing - and you would still end up with some ridiculous rulings.

Yeah, but that is kind of inevitable - you have to give courts a little bit of leeway in all matters in case you come across an unusual situation, and that leeway is sometimes open to abuse, either intentional or not. That's the same reason why mothers almost always get custody, regardless of who stays at home more, who makes more money, etc.

If you didn't give courts that leeway, laws would need to be put back and forth ten times as much and made ten times as complex and confusing - and you would still end up with some ridiculous rulings.

Yes, because we all know that allowing same-sex marriage is so complex and confusing. I mean, it's not like a law that states "Same-sex marriage is legal" can be passed.

Yeah, but that is kind of inevitable - you have to give courts a little bit of leeway in all matters in case you come across an unusual situation, and that leeway is sometimes open to abuse, either intentional or not. That's the same reason why mothers almost always get custody, regardless of who stays at home more, who makes more money, etc.

If you didn't give courts that leeway, laws would need to be put back and forth ten times as much and made ten times as complex and confusing - and you would still end up with some ridiculous rulings.

Hold on a sec. Weren't you just arguing that same-sex couples could use things like proxies to gain the same rights as married couples? When a hetero couple is married, the rights those proxies for same-sex couples are trying to duplicate are simply granted, no questions asked. There have to be extraordinary circumstances for a court to interfere. But with same-sex couples, courts interfere all the time. So what's the deal for you here?

Apperantly, I am not completely up to date on marriage politics in America, (marriage in general is currently not in my priority-field, if you get what I mean...), but here in the Netherlands, the two "marriages" are seperate as far as I know.
There's a secular marriage, usually held at city-hall, that gives the legal benefits, and if I'm not mistaken*, being the forward-thinking nation we are, that is open to any combination of genders. (although the combination has to consist of two persons, no polygamy...)
Most people also want their union to have a traditional blessing from the church, which is a seperate process. The churches either can or cannot wed you, that's their own business.

So a gay couple could be married legally, but not "religiously" (for lack of a better term).
Such a union would grant all the legal, tax, medical, etc. privileges and rights. Although you could be hard-pressed to get aid or cooperation from a church opposing gay marriage, you'll still get a driver's license (;)), are allowed the same input in "important" decisions as any heterosexual partner, etc.

--
* Should I, by chance, be even less informed of the rules in my own country than I thought I was, the above reduces to what I'd want it to be (for any nation). Separation of church and state ya'know...
The fact that some church thinks I should or should not be married to someone should have no influence on how much taxes I pay, on how the (secular) Last Will is read, or on how I kiss him/her in the morning. (note: the state has no business in that last either).

Edit: agrees with Nazz on what he said:
Equality doesn't only mean you can get the same rights, it also means you can get them with the same effort.

Hold on a sec. Weren't you just arguing that same-sex couples could use things like proxies to gain the same rights as married couples? When a hetero couple is married, the rights those proxies for same-sex couples are trying to duplicate are simply granted, no questions asked. There have to be extraordinary circumstances for a court to interfere. But with same-sex couples, courts interfere all the time. So what's the deal for you here?

Courts don't interfere randomly on their own - the challenge comes from the person fighting for the proxy to be revoked - the family.

If I'm in a serious, straight relationship of say 4 or 5 years, the family might challenge the proxy because they think they know my partners wishes better. If I am in a comparable gay relationship, the family might think the same as above, or they may see the relationship as not as serious, or they may have religious views, etc.

My point is you can't stop such complaints being filed, you can only do your best to set it up so they are treated fairly.

PS yes doctors can also interfere, but I doubt many doctors would risk career damage by doing so unless there were clear signs of the patient not being in his right mind, or it otherwise being in the patients best interests to deny the proxy

HIGH COURT REFUSES TO CHALLENGE DOMA

California men had challenged a state decision that barred their right to 'marry.'

By The Associated Press
Wed, Oct. 11 2006 07:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused to intervene Tuesday in a legal fight over same-sex ''marriage,'' declining an appeal from a gay California couple who were denied a license to wed.

Continues here. . . (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061011/25159.htm)

I would like to note that the Supreme Court made no ruling as to the Contitutionality of Gay marriage. They turned the case down for the reason that the case was not brought to the Court by the correct avenues, so to speak. You can't just bring a case to the Supreme Court(As far as I know) directly, you must first try all other avenues before the Supreme Court will even consider a case.

So, it's basically a ruling of "We have no place in the case right now".

So meh. The Supreme Court hasn't done anything to challenge DOMA. The similar case, after going to the California Supreme Court, can then go on to federal level courts, and eventually on up to the SC. It by no means a ruling one way or the other.

