NationStates Jolt Archive

This just in, no major details yet, but the California State Supreme Court has struck down California's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutiona. This follows state supreme courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey which ruled similarly.

In Massachusetts, the state court ruled that same sex marriage bans violated state constitution and same sex marriages must be allowed. In New Jersey a similar ruling required the state legislature to either allow same sex marriages, or create equivalent in all regards same sex unions. The legislature in New Jersey opted for civil unions.

More details as they come.

This just in, no major details yet, but the California State Supreme Court has struck down California's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutiona. This follows state supreme courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey which ruled similarly.

In Massachusetts, the state court ruled that same sex marriage bans violated state constitution and same sex marriages must be allowed. In New Jersey a similar ruling required the state legislature to either allow same sex marriages, or create equivalent in all regards same sex unions. The legislature in New Jersey opted for civil unions.

More details as they come.

Great news, but it seems some morons already want to put a state constitution ban on the ballot...

Great news, but it seems some morons already want to put a state constitution ban on the ballot...

of course they do. They tried the same thing in Massachusetts and New Jersey when those state courts ruled similarly. They tried the same thing in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut when the legislatures of those states drafted same sex civil unions.

All failed. And it most certainly will fail in California. What concerns me is I can't figure out if this was ruled under the state constitution of Californa, or our federal constitution. If it's a federal constitution, this matter might get all the way up to the Supreme Court, which will get some federal clarification on the matter.

if it's a ruling on the state constitution of California, then the matter's pretty much settled.

of course they do. They tried the same thing in Massachusetts and New Jersey when those state courts ruled similarly. They tried the same thing in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut when the legislatures of those states drafted same sex civil unions.

All failed. And it most certainly will fail in California. What concerns me is I can't figure out if this was ruled under the state constitution of Californa, or our federal constitution. If it's a federal constitution, this matter might get all the way up to the Supreme Court, which will get some federal clarification on the matter.

if it's a ruling on the state constitution of California, then the matter's pretty much settled.

I guess the next major step is getting DOMA eradicated.

You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage.

Michigan, on the other hand, just ruled this week that offering joint health insurance to same-sex partners is unconstitutional.

You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing.

I suggest you tell that to the supreme courts of California and Massachusetts.

Michigan, on the other hand, just ruled this week that offering joint health insurance to same-sex partners is unconstitutional.

wait, what? how in the world could a private decision by a private insurance company be unconstitutional?

I think either something's wrong with your interpretation or you're missing some major details here.

...and the land of the free continues to regulate the private lives of it's citizens...

I suggest you tell that to the supreme courts of California and Massachusetts.

If only they cared to listen...

You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage.

Gay marriage is just like a breeder's marriage. The only difference is what's in the pants.

Marriage is a legal binding civil contract between two consenting parties for more than simply procreation. Procreation can occur beyond the marital bounds. Marriage is a way of allowing a couple to combine their assets and maximise their position in society. It also gives them protection in that should one party become ill and unable to make decisions, the other will take over in that capacity.

Children are merely a byproduct of human relations.

Marriage was historically meant to bridge the differences between clans, tribes, kingdoms, empires etc; a political alignment for the sake of peace and diplomacy between feuding factions. It was political and personal. This still exists today.

It was only usurped by religion in the Middle Ages. It was a way of granting permission to allow for a couple of unite. Before this time period there was no concrete need for the marriage to be performed before a member of the clergy or the civil sector. It was during this period that the tradition of having two witnesses occurred.

Learn something about the nature and purpose of marriage before sounding off. You sound foolish.

Oh and FYI, I refuse to call my heterosexual marriage a "marriage". It's a civil union.

You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage.
Reality and history disagrees with you

We rock.

It was only usurped by religion in the Middle Ages. It was a way of granting permission to allow for a couple of unite. Before this time period there was no concrete need for the marriage to be performed before a member of the clergy or the civil sector. It was during this period that the tradition of having two witnesses occurred.



And I suppose the Jewish tradition of marriage started in the middle ages as well?

Reality and history disagrees with you

Reality is what one makes it, rather Reality can be distorted to make it what you want; history does not disagree with me. How can one continue history with out procreating? How do we procreate?

And I suppose the Jewish tradition of marriage started in the middle ages as well?

I'm referring to the actual act of having a ceremony be performed with two witnesses and a member of the clergy or civil justice. Marriage as a union existed a long time ago, but not in the capacity people claim. There was no binding contract. Hence my disagreement with your moronic post.

How do we procreate?

Last I checked, we were procreating long before anyone thought up the word "marriage"

Reality is what one makes it, history does not disagree with me. How can one continue history with out procreating? How do we procreate?

By fucking.

Which has fuckall to do with marriage.

This just in, no major details yet, but the California State Supreme Court has struck down California's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutiona. This follows state supreme courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey which ruled similarly.

In Massachusetts, the state court ruled that same sex marriage bans violated state constitution and same sex marriages must be allowed. In New Jersey a similar ruling required the state legislature to either allow same sex marriages, or create equivalent in all regards same sex unions. The legislature in New Jersey opted for civil unions.

More details as they come.

Damn you for posting my topic! At least I has details . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
ADVERTISEMENT

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

I wonder how many decades it will take for the rest of the US to catch up with their superior northern cousins?

Snip How do we procreate?

By having sex?

I wonder how many decades it will take for the rest of the US to catch up with their superior northern cousins?

My hope is not long

The reality is probably too long ...

By having sex?

But... how can people have sex if all we teach is abstinence? :p

I wonder how many decades it will take for the rest of the US to catch up with their superior northern cousins?

well, since this was a ruling under federal constitution, it does open the door to a SCOTUS appeal, for better or worse.

The reality is probably too long ...

That ship already sailed.

But... how can people have sex if all we teach is abstinence? :p

Ignorantly :p

Hooray!

Our country is slowly becoming sane. :)

Gay marriage is just like a breeder's marriage. The only difference is what's in the pants.

Agreed


Marriage is a legal binding civil contract between two consenting parties for more than simply procreation. Procreation can occur beyond the marital bounds. Marriage is a way of allowing a couple to combine their assets and maximise their position in society. It also gives them protection in that should one party become ill and unable to make decisions, the other will take over in that capacity.

This is merely the legal term for marriage. Any two people can combine their assets and maximise their position. It is called a Joint Partnership and can be developed by any two individuals. Any individual can sign over the right of whom can protect them when they become ill and unable to make decisions on their own, that is called a will.

Children are merely a byproduct of human relations.

With this thinking, no wonder people think of children as a burden.


Marriage was historically meant to bridge the differences between clans, tribes, kingdoms, empires etc; a political alignment for the sake of peace and diplomacy between feuding factions. It was political and personal. This still exists today.

Marriage was used for the purpose to bridge gaps. It was not created to do so.


It was only usurped by religion in the Middle Ages. It was a way of granting permission to allow for a couple of unite. Before this time period there was no concrete need for the marriage to be performed before a member of the clergy or the civil sector. It was during this period that the tradition of having two witnesses occurred.

This period created the lawful marriage recognized by a state. There has always been religious marriage.


Learn something about the nature and purpose of marriage before sounding off. You sound foolish.

Where am I wrong with the nature and purpose of marriage?


Oh and FYI, I refuse to call my heterosexual marriage a "marriage". It's a civil union.