Courts don't interfere randomly on their own - the challenge comes from the person fighting for the procy to be revoked - the family.

If I'm in a serious, straight relationship of say 4 or 5 years, the family might challenge the proxy because they think they know my partners wishes better. If I am in a comparable gay relationship, the family might think the same as above, or they may see the relationship as not as serious, or they may have religious views, etc.

My point is you can't stop such complaints being filed, you can only do your best to set it up so they are treated fairly.

Yes, but there's a higher bar to clear for those wishing to revoke the proxy of a married couple. It's a much higher bar, as a matter of fact. My point is that if these proxies for same-sex couples are meant to provide the same level of rights as marriage does, then they need to be taken just as seriously by the courts, and they aren't.

Apperantly, I am not completely up to date on marriage politics in America, (marriage in general is currently not in my priority-field, if you get what I mean...), but here in the Netherlands, the two "marriages" are seperate as far as I know.
There's a secular marriage, usually held at city-hall, that gives the legal benefits, and if I'm not mistaken*, being the forward-thinking nation we are, that is open to any combination of genders. (although the combination has to consist of two persons, no polygamy...)
Most people also want their union to have a traditional blessing from the church, which is a seperate process. The churches either can or cannot wed you, that's their own business.

So a gay couple could be married legally, but not "religiously" (for lack of a better term).
Such a union would grant all the legal, tax, medical, etc. privileges and rights. Although you could be hard-pressed to get aid or cooperation from a church opposing gay marriage, you'll still get a driver's license (;)), are allowed the same input in "important" decisions as any heterosexual partner, etc.

--
* Should I, by chance, be even less informed of the rules in my own country than I thought I was, the above reduces to what I'd want it to be (for any nation). Separation of church and state ya'know...
The fact that some church thinks I should or should not be married to someone should have no influence on how much taxes I pay, on how the (secular) Last Will is read, or on how I kiss him/her in the morning. (note: the state has no business in that last either).

Edit: agrees with Nazz on what he said:
Equality doesn't only mean you can get the same rights, it also means you can get them with the same effort.


We're a bit screwed up in this area. You can get your marriage license while during a church wedding. There really is no seperate process.

I think the biggest problem people may have is that they may think that Church would HAVE to allow marriage in the Church, that it would HAVE to be sanctified by a priest. I would, personally, would never suggest that. I would suggest the opposite, infact. Church choose who they marry-the legal process completely different.

But, of course, our country is messed up.

Apperantly, I am not completely up to date on marriage politics in America, (marriage in general is currently not in my priority-field, if you get what I mean...), but here in the Netherlands, the two "marriages" are seperate as far as I know.
There's a secular marriage, usually held at city-hall, that gives the legal benefits, and if I'm not mistaken*, being the forward-thinking nation we are, that is open to any combination of genders. (although the combination has to consist of two persons, no polygamy...)
Most people also want their union to have a traditional blessing from the church, which is a seperate process. The churches either can or cannot wed you, that's their own business.

So a gay couple could be married legally, but not "religiously" (for lack of a better term).
Such a union would grant all the legal, tax, medical, etc. privileges and rights. Although you could be hard-pressed to get aid or cooperation from a church opposing gay marriage, you'll still get a driver's license (;)), are allowed the same input in "important" decisions as any heterosexual partner, etc.

--
* Should I, by chance, be even less informed of the rules in my own country than I thought I was, the above reduces to what I'd want it to be (for any nation). Separation of church and state ya'know...
The fact that some church thinks I should or should not be married to someone should have no influence on how much taxes I pay, on how the (secular) Last Will is read, or on how I kiss him/her in the morning. (note: the state has no business in that last either).

Edit: agrees with Nazz on what he said:
Equality doesn't only mean you can get the same rights, it also means you can get them with the same effort.

Yes - that is the correct situation in my opinion.

My point is that you can acquire if not all than a substantial proportion of those priveleges and rights by using existing civil unions/legal contracts (though how easy it is and how easy it can be challenged is another matter) in countries were gay marriage is illegal. So why not just allow them to call it marriage? If they can get most of the legal benifits and bindings anyway, and your religion has no claim on them, why do you care what it's called?

Apperantly, I am not completely up to date on marriage politics in America, (marriage in general is currently not in my priority-field, if you get what I mean...), but here in the Netherlands, the two "marriages" are seperate as far as I know.
There's a secular marriage, usually held at city-hall, that gives the legal benefits, and if I'm not mistaken*, being the forward-thinking nation we are, that is open to any combination of genders. (although the combination has to consist of two persons, no polygamy...)
Most people also want their union to have a traditional blessing from the church, which is a seperate process. The churches either can or cannot wed you, that's their own business.

So a gay couple could be married legally, but not "religiously" (for lack of a better term).
Such a union would grant all the legal, tax, medical, etc. privileges and rights. Although you could be hard-pressed to get aid or cooperation from a church opposing gay marriage, you'll still get a driver's license (;)), are allowed the same input in "important" decisions as any heterosexual partner, etc.

--
* Should I, by chance, be even less informed of the rules in my own country than I thought I was, the above reduces to what I'd want it to be (for any nation). Separation of church and state ya'know...
The fact that some church thinks I should or should not be married to someone should have no influence on how much taxes I pay, on how the (secular) Last Will is read, or on how I kiss him/her in the morning. (note: the state has no business in that last either).

Edit: agrees with Nazz on what he said:
Equality doesn't only mean you can get the same rights, it also means you can get them with the same effort.

It´s exactly like that and I´m glad for it.

Yes, but there's a higher bar to clear for those wishing to revoke the proxy of a married couple. It's a much higher bar, as a matter of fact. My point is that if these proxies for same-sex couples are meant to provide the same level of rights as marriage does, then they need to be taken just as seriously by the courts, and they aren't.

Sorry, that's my fault - I was comparing an unmarried straight couple with an unmarried gay couple, rather than a married couple and a civil union couple.

You are absolutly right about them not taking it as seriously - that's because a husband/wife is labelled as family, while a gay partner isn't, and it is one of the few major benifits that a gay couple cannot obtain presently.

I'm not saying that a gay couple civil union or contract can provide the same protection as marriage in all cases - you're right, it can't and that's not fair. However they can get a fair old chunk of that protection, and they can enter a commitment just as legally binding and with the same basic structure and nature as a marriage. So the ground that is conceded by allowing them 'marriage' is very small.

Geez, is anyone going to argue against gay marriage? Nazz is too hard to argue against.

Geez, is anyone going to argue against gay marriage? Nazz is too hard to argue against.

:D

HIGH COURT REFUSES TO CHALLENGE DOMA

California men had challenged a state decision that barred their right to 'marry.'

By The Associated Press
Wed, Oct. 11 2006 07:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused to intervene Tuesday in a legal fight over same-sex ''marriage,'' declining an appeal from a gay California couple who were denied a license to wed.

Continues here. . . (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061011/25159.htm)

This is good news. :) But the fight for the sanctity of marriage is still far from over. :(

Thank God :D

Fighting for the sanctity of marriage?!?!?! Fighting for something that has a 60% divorce rate?

Meh!

Let the gays get married.

They can't screw up the "sanctity of marriage" anymore then the hetros have done.

Sorry, that's my fault - I was comparing an unmarried straight couple with an unmarried gay couple, rather than a married couple and a civil union couple.

You are absolutly right about them not taking it as seriously - that's because a husband/wife is labelled as family, while a gay partner isn't, and it is one of the few major benifits that a gay couple cannot obtain presently.

I'm not saying that a gay couple civil union or contract can provide the same protection as marriage in all cases - you're right, it can't and that's not fair. However they can get a fair old chunk of that protection, and they can enter a commitment just as legally binding and with the same basic structure and nature as a marriage. So the ground that is conceded by allowing them 'marriage' is very small.

Marriage already provides all the protections, and the hoops that a gay couple would have to jump through to acquire the same protections with contracts and proxies is daunting, to say the least. And some protections (such as tax status) are not available at all. The best and easiest way to do it is simply to allow them marriage. There is no need to rewrite the law to provide separate but equal treatment (which has been deemed unconstitutional anyway) when equal but equal treatment is just a simple "gay marriage is legal" away.

Geez, is anyone going to argue against gay marriage? Nazz is too hard to argue against.

I wasn't planning on playing Devil's Advocate today. Maybe next gay marriage thread. Personally, I didn't find him too hard to argue against in his previous incarnation, and this one is no different. Fun, certainly, and he's a cool cat, but too hard...nah. The people I find too hard to argue against are the n00bs who come in and start repeating themselves in increasingly less intelligent ways. Their battering of my IQ is much too powerful to withstand. ;)

Grow up, and stop using the bible to govern national politics. Thats why there is a separation of church and state, so we don't have religious wackos governing our rights.

God Forbid someone use the morals they picked up from their religion to guide them in life, including voting! oh the humanity!

but it's ok to use godless liberal ideology to guide your actions, just nothing with a sense of divinity!

Check your religion at the polls people. apparently, it is against the constitution these days to bring it in with you!