To call it a "civil union" is degrading what is meant by marriage. A civil union is only a contract that can be broken. A marriage is something that needs to be continuously worked on and improved on. There is no limit for a marriage, but there is a limit to a "civil union".





I hate my computer: when I post it doesnt like to quote things properly.

Reality is what one makes it, rather Reality can be distorted to make it what you want; history does not disagree with me. How can one continue history with out procreating? How do we procreate?

How is procreation necessary to marriage? Do we bar infertile persons from getting married? Do we bar post-menopausal women from getting married?


well, since this was a ruling under federal constitution, it does open the door to a SCOTUS appeal, for better or worse.

Interesting.

But, if this is true, how would getting an amendment to the CA Constitution help the case of those opposed? A state constitution provision that is unconstitutional under the US Constitution cannot be upheld any more than the law could.

Hooray!

Our country is slowly becoming sane. :)

And ours is getting more idiotic. Frick.

This is merely the legal term for marriage.

How convenient then that in a court of law it's the legal term that's relevant, and it's the legal term that gets defined.

Any two people can combine their assets and maximise their position. It is called a Joint Partnership and can be developed by any two individuals. Any individual can sign over the right of whom can protect them when they become ill and unable to make decisions on their own, that is called a will..

Incorrect. Marriage carried with it several legal benefits that either can not be gained through other partnerships (tax breaks, health benefits, visitation rights etc) or benefits that while ostensibly can be recreated through other contracts and agreements, those agreements have been demonstrated to be far more tenuous and more easily broken by the courts than when those benefits are provided for by marriage.

In other words, you're quite entirely wrong

Agreed

Then you agree that they are the same. Cool.

To call it a "civil union" is degrading what is meant by marriage. A civil union is only a contract that can be broken. A marriage is something that needs to be continuously worked on and improved on. There is no limit for a marriage, but there is a limit to a "civil union".

Then you feel that it is only acceptable to allow same-sex marriage, as the term "civil union" degrades it?

But, if this is true, how would getting an amendment to the CA Constitution help the case of those opposed? A state constitution provision that is unconstitutional under the US Constitution cannot be upheld any more than the law could.

It wouldn't...and I haven't seen anything in the news today about anyone proposing a state constitutional amendment, as it would, as you say, do absolutly nothing.

Then you agree that they are the same. Cool.

Only to the point as to what a "gay-marriage" is.



Then you feel that it is only acceptable to allow same-sex marriage, as the term "civil union" degrades it?

I have no issue calling it a civil union. Why are they so demanding in calling their civil union a marriage?

Hooray!

Our country is slowly becoming sane. :)
And ours is getting more idiotic. Frick.
which makes one wonder who really moved up there from down here... :p

It wouldn't...and I haven't seen anything in the news today about anyone proposing a state constitutional amendment, as it would, as you say, do absolutly nothing.

HRC's update talked about it:

And I'm determined to make this win stick. Our right-wing opponents are using this moment to build a $10 million war chest for an amendment this November to ban same-sex marriage in California.

and:

Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage and their anti-gay friends want to write discrimination into the constitution of the most populous state in our country and undo what we've achieved today.

The National Organization for Marriage's own web site is calling on their supporters to give $10 million so they can blanket the state with anti-gay messages in the coming months.

They're usually pretty accurate, so I was just wondering what that would change.

Only to the point as to what a "gay-marriage" is.

You agreed that it was the exact same thing as a marriage between two people who happen to be of opposite sexes, except that the genitalia of those involved are different.

I have no issue calling it a civil union. Why are they so demanding in calling their civil union a marriage?

But you just said that calling it a civil union degrades it.

Do make up your mind.

I have no issue calling it a civil union. Why are they so demanding in calling their civil union a marriage?

Equality, for one thing.

How convenient then that in a court of law it's the legal term that's relevant, and it's the legal term that gets defined.

Hence why the court of law is calling it a civil union.


Incorrect. Marriage carried with it several legal benefits that either can not be gained through other partnerships (tax breaks, health benefits, visitation rights etc) or benefits that while ostensibly can be recreated through other contracts and agreements, those agreements have been demonstrated to be far more tenuous and more easily broken by the courts than when those benefits are provided for by marriage.

In other words, you're quite entirely wrong

I am not entirely wrong; it is completely plausible to do. I will agree that it is tenuous, but it is plausible. A person can for all legal purposes be considered a Single Proprietorship and have all the benefits of tax breaks as a business. Two people can join as a Joint Partnership and have the same benefits. This is very tenuous but can be done.

You agreed that it was the exact same thing as a marriage between two people who happen to be of opposite sexes, except that the genitalia of those involved are different.

As far as a "gay-marriage" is. Then to go on to define what a marriage is and the origin of marriage and then conclude that there is only a "gay-civil union"

But you just said that calling it a civil union degrades it.

Do make up your mind.

It is only a "civil union" because they can not procreate. A marriage is used for the purpose of procreating.

There is no gay marriage. There is only marriage.

Either:

A) Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults that the government has no right to discriminate as to who may or may not enter said contracts or...

B) Marriage is a religious union defined by individual faiths protected by the First Amendment barring the government from deciding which religion's definitions of marriage are legal or not. Therefore if any religion allows two men or women to get married, the government has no right to declare it unlawful.

Take your pick. :)

Equality, for one thing.

Equality? Then call it a civil union and join all the other heterosexual couples that call it that.

And I suppose the Jewish tradition of marriage started in the middle ages as well?

There are civilizations that were far older then the Jewish. Especially far older then monothiest Jews.

So, while his time period was off, he is essentially correct. Marriage was viewed as a civil contract of sorts to bind families, kingdoms, and tribes together far before religion high-jacked it.

-------------

Anyway, moronic homophobia and thiestic historical revisionism aside, I say this article on google news when I turned on my computer before I went to finals this morning. I then had a beer in honor of the sanity of California's supreme court. And then went to take my final in a rather good mood.

There is no gay marriage. There is only marriage.

Either:

A) Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults that the government has no right to discriminate as to who may or may not enter said contracts or...

B) Marriage is a religious union defined by individual faiths protected by the First Amendment barring the government from deciding which religion's definitions of marriage are legal or not. Therefore if any religion allows two men or women to get married, the government has no right to declare it unlawful.

Take your pick. :)

Thank you.

A) civil union
B) marriage

wait, what? how in the world could a private decision by a private insurance company be unconstitutional?

I think either something's wrong with your interpretation or you're missing some major details here.

The holding bans state universities and public school systems (one case of each was consolidated for argument) from offering such benefits to employees. The dicta are broader, banning state courts from recognizing such a contract for any purpose: if you make a private arrangement with a private insurance company to cover your partner, but then, when your partner is ill, the insurer simply decides not to pay, you cannot sue (the contract is as void as your "contract" with a prostitute or drug dealer). The constitutional provision in question bans the state from recognizing anything "similar to a marriage" for "any" purpose: the argument was over whether joint insurance is "similar" to marriage. The dissent wanted to follow Ohio's decision about the same language (in Ohio, marriage is a "bundle" of rights and privileges, and contracts to care for one another are like "one stick only" out of the bundle), but the majority would hear none of that.

Thank you.

A) marriage
B) marriage

fixed. ;)

Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens.

So, should couples who are sterile/infertale be forbidden to marry as well?

This is merely the legal term for marriage. Any two people can combine their assets and maximise their position. It is called a Joint Partnership and can be developed by any two individuals. Any individual can sign over the right of whom can protect them when they become ill and unable to make decisions on their own, that is called a will.