/sarcasm

God Forbid someone use the morals they picked up from their religion to guide them in life, including voting! oh the humanity!

but it's ok to use godless liberal ideology to guide your actions, just nothing with a sense of divinity!

Check your religion at the polls people. apparently, it is against the constitution these days to bring it in with you!

/sarcasm

Now I see why the Republicans courted you guys. You never think for yourselves. All a republican has to do is sputter about being a christian and mention god a few times and you will vote for him.

/sarcasm

Now I see why the Republicans courted you guys. You never think for yourselves. All a republican has to do is sputter about being a christian and mention god a few times and you will vote for him.

/sarcasm

Yes, everyone who agrees with you is made of sugar and spice and everything nice.

But anyone who disagrees is made of slimy snails and puppy dog tails!

:rolleyes:

Cool. Massachusetts gets to carry the "Most Civilized State in the USA" moniker a while longer. I enjoy looking down on the rest of this country.

Cool. Massachusetts gets to carry the "Most Civilized State in the USA" moniker a while longer. I enjoy looking down on the rest of this country.

Pfft.

That's only because you guys are too drunk to be rude.

;)

Is anyone actually on Biblical Socialism's side on this thread? Seriously, it's no fun if you don't make an effort.



This is a forum populated primarily with social libertarians, so, finding a social conservative here is rough stuff.

Pfft.

That's only because you guys are too drunk to be rude.

;)

Massholes are never too anything to be rude. We always find time to be rude.

Pfft.

That's only because you guys are too drunk to be rude.

;)

Columbus, Ohio, my (new) home town, is the drunkest city in the US!

Yes, everyone who agrees with you is made of sugar and spice and everything nice.

But anyone who disagrees is made of slimy snails and puppy dog tails!

:rolleyes:

anyone who uses god and/or religion to deny rights to anyone, at any time, ever pretty much qualifies as an asshole to me, yes.

I don't care who you are, I don't care what you believe, I don't care how nice of a person you are, if you try to use the legislature to enforce your brand of morality at the expense of the rights of others, you are without any doubt in my mind an absolute worthless human being.

Massholes are never too anything to be rude. We always find time to be rude.

Even better then New Yorkers?

Columbus, Ohio, my (new) home town, is the drunkest city in the US!


Isn't that the only thing to do in Columbus? :p

Even better then New Yorkers?

Psssh. Much better. New Yorkers just ignore you. We go out of our way to make sure you realize we're being assholes to you.

This is a forum populated primarily with social libertarians, so, finding a social conservative here is rough stuff.

Social Libertarians? no no, a Libertarian is a Libertarian, you can't cut out the parts you like.

A "social Libertarian" is a Socially Permissive Liberal or Morally Permissive Liberal.

True Libertarianism is just too irresponsible to liberals or conservatives, yet they always want to latch onto it in some way.

Social Libertarians? no no, a Libertarian is a Libertarian, you can't cut out the parts you like.

A "social Libertarian" is a Socially Permissive Liberal or Morally Permissive Liberal.

True Libertarianism is just too irresponsible to liberals or conservatives, yet they always want to latch onto it in some way.

Thats cause we Libertarians are so damned COOL!:D And good-looking too!:cool:

anyone who uses god and/or religion to deny rights to anyone, at any time, ever pretty much qualifies as an asshole to me, yes.

I don't care who you are, I don't care what you believe, I don't care how nice of a person you are, if you try to use the legislature to enforce your brand of morality at the expense of the rights of others, you are without any doubt in my mind an absolute worthless human being.

Where in the constitution is marriage a right? Even John Locke didn't think of marriage as a natural right. it is a creation, a man made institution with it's own definition.

now perhaps you could argue it falls under the "right to privacy" of the constitution...but that is a vague right not even directly written into the constitution so it's hard to tell.

Where in the constitution is marriage a right? Even John Locke didn't think of marriage as a natural right. it is a creation, a man made institution with it's own definition.

now perhaps you could argue it falls under the "right to privacy" of the constitution...but that is a vague right not even directly written into the constitution so it's hard to tell.

Marriage isn't a right.

Equality under the law is.

Marriage isn't a right.

Equality under the law is.

political equality, yes. Social equality, sure. But is it behavioral based? Homosexuality is a behavior, as is polygamy. Must marriage be redefined to accomodate these behaviors?

so many behaviors, so many definitions.

and why can't a brother and sister get married if two men can get married?

why does it have to be called "marriage"?

and then there's the actual law, that pesky little Defense of Marriage Act Bill Clinton signed into law which the Supreme Court essentially upheld.

so complicated.

political equality, yes. Social equality, sure. But is it behavioral based? Homosexuality is a behavior, as is polygamy. Must marriage be redefined to accomodate these behaviors?