Power of attorney is only needed when there is no spouse who can act as the executor of the estate. In my case, as my father is divorced and won't remarry, I remain the person in this position. It is a safety net.

Marriage is a safety net in that it gives a person who is ill someone who can take of them when they are not in any capacity to make a decision. It reduces the need to rely on someone who hasn't been with you all your life. This person knows you better than anyone and will respect your wishes out of sheer love for their spouse.

Marriage is more than simply what you see it as.

With this thinking, no wonder people think of children as a burden.

But, sex can result in pregnancy which means a child will be born if it should make it to term. Hence, my statement. I did not say that it was a burden. To say it is a byproduct of something is not diminishing the value. It is what happens when a fertile female and male fuck each other senseless (usually without contraceptives).


Marriage was used for the purpose to bridge gaps. It was not created to do so.

It came out of human evolution as we progressed toward a social system where we came to rely on each other for support. So it does in theory bridge the gap. It provides a safety net for those who are lucky to have the right person.


This period created the lawful marriage recognized by a state. There has always been religious marriage.

But it was never legally required. The church NEVER required it until late in the Middle Ages when it became important for various reasons. One of which was to establish a normal procedure for the ceremony.

Where am I wrong with the nature and purpose of marriage?

In that you view it as only between a man and a woman.

It also about more than children. People will stay married even if they are miserable in the union because they want to keep the house; they don't want the costly divorce. Etc.

To call it a "civil union" is degrading what is meant by marriage. A civil union is only a contract that can be broken. A marriage is something that needs to be continuously worked on and improved on. There is no limit for a marriage, but there is a limit to a "civil union".

What makes me and my husband more worthy of having our union declared a marriage than two homosexuals? There is no difference. To me, I'd rather have my union called a civil union and be equal to the gays than to have a different label because people can't understand that we're all human and we're all entitled to the same basic rights.

I'm happily joined in a civil union. I will not call it marriage because I hate the inequality associated with it.

I got married before an officiate in my in-law's backyard. There was nothing religious about it. So, in practice, it was a civil ceremony because it wasn't performed before a member of the clergy or in a religious institution. It's no less worthy than a 'marriage'.

And I suppose the Jewish tradition of marriage started in the middle ages as well?
Yes. The Jewish religious ceremony is of post-Roman origin. In Old Testament times, and even Roman times, there was no religious ceremony: rather, a sexual relationship openly acknowledged WAS "marriage" (furtive sexual relationships, on the other hand, were "fornications"/"whoredoms"/however you want to translate the term), at least as long as the female partner was not already "married" to someone else. For an example, see the last chapter of Judges, where the Benjamites are advised to "marry" the girls of Shiloh by grabbing them and carrying them off.

It is only a "civil union" because they can not procreate. A marriage is used for the purpose of procreating.

Interesting. So, my grandparents aren't married, then? That will come as a surprise to them.

There is no gay marriage. There is only marriage.

Either:

A) Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults that the government has no right to discriminate as to who may or may not enter said contracts or...

B) Marriage is a religious union defined by individual faiths protected by the First Amendment barring the government from deciding which religion's definitions of marriage are legal or not. Therefore if any religion allows two men or women to get married, the government has no right to declare it unlawful.

Take your pick. :)
ahh... and at the same time, if any church/religion refuses two men or women from getting married, the Government cannot force said church/religion to marry them.

of course they do. They tried the same thing in Massachusetts and New Jersey when those state courts ruled similarly. They tried the same thing in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut when the legislatures of those states drafted same sex civil unions.

All failed. And it most certainly will fail in California. What concerns me is I can't figure out if this was ruled under the state constitution of Californa, or our federal constitution. If it's a federal constitution, this matter might get all the way up to the Supreme Court, which will get some federal clarification on the matter.

if it's a ruling on the state constitution of California, then the matter's pretty much settled.

well, since this was a ruling under federal constitution, it does open the door to a SCOTUS appeal, for better or worse.

Interesting.

But, if this is true, how would getting an amendment to the CA Constitution help the case of those opposed? A state constitution provision that is unconstitutional under the US Constitution cannot be upheld any more than the law could.

Just a point of clarification. I haven't read all of the 172-page opinion (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF)(pdf), but what I have read so far makes it clear that the court decided that the laws against same-sex marriage violated the California Constitution. The decision is a matter of state, and not federal law. The case shouldn't be appealable.

ahh... and at the same time, if any church/religion refuses two men or women from getting married, the Government cannot force said church/religion to marry them.

I agree. First Ammendment and all that.

ahh... and at the same time, if any church/religion refuses two men or women from getting married, the Government cannot force said church/religion to marry them.

True enough. The government may not have a right to prevent two gay men from getting married, but it also has no right to make a catholic proest marry two gay men.

On the other hand, a Justice of the Peace, a government offical performing a civil ceremony can be required by law to be non-discriminatory.

[QUOTE=Knights of Liberty;13694881]There are civilizations that were far older then the Jewish. Especially far older then monothiest Jews.

So, while his time period was off, he is essentially correct. Marriage was viewed as a civil contract of sorts to bind families, kingdoms, and tribes together far before religion high-jacked it.[\QUOTE]

Marriage was used to bind families, kingdoms etc, but if they did not procreate what would be the purpose of the combining families, kingdoms etc?

Families, kingdoms etc used marriage to procreate to continue their legacy.

True enough. The government may not have a right to prevent two gay men from getting married, but it also has no right to make a catholic proest marry two gay men.

On the other hand, a Justice of the Peace, a government offical performing a civil ceremony can be required by law to be non-discriminatory.

agreed. which is kinda why I specified Church/religion. ;)

As far as a "gay-marriage" is.

And you agreed that it was the same thing as straight marriage, except that the genitalia were different.

Then to go on to define what a marriage is and the origin of marriage and then conclude that there is only a "gay-civil union"

Since you already said it was the same, that means that there is only a straight civil union as well.

....which would mean that there is no marriage. You are truly confusing.

It is only a "civil union" because they can not procreate. A marriage is used for the purpose of procreating.

Many married straight couples cannot procreate. Do they only have civil unions?

Many married straight couples choose not to procreate. Do they only have civil unions?


Just a point of clarification. I haven't read all of the 172-page opinion(pdf), but what I have read so far makes it clear that the court decided that the laws against same-sex marriage violated the California Constitution. The decision is a matter of state, and not federal law. The case shouldn't be appealable.

Ah, that makes more sense then. So Californians just have to make sure that the bigots in their midst don't manage to get the amendment added.

Thanks!

[QUOTE=Knights of Liberty;13694881]There are civilizations that were far older then the Jewish. Especially far older then monothiest Jews.

So, while his time period was off, he is essentially correct. Marriage was viewed as a civil contract of sorts to bind families, kingdoms, and tribes together far before religion high-jacked it.[\QUOTE]

Marriage was used to bind families, kingdoms etc, but if they did not procreate what would be the purpose of the combining families, kingdoms etc?

Families, kingdoms etc used marriage to procreate to continue their legacy.

I ask again:

So, people who are infertale should not be allowed to marry?

Just a point of clarification. I haven't read all of the 172-page opinion (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF)(pdf), but what I have read so far makes it clear that the court decided that the laws against same-sex marriage violated the California Constitution. The decision is a matter of state, and not federal law. The case shouldn't be appealable.

Interesting, thanks TCT. I have not read the opinion at all and based that assumption purely on a quote from cnn.com which reads:

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely.

Which, based on that, made me conclude that it was a federal constitutional issue, not a state one, as SCOTUS would have no standing for a state constitutional matter. But I admit, I based that only on that statement, which I wasn't sure was accurate.

agreed. which is kinda why I specified Church/religion. ;)

Indeed you did. :)

There are civilizations that were far older then the Jewish. Especially far older then monothiest Jews.

So, while his time period was off, he is essentially correct. Marriage was viewed as a civil contract of sorts to bind families, kingdoms, and tribes together far before religion high-jacked it.[\QUOTE]

Marriage was used to bind families, kingdoms etc, but if they did not procreate what would be the purpose of the combining families, kingdoms etc?

I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe it was to, umm, stop/prevent WAR?

Any two people can combine their assets and maximise their position. It is called a Joint Partnership and can be developed by any two individuals. Any individual can sign over the right of whom can protect them when they become ill and unable to make decisions on their own, that is called a will.
Not in Michigan.
This period created the lawful marriage recognized by a state. There has always been religious marriage.
This is the opposite of the truth. Religious ceremonies for marriage are the recent innovation. Marriage for most of history was a matter of community recognition.

I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe it was to, umm, stop/prevent WAR?

Psh. Applying historical truths to counter historical revisionism. How sill of you.:p

Ahhh, here we go, page 48 of the opinion:

Plaintiffs contend that by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, California’s marriage statutes violate a number of provisions of the California Constitution.28 In particular, plaintiffs contend that the challenged statutes violate a same-sex couple’s fundamental “right to marry” as guaranteed by the privacy, free speech, and due process clauses of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 2, 7), and additionally violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7)

Further, footnote 28 reads:

Plaintiffs base their constitutional challenge in this case solely upon the provisions of the California Constitution and do not advance any claim under the federal Constitution.

So it was a california constitutional matter, not a federal one. That's what I get for trusting mainstream journalism and not fact checking myself.

This is all wrong. These courts and legislatures are getting it all fucking wrong. First they legalize interracial marriage, and then comes gay marriage. What's next, polygamist marriage? Cross-species marriage? Humans marrying inanimate objects? And the government recognizes it all? Feh. We need to go back to the good old days of marriage.

You know, back when there was no such thing as a government-sanctioned "marriage" or "civil union." The hell with the whole legal concept.

But at least this is slightly more sane than what it was before.

I voted against my states' same-sex marriage ban, for what it's worth. And I did it nearly four years ago. Regardless, the bill passed and I was one of the one out of five people who voted so.

Reality is what one makes it, rather Reality can be distorted to make it what you want; history does not disagree with me. How can one continue history with out procreating? How do we procreate?

You should try sexual education. Marriage doesn't get you pregnant. Being unmarried doesn't prevent you from getting pregnant. It has nothing to do with marriage.

Marriage provides a structure for the combination of resources necessary to protect a family. That same combination is still necessary absent children (which, of course, gay couples not only CAN have, but DO have). If it weren't it would be permitted for those that are sterile or to old to have children to marry. However, we permit it, because the state does not require that you be capable of reproducing in order to marry.

You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage.

A tomato is legally considered a vegetable.

A tomato is legally considered a vegetable.

Sorta kinda yes and no. I know the case you're refering to, it's more technically correct to say that the court ruled that the obvious legislative intent of a statute dealing with the importation of "vegetables" was that it cover tomatoes as well.

Less so that a tomato is legally a vegetable, but that a statute covering "vegetables" covered those things that were traditionally considered vegetables in the normal every day use of the word "vegetable", which included tomatoes, and not in the scientific technical use of the word, as a tomato, though typically and commonly thought a vegetable, is in fact a fruit.

.

if it's a ruling on the state constitution of California, then the matter's pretty much settled.

actually, it's not. the republicans in CA are gearing up to launch a $10 million attack in 2009 to put the issue back on the table and have it their way, once and for all.

hrc.org has more info and you can donate to them for a counter-"strike" if you feel passionately.

You should try sexual education. Marriage doesn't get you pregnant. Being unmarried doesn't prevent you from getting pregnant. It has nothing to do with marriage.

Wait, you mean fear of commitment isn't a reliable form of contraception anymore? Damn!

Marriage was used to bind families, kingdoms etc, but if they did not procreate what would be the purpose of the combining families, kingdoms etc?

Families, kingdoms etc used marriage to procreate to continue their legacy.

Nope. Wrong. Procreation is very unimportant to the grand scheme of most marriage. A lot of times it is to create a bond between two families, giving them greater power over others. Which has nothing to do with continuing the lineage. Other reasons are wealth(Bridewealth and such), prestige(Most polygamous peoples don't actually use all their spouses for procreation. Most of the time it is a status symbol, or a way of gaining more wealth), etc. People aren't stupid, and know very well that procreation does not need marriage. So, although procreation is a *part* of marriage, it is very, very, very rarely the *reason* to get married. And I mean RARELY.

actually, it's not. the republicans in CA are gearing up to launch a $10 million attack in 2009 to put the issue back on the table and have it their way, once and for all.

hrc.org has more info and you can donate to them for a counter-"strike" if you feel passionately.

as I said, it'll fail, just like it did in connecticut, massachusetts, vermont, new hampshire and new jersey.

I have no issue calling it a civil union. Why are they so demanding in calling their civil union a marriage?

Because there are about 125 benefits that marriage gives that civil union doesn't. I don't have time to dig these up but a google search could give you the list. Most of them can be granted by contract but same-sex couples shouldn't have to draw up expensive contract just to be equal. Some of them like tax breaks are just not possible for civil union as the law stands.

That's why the fight for same-sex marriage continues.

as I said, it'll fail, just like it did in connecticut, massachusetts, vermont, new hampshire and new jersey.

Hey 5 out of 41 is a pretty good winning percentage.

All I can say is: About time! :)


So it was a california constitutional matter, not a federal one. That's what I get for trusting mainstream journalism and not fact checking myself.

That was your FIRST mistake... http://http://forums.e-mpire.com/images/smilies/pirate.gif http://http://forums.e-mpire.com/images/smilies/whip.gif

Nope. Wrong. Procreation is very unimportant to the grand scheme of most marriage. A lot of times it is to create a bond between two families, giving them greater power over others. Which has nothing to do with continuing the lineage. Other reasons are wealth(Bridewealth and such), prestige(Most polygamous peoples don't actually use all their spouses for procreation. Most of the time it is a status symbol, or a way of gaining more wealth), etc. People aren't stupid, and know very well that procreation does not need marriage. So, although procreation is a *part* of marriage, it is very, very, very rarely the *reason* to get married. And I mean RARELY.

Ssssh. Dont correct his historical revisionism with the facts.


Anyway, “No religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples,” Chief Justice George wrote, “and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

So rest assured junii theyre are doing as you said.

Hey 5 out of 41 is a pretty good winning percentage.

How does 50 out of 50, in about thirty years, sound?

Because that's what it will be someday, conservative wishes to prevent equality for people notwithstanding.

The world evolves. The ideas evolve. And as the world evolves, it gets more liberal. Neocons spending their time and money because they believe their skewed, Lawful Evil notion of God told them to will not matter in the long run.

It's evolution, baby! ;)

Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens.