Yes, unless there is a good reason for not doing so; otherwise it is simply arbitrary discrimination.

There is none, at least in the case of homosexuality - no more than there was with regard to interracial marriage.

and why can't a brother and sister get married if two men can get married?

Why not? Let them if they want to.

why does it have to be called "marriage"?

Because to do otherwise would make its status inferior to opposite-sex marriage.

There is no way in hell that the Supreme Court as it is currently made up would vote to overturn DOMA or rule that State's must allow gay marriage. This is a very conservative court, proven by the fact that Kennedy is now the moderate swing voter. Its better that the Court not establish a precedent against gay marriage than that they accept this case and uphold the lower court.

As a more substantive discussion, DOMA should be unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit provisions of Artical IV Section 1. It seems obvious that by suggesting the legal contract of marriage in one State would not be valid in another would be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Its clear that all contracts from one state are valid in another. DOMA should be thrown out.

political equality, yes. Social equality, sure. But is it behavioral based? Homosexuality is a behavior, as is polygamy. Must marriage be redefined to accomodate these behaviors?


Behavior based? Eww Christian "science" tell you that? :rolleyes:

Why is it this behavior exists in Nature?

and why can't a brother and sister get married if two men can get married?

Never been to Kentucky eh?

Because genetics shows it's a bad match.

why does it have to be called "marriage"?
Because claiming ownership of the title is an attempt to lesson the other.


and then there's the actual law, that pesky little Defense of Marriage Act Bill Clinton signed into law which the Supreme Court essentially upheld.

so complicated.

It obviously isn't working if you people are after an amendment to the Constitution.

Geez, is anyone going to argue against gay marriage? Nazz is too hard to argue against.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1 ) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2 ) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3 ) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4 ) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5 ) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6 ) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7 ) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8 ) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9 ) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10 ) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. (I, myself, am working up the courage to pop the question to my toaster, she's hot <3)

In other news, homosexuals now have to go to the back of the bus.

Don't worry, they're one head-on from being forced to sit in the front of the bus.

Politicians in the closet? Don't worry, this has been happening ever since Warren G. Harding. Or rather, it was actually his numerous mistresses hiding in the closet, but... it still counts.

political equality, yes. Social equality, sure. But is it behavioral based? Homosexuality is a behavior, as is polygamy. Must marriage be redefined to accomodate these behaviors?

so many behaviors, so many definitions.

and why can't a brother and sister get married if two men can get married?

why does it have to be called "marriage"?

and then there's the actual law, that pesky little Defense of Marriage Act Bill Clinton signed into law which the Supreme Court essentially upheld.

so complicated.

Suppose for a moment that sexual preference is not genetic at all, not even partially. It is entirely a chosen and learned behavior.

Should a person's decision about who he or she prefers to have sex with have any more or less ramifications on his or her equality than what god one chooses to worship?

350 posts!!! Yeah! :D

I made it through... Primarily because I looked like this: :gundge:

I think now, you dare not mess with me. ;)

Happy 350th Post!

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1 ) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2 ) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3 ) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4 ) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5 ) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6 ) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7 ) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8 ) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9 ) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10 ) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. (I, myself, am working up the courage to pop the question to my toaster, she's hot <3)

You forgot the Gay Agenda. Gay people all have an evil agenda which cannot be tolerated. If the Gay agenda is allowed to take over, all of our business meetings will be FABulous.

Also, you didn't mention the promiscuity problem. Everyone knows how promiscuous gays are, and if they get married, it will cause a BIG rise in extra marital affairs. That would tie up all the hotel rooms in America, so there would be no room for visiting tourists, and that would destroy our economy.

Not to mention that all gays will want to wear wedding dresses... and if they do, there will be a shortage so our young, virginal (because they all abstained from sex before marriage) good Christian girls will not be able to find the wedding dress of their dreams. This could cause them such stress they would break their vows of chastity, and cause a huge number of unwanted pregnancies, which none of the good (well, bad at this point) Christian girls would abort, leading to a huge number of orphans, which would have to be adopted by homosexuals in wedding dresses. It is a vicious cycle!






This is kind of fun.

Marriage is a purely secular and legal contract now, in the United States. If you don't get a marriage license and send it back signed properly, you ain't married. And will a conservative please explain to me how being homosexual makes me a citizen with fewer rights under the Constitution than a heterosexual? I'd love to know.

I do wonder why the federal and state DOMA laws have not been challenged on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit clause. There's also a section of the Constitution that says the citizens of each state shall have the rights and privileges of citizens of all states.