Therefore, there is no marriage between opposite-sex couples that cannot have children. :rolleyes:

Even the Bible doesn't define marriage in terms of procreation:

Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'"

I am so freaking proud of this state. Six out of seven justices were appointed by Republicans and they STILL overturned it. Gods bless them.

+1 Sanity for America!

I am so freaking proud of this state. Six out of seven justices were appointed by Republicans and they STILL overturned it. Gods bless them.

Well to be fair, the only state gayer then Mass is California.

How do we procreate?

If you haven't had this talk with your mommy and daddy yet, I don't think you should be on here.

Well to be fair, the only state gayer then Mass is California.

And yet we still manage to be so doggedly puritanical about some things. I blame Orange County, as usual.

If you haven't had this talk with your mommy and daddy yet, I don't think you should be on here.

When a man and a woman are married they call the stork and he brings a baby. The stork is a WASP, and therefore only brings babies to other WASPs. Everyone else who has a baby stole it from the stork.

I have no issue calling it a civil union. Why are they so demanding in calling their civil union a marriage?

Why are you so demanding in your limitation of the term? Laws should protect people's rights, not take them away without any justification other than "I don't like it".

Thank you.

A) civil union
B) marriage

And since there are MANY churches across the nation that perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, you conceed that gay couples can indeed be married, I assume.

When a man and a woman are married they call the stork and he brings a baby. The stork is a WASP, and therefore only brings babies to other WASPs. Everyone else who has a baby stole it from the stork.

I thought it had to do with giving special hugs and digging up cabbages.

Glen Lavy, attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund that opposes gay marriage was disappointed with the court's action. "I'm very surprised," he said. "It is not the role of the courts to legislate. This is an issue for the democratic process.


http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_9272332



Why is it that whenever a Supreme Court makes a decision that Conservatives dont like, they always accuse hem of "legislating from the bench"? Do they forget that striking down unconstitutional laws is something the Supreme Court is supposed to do?

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_9272332

Why is it that whenever a Supreme Court makes a decision that Conservatives dont like, they always accuse hem of "legislating from the bench"? Do they forget that striking down unconstitutional laws is something the Supreme Court is supposed to do?

Courts are supposed to uphold the will of the people!

(except where they're not, like in Kelo)

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_9272332



Why is it that whenever a Supreme Court makes a decision that Conservatives don't like, they always accuse them of "legislating from the bench"? Do they forget that striking down unconstitutional laws is something the Supreme Court is supposed to do?

Because they disagree with the Court's ruling. They don't give a shit about the law. They only want to force their views on everyone else, although to be fair, other groups do this all the time as well.

My view on gay marriage: meh, why not? The divorce rate is well over 40% anyway, so the idea that marriage is blessed by an infallible God is kinda dead.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_9272332



Why is it that whenever a Supreme Court makes a decision that Conservatives dont like, they always accuse hem of "legislating from the bench"? Do they forget that striking down unconstitutional laws is something the Supreme Court is supposed to do?
Didn't you know? Any judgment that you disagree with is obviously a glaring example of activist judges and judicial bias, anything that you agree with is a fine example of impartial judicial decision and a strict reading of the Constitution/laws.

To wit: Think about Mod action on NSG and replace it with the Supreme Court! ;)

Neo Art, wouldn't SCOTUS have a say due to the rather thorny problem of DOMA and the full faith and credit clause in the federal Constitution? California, unlike Mass, doesn't have a residency requirement so residents of other states COULD be trooping into California for a quick marriage and then back home to a state that doesn't recognize it causing a constitutional issue.

Ha!

Suck my dick, evangelicals!

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_9272332



Why is it that whenever a Supreme Court makes a decision that Conservatives dont like, they always accuse hem of "legislating from the bench"? Do they forget that striking down unconstitutional laws is something the Supreme Court is supposed to do?

Because conservatives think that judges should only decide elections, not what's constitutional.

Because conservatives think that judges should only decide elections, and thus put other conservatives in government, not what's constitutional.
Fixed. ;)

I'm feeling very liberal.

Just a question for Americans

From what I understand the Supreme Court ruled that California state law cannot ban same sex marriage.

The question is should a federal government ban same sex marriage would that ruling become obsolete? Does federal law overrule state law in America?

And one final question, can the Supreme Court of America rule that a federal government cannot ban same sex marriage or overrule any other law made by the Supreme Court.

Should the supreme court of America over rule it and say in its ruling that it is unconstitutional, can I be shown where it is unconstitutional?

Yeah, I cant say im surprised...Its California...

Not that it doesnt need to be done....It needs to be legal everywhere...but, youd have a damn hard time convincing the Bible Nuts...who run most of the country, state and land wise anyway, if not population wise...

Hell, My Stated be top on the list of countries where itd never happen...Which is sad, I hate not liking my state, but as of late, its damn impossible to stop :(

The question is should a federal government ban same sex marriage would that ruling become obsolete? Does federal law overrule state law in America?


Yes, and No....In theory yes, the Supreme Court is the 'Supreme' Law of the Land...

But, in practice, no....The Bible Nut Neo-Cons have a tendancy to tell the Supreme Court to Shove it when it doesnt support them...Then use them as a Weapon when it does...

Personally, i don't know what business the government has enforcing and regulating marriage. "By the power vested in my and the State of ****" Bullshit! How about, by the power of love that brings two people together, we are married. Thats right, the love power, captain planet style, none of this state-run legally binding bullshit. Man I'm drunk.

EDIT: I'm trying to say that marriage should not be a government institution.

Just a question for Americans

From what I understand the Supreme Court ruled that California state law cannot ban same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court of California, specifically. The US Supreme Court wasn't involved.

The question is should a federal government ban same sex marriage would that ruling become obsolete? Does federal law overrule state law in America?

It depends. In order for the federal government to make such a law, they'd have to first argue that it fell under federal authority (by arguing interstate commerce or something like that).

As it is, marriage law is generally held to be under state authority, and I don't think that's going to change. The only way that the federal government could completely ban it would be to have an amendment to the US Constitution.

And one final question, can the Supreme Court of America rule that a federal government cannot ban same sex marriage or overrule any other law made by the Supreme Court.

If SCOTUS ruled that banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional (under the US Constitution), neither the federal governments nor the state governments could then ban it without adding an amendment to the Constitution.

Should the supreme court of America over rule it and say in its ruling that it is unconstitutional, can I be shown where it is unconstitutional?

Their opinions explain their reasoning for either upholding a law or declaring it unconstitutional.

EDIT: I'm trying to say that marriage should not be a government institution.

How do you propose we deal with all of the legal issues encountered when two people choose to build a life together?

How do you propose we deal with all of the legal issues encountered when two people choose to build a life together?

Well, that would be handled after theyre married wouldnt it?

So i wouldnt matter who's legal authority married them in the first place, long as they were...

Well, that would be handled after theyre married wouldnt it?

Not without some sort of legal institution.

So i wouldnt matter who's legal authority married them in the first place, long as they were...

Anyone can be married. But legally married is something else - and it deals with the legal issues.

Civil marriage laws were formed in response to people getting married and living as such. The government recognized that the situation required certain protections and bound them together in a legal institution called, fittingly enough, "marriage".

Anyone can be married.

If that was true we wouldnt be having this discussion, lol...

But, Yes there are legal issues, but, they should be handled on an equal basis...

Government should be Blind...

So it wouldnt matter what group you belonged to...

If that was true we wouldnt be having this discussion, lol...

Anyone can be married in the sense you are talking about - the one where the government isn't involved.

But, Yes there are legal issues, but, they should be handled on an equal basis...

Indeed.

But the answer, then, is not to do away with the legal institution. It is to apply it equally.

The Supreme Court of California, specifically. The US Supreme Court wasn't involved.

Yeah that was who I meant

It depends. In order for the federal government to make such a law, they'd have to first argue that it fell under federal authority (by arguing interstate commerce or something like that).

As it is, marriage law is generally held to be under state authority, and I don't think that's going to change. The only way that the federal government could completely ban it would be to have an amendment to the US Constitution.

Ah I see ok, but should a federal government ban it it would then overrule any state law. My question is why doesn't federal law overrule state law?

If SCOTUS ruled that banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional (under the US Constitution), neither the federal governments nor the state governments could then ban it without adding an amendment to the Constitution.

Then why do we bother have a legislature if they can't legislate? Please bear in mind I do not have an opinion on the issue nor am I a Neocon before any whack job out there decides to go stupid on me.

Their opinions explain their reasoning for either upholding a law or declaring it unconstitutional.

So they can point to the constitution and show why it is unconstitutional, including the Supreme Court of California in this recent ruling.

Ah I see ok, but should a federal government ban it it would then overrule any state law. My question is why doesn't federal law overrule state law?

I'm pretty sure that federal law can overrule state law.

Ah I see ok, but should a federal government ban it it would then overrule any state law. My question is why doesn't federal law overrule state law?

Because the federal and state authority do not always overlap. In cases where the federal government actually has authority, it overrules state law. In cases where it does not, it is not supposed to be making laws at all.

Then why do we bother have a legislature if they can't legislate? Please bear in mind I do not have an opinion on the issue nor am I a Neocon before any whack job out there decides to go stupid on me.

Huh? Who said they can't legislate. They can. And if their legislation is unconstitutional, it can be struck down by the courts.

It's a matter of check and balances. The Constitution limits the types of legislation that the government has the power to pass and enforce. The courts determine whether or not that limit has been breached.

So they can point to the constitution and show why it is unconstitutional, including the Supreme Court of California in this recent ruling.

Indeed. In this case, the CA Supreme Court pointed out specific clauses of the CA constitution that were being violated by the ban.

As a check on the court, the legislature and people of CA can, if they so wish, amend the constitution to specifically ban same-sex marriage.

Indeed.

But the answer, then, is not to do away with the legal institution. It is to apply it equally.

I agree, but i just dont see it happening as long as you keep power-hungry people in charge...

And, unfortunately, only people who want power, attempt to take it...

Its a feedback loop...

Because the federal and state authority do not always overlap. In cases where the federal government actually has authority, it overrules state law. In cases where it does not, it is not supposed to be making laws at all.

But it can make the laws if it wanted to and the States couldn't overrule it. You also mentioned an amendment to the constitution could be made, could this amendment be overruled by the SCOTUS

Huh? Who said they can't legislate. They can. And if their legislation is unconstitutional, it can be struck down by the courts.

It's a matter of check and balances. The Constitution limits the types of legislation that the government has the power to pass and enforce. The courts determine whether or not that limit has been breached.

Yeah ok righto, but couldn't the courts if they disagree with a law just overrule it if they wanted to.

Indeed. In this case, the CA Supreme Court pointed out specific clauses of the CA constitution that were being violated by the ban.

As a check on the court, the legislature and people of CA can, if they so wish, amend the constitution to specifically ban same-sex marriage.

So really rather than passing laws, the legislature should just enshrine stuff in the constitution

+1 Sanity for America!

I am irked by the inference that one has to be sane to support equal rights for all.

*paints you purple*

I am irked by the inference that one has to be sane to support equal rights for all.

*paints you purple*

Well, if you take all the sane people and lock them up and let the insane people run the wor Oooohhhh purple! :p

I am irked by the inference that one has to be sane to support equal rights for all.

*paints you purple*

How about "+1 sanity AND good kind of insanity"?

But it can make the laws if it wanted to and the States couldn't overrule it.

If the federal government makes laws that are outside its authority, they can be challenged as unconstitutional. So the states can't directly overrule it, but they can have it overruled by the courts.

You also mentioned an amendment to the constitution could be made, could this amendment be overruled by the SCOTUS

No. If the Constitution is amended to say something, it is, by definition, Constitutional.

Yeah ok righto, but couldn't the courts if they disagree with a law just overrule it if they wanted to.

They could. State courts are often elected positions, though, so most state judges aren't going to make a decision they can't back up. Also, most decisions can be appealed to a higher court, so your reasoning has to convince other courts as well.

There is no appealing past SCOTUS. But if people don't like their rulings, the law and the Constitution get changed.

So really rather than passing laws, the legislature should just enshrine stuff in the constitution

Not really. Then the Constitution gets unwieldy. Most laws go unchallenged and aren't a problem.

However, if the legislature really, really wants to do something and the courts declare it unconstitutional, they can try and amend the Constitution. The legislature cannot do that alone or by a simple majority, though. IIRC, it takes 3/4 of both houses and 3/4 of the states approving before an amendment is added.

But it can make the laws if it wanted to and the States couldn't overrule it. You also mentioned an amendment to the constitution could be made, could this amendment be overruled by the SCOTUS

No and no. The Supreme Court does not make law; it only determines whether or not a law is Constitutional. The question is usually how much do they pretzel their logic to try and fit a decision into standing precedent. Further, no, a constitutional Amendment cannot ever be overridden by a Supreme Court decision. That's why we never had to overturn the Dred Scott decision: the Civil War amendments did that for us.


Yeah ok righto, but couldn't the courts if they disagree with a law just overrule it if they wanted to.

Yes they can and often do, despite the standing conservative view that precedent should be next to sacrosanct. That being said though, this respect for precedent comes and goes depending on the times, and it's been like that since Justice Marshall retired in the early-mid 1800's.


So really rather than passing laws, the legislature should just enshrine stuff in the constitution

Erm, no. Why would you want an annual tax bill in the Constitution, for instance? Or a standard resolution wishing a Congressman from Virginia happy birthday, or for that matter a bad law?

Enshrining everything in the Constitution would destroy it and reduce the executive and judicial to pawns of the legislature.

Erm, no. Why would you want an annual tax bill in the Constitution, for instance? Or a standard resolution wishing a Congressman from Virginia happy birthday, or for that matter a bad law?

Enshrining everything in the Constitution would destroy it and reduce the executive and judicial to pawns of the legislature.
Which is why it is so difficult to get an amendment to the Constitution ratified, people (Or rather the several states) have to REALLY want the damn thing to get it to work.

No and no. The Supreme Court does not make law; it only determines whether or not a law is Constitutional. The question is usually how much do they pretzel their logic to try and fit a decision into standing precedent. Further, no, a constitutional Amendment cannot ever be overridden by a Supreme Court decision. That's why we never had to overturn the Dred Scott decision: the Civil War amendments did that for us.



Yes they can and often do, despite the standing conservative view that precedent should be next to sacrosanct. That being said though, this respect for precedent comes and goes depending on the times, and it's been like that since Justice Marshall retired in the early-mid 1800's.

Erm, no. Why would you want an annual tax bill in the Constitution, for instance? Or a standard resolution wishing a Congressman from Virginia happy birthday, or for that matter a bad law?

Enshrining everything in the Constitution would destroy it and reduce the executive and judicial to pawns of the legislature.

Well I was talking about anything they really want so it wont get overturned rather than ensuring some body gets a birthday card every year.

Now does all this go for states as well. And if something was in a state constitution and a federal government came up with a law that contradicted that law does it make it obsolete?

I am irked by the inference that one has to be sane to support equal rights for all.

*paints you purple*

Should I run to a decontamination shower or is the paint lead free this time?

Should I run to a decontamination shower or is the paint lead free this time?

You might as well go anyway, just to play it safe.

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of millions of California voters.

Well I was talking about anything they really want so it wont get overturned rather than ensuring some body gets a birthday card every year.

Now does all this go for states as well. And if something was in a state constitution and a federal government came up with a law that contradicted that law does it make it obsolete?

Well, I think you're not entirely getting the point, which is that a lot of the functions the legislature does wouldn't exactly be better if they were permanent. Lots of times, like with Civil Rights laws, or payments to farmers, or tax bills, or any of quite a few other kinds of laws, the legislature is better-served by a temporary bill, parts of which (or even the whole thing) that can be struck down. Moreover, there is a democratic model already where the legislature effectively writes the Constitution as they write the law, and that's the British House of Commons. While that can work, it's hardly without drawbacks, and the degree of protection minorities possess in unpopular times has the potential to be ridiculously small. So the tradeoff on balance may not be worth it.

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of millions of California voters.

And for good reason, too. If we left everything up to the voters, anti-miscegenation laws would still be on the books.

First of all the I just read the California State Constitution, and knowing the U.S. constitution, and I believe that the California Supreme Court has violated the Constitution of the United States as marriage is a state right, one cannot bridge the legal right to marriage between people of different races as it would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th, however marriage between people of the same gender is not a judical matter as equal protection is extended to all groups and as such marriage between people of the same gender is quite different as at the time the 14th amendment was ratified gay marriage was not a 'real' issue and as such in order to change this a amendment must be brought to the U.S. constitution in order for such a ruling to be even be allowed to be made.

How does 50 out of 50, in about thirty years, sound?

Like it took to long.

Should I run to a decontamination shower or is the paint lead free this time?

Don't you like surprises? :D

Like it took to long.

True. But better late than the never he predicts/wants.

First of all the I just read the California State Constitution, and knowing the U.S. constitution, and I believe that the California Supreme Court has violated the Constitution of the United States as marriage is a state right, one cannot bridge the legal right to marriage between people of different races as it would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th, however marriage between people of the same gender is not a judical matter as equal protection is extended to all groups and as such marriage between people of the same gender is quite different as at the time the 14th amendment was ratified gay marriage was not a 'real' issue and as such in order to change this a amendment must be brought to the U.S. constitution in order for such a ruling to be even be allowed to be made.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Just because they weren't thinking about gays when they said "everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law" doesn't mean that equal protection under the law doesn't apply to gays.

I would like you to explain the logic behind this statement, however.

marriage between people of the same gender is not a judical matter as equal protection is extended to all groups

it seems that ensuring that equal protection is extended to all groups is exactly what the judges have done in this case.

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of millions of California voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Read it. You need to.

Thank you.

A) marriage
B) marriage

fixed

fixed

I fixed it first. :p

I fixed it first. :p

Yeah, I saw that right after I posted mine...

You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing.

You're right. There's no gay marriage, only marriage, and marriage is the right of all Americans regardless of sexual orientation or the sex of their partner.

First of all the I just read the California State Constitution, and knowing the U.S. constitution, and I believe that the California Supreme Court has violated the Constitution of the United States as marriage is a state right, one cannot bridge the legal right to marriage between people of different races as it would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th, however marriage between people of the same gender is not a judical matter as equal protection is extended to all groups and as such marriage between people of the same gender is quite different as at the time the 14th amendment was ratified gay marriage was not a 'real' issue and as such in order to change this a amendment must be brought to the U.S. constitution in order for such a ruling to be even be allowed to be made.

Making gay marriage a states' rights issue just invites a Full Faith and Credit clusterfuck. It's pretty clear that's not a viable solution in the long run.

I would like you to explain the logic behind this statement, however.

marriage between people of the same gender is not a judical matter as equal protection is extended to all groups

it seems that ensuring that equal protection is extended to all groups is exactly what the judges have done in this case.

how much you want to bet that it's argument is that everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender...

I hate that bullshit argument.

how much you want to bet that it's argument is that everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender...

My favorite response to that is that it is a sexist position as it does not afford the same rights to men and women.

My favorite response to that is that it is a sexist position as it does not afford the same rights to men and women.

same here but more long winded.

It allows men marry women, but not women to marry women.
It allows women to marry men, but not men to marry men.
Where is the equality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Read it. You need to.

Yes he should and come to the realization that democracy is folly. Of course were it not for democracy people who support this move would not have been able to get it well know, which is why it is funny when they tell people who may not support it to shut up.

Living in a liberal democracy means that some things must be given over by the will of the majority. And soemtimes the democracy bit gets forgotten, and not just on this issue on any issue.

Of course how do we define what a right is?

Is marriage on the same scale as rights as say, to vote, to free speech or something similar?

Yes he should and come to the realization that democracy is folly. Of course were it not for democracy people who support this move would not have been able to get it well know, which is why it is funny when they tell people who may not support it to shut up.

Living in a liberal democracy means that some things must be given over by the will of the majority. And soemtimes the democracy bit gets forgotten, and not just on this issue on any issue.

Of course how do we define what a right is?

Is marriage on the same scale as rights as say, to vote, to free speech or something similar?

Yes.

Is marriage on the same scale as rights as say, to vote, to free speech or something similar?

Marriage? No. Equality under law? Yes, absolutely.

Well I was talking about anything they really want so it wont get overturned rather than ensuring some body gets a birthday card every year.
There is an amendment process for that, but it takes years as you need a 2/3 passing vote in BOTH houses of Congress for an amendment to be proposed and then 3/4 of the states have to sign off on it. It's generally easier to pass a law, which is why there are only 27 amendments to the bloody thing after 230 years of being in effect.

Now does all this go for states as well. And if something was in a state constitution and a federal government came up with a law that contradicted that law does it make it obsolete?
Depends, if a state passed a constitutional amendment that contradicted the US Constitution or a law directly based off of it, SCOTUS would strike it down as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If said amendment ran afoul of an area clearly designated as federal territory (For example, if, say, Texas decided to issue passports on its own) such an amendment would again be struck down. However, if federal law is in an area where there is NOT clear cut federal jurisdiction, then things are quite a bit more complicated and SCOTUS would have to decide on what the Constitution said about it and if the federal government actually had the power to regulate that area in the first place. If not, the state amendment would stand and the federal law will be stricken.

How exactly is discriminating on the basis of sexuality any different than discrimination on the basis of race? Both things are innate to the individual and they have no choice over, it's even worst than persecution based on politics.

I think discrimination against homosexuals needs to be opposed just as much as racism was, it's such a shame that homophobia has become the new racism of our times, by that I mean just like segregation it's become a 'don't ask, don't tell' silent discrimination and the common people are just turning away while it happens.

Reactionaries should be given no quarter.

I think this is excellent news for queers. I'm not a real fan of marriage, but I'll take it over institutionalized discrimination.

Also, to those who might be complaining that the California Supreme Court is being anti-democratic, that's a central purpose of a Supreme Court.

EDIT:

How exactly is discriminating on the basis of sexuality any different than discrimination on the basis of race? Both things are innate to the individual and they have no choice over, it's even worst than persecution based on politics.

I think discrimination against homosexuals needs to be opposed just as much as racism was, it's such a shame that homophobia has become the new racism of our times, by that I mean just like segregation it's become a 'don't ask, don't tell' silent discrimination and the common people are just turning away while it happens.

Reactionaries should be given no quarter.
Yay. I found a post of yours that does not offend me!

:fluffle:

I think this is excellent news for queers. I'm not a real fan of marriage, but I'll take it over institutionalized discrimination.

Also, to those who might be complaining that the California Supreme Court is being anti-democratic, that's a central purpose of a Supreme Court.


Or, rather, the purpose of a Constitution, and the Supreme Court's purpose is to interpret and enforce the edicts of that constitution.

Yes he should and come to the realization that democracy is folly. Of course were it not for democracy people who support this move would not have been able to get it well know, which is why it is funny when they tell people who may not support it to shut up.

You're conflating at least two different meanings of "democracy" here. Majority rule is not a prerequisite for the ability of citizens to draw attention to an issue.

Of course how do we define what a right is?

Is marriage on the same scale as rights as say, to vote, to free speech or something similar?

Under the California Constitution, it would appear so. Some of the reasoning in Loving v. Virginia suggests to me that this is also the case under the U.S. Constitution.

Is marriage on the same scale as rights as say, to vote, to free speech or something similar?
Higher, I would say. Of course, that's just me, but if I could have only one of those three.

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of millions of California voters.

:rolleyes:

How is it "undemocratic" for the CA Supreme Court to do what it's empowered to do by the very constitution it upheld? Sometimes the will of millions is channeled in ways that run afoul of the constitution. The Supreme Court's job is to address this when such breaches are brought to them in the form of lawsuits.

The Court did what it was supposed to do. If you're upset about it enough to willfully misinterpret what's happened, then you need to contribute to one of the many efforts to change the California Constitution. That document and legislation that doesn't take it into account is what makes law, not judges. The judges look at laws and determine their constitutionality. They found this particular law to be unconstitutional. If you disagree with their decision, it's been linked in this thread. Give it a read and let us all know where you think the California Supreme Court was incorrect.

I'll wait.

Government should be Blind...

Around here it's more usually Deaf and Dumb...

My faith in humanity inches upwards a notch.

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of millions of California voters.

The word you are looking for is "constitutional republic". The founding fathers rightly considered democracy an abomination.

The word you are looking for is "constitutional republic". The founding fathers rightly considered democracy an abomination.
The 'founding fathers' were a bunch of racist, elitist, slave-owing, reactionary scumbags, I wouldn't speak as if pride in them is a virtue.

The 'founding fathers' were a bunch of racist, elitist, slave-owing, reactionary scumbags, I wouldn't speak as if pride in them is a virtue.

True, but they had alot of good ideas too...Nobody's perfect...

Besides, that was most of the World at that time...

True, but they had alot of good ideas too...Nobody's perfect...

Besides, that was most of the World at that time...
What exactly did they do that was so good? They supposedly liberated Americans from British tyranny, but this tyranny was only really taxation on the rich landowners (which they were), while the Americans themselves held slaves who truly were oppressed.

Did women get equal citizenship? On paper but not in reality.

I see the American freedom simply as the freedom of the few.

America was founded on the principle of 'liberty' (elitism) over 'equality' (democracy), it was founded upon the idea of keeping the wealth from the majority. And to this day it remains so, screwed up and elitist as hell. From day one America was not a country by a business zone.

The 'founding fathers' were a bunch of racist, elitist, slave-owing, reactionary scumbags, I wouldn't speak as if pride in them is a virtue.

While I agree, I consider them the lesser of two evils - the other being the Bible worshipping so prevalent in US society today.

But feel free to get rid of the US constitution if you so desire. You are moving in that direction anyway.

While I agree, I consider them the lesser of two evils - the other being the Bible worshipping so prevalent in US society today.

But feel free to get rid of the US constitution if you so desire. You are moving in that direction anyway.
That's the problem with many Americans these days, you see this old document as the solution is all problems, and in the face of modern society it is completely irrelevant and nothing but a worthless piece of paper.

Problem with Americans today is that you see that what your nation was founded upon was good, and since that time it has gone awry. That has NEVER been the case, America has always been the home of the bourgeois, who fleeing the mercantillistic protectionist capitalism of the British Empire wanted fresh ground to set up ground to exploit.

The 'founding fathers' were a bunch of racist, elitist, slave-owing, reactionary scumbags, I wouldn't speak as if pride in them is a virtue.

Uh-huh. Just like everyone else at the time. You realize your point there is like trying to call Shakespeare sexist, don't you? You can't really be racist before the concept exists.

What exactly did they do that was so good? They supposedly liberated Americans from British tyranny, but this tyranny was only really taxation on the rich landowners (which they were), while the Americans themselves held slaves who truly were oppressed.

Did women get equal citizenship? On paper but not in reality.

I see the American freedom simply as the freedom of the few.

America was founded on the principle of 'liberty' (elitism) over 'equality' (democracy), it was founded upon the idea of keeping the wealth from the majority. And to this day it remains so, screwed up and elitist as hell. From day one America was not a country by a business zone.

Your point? It is what it is.

That's the problem with many Americans these days, you see this old document as the solution is all problems, and in the face of modern society it is completely irrelevant and nothing but a worthless piece of paper.

Problem with Americans today is that you see that what your nation was founded upon was good, and since that time it has gone awry. That has NEVER been the case, America has always been the home of the bourgeois, who fleeing the mercantillistic protectionist capitalism of the British Empire wanted fresh ground to set up ground to exploit.

Oy veh. You make terrific points, Andaras, but you make them with such patently stereotypical rhetoric that very few will ever listen to you for longer than it takes to laugh. I'm nobody's expert, but it seems to me that you'll convince far more people if you tone down the Marx-speak and just speak English. But that advice is worth less than the photons and electrons cost to transmit it.

Now, how's about we get back to the topic before you wind up hijacking yet another thread?

Now, how's about we get back to the topic before you wind up hijacking yet another thread?

HIJACKERS!? where?...:sniper:

snip
Sorry if I don't placate your bourgeois social conditioning with kind words for the capitalists...:rolleyes:

Sorry if I don't placate your bourgeois social conditioning with kind words for the capitalists...:rolleyes:

You don't know a damned thing about any kind of "conditioning" I might have received. I'll thank you to keep your assumptions to stuff you can actually observe. Have you ever seen me post pro-capitalist crap here?

Listen, Trotsky, if you can point out where I asked you to say anything nice about capitalists, I'll be happy to retract it. See, it's that kind of presumptive, "revolutionary", jargon-laced bullshit that trivializes every point you try to make. And the pity of it is that you make some good points. You're perfectly within your right to spew whatever you want, but in order to be taken seriously, you might try to stop sounding like a college freshman who just got his mind blown in his first Poli-Sci class taught by an aging hippie.

whatever people may say about california elsewhere, appearently, and i'm glad we are, we're a lot saner then a lot of other places.

at least if i'm reading this right.

=^^=
.../\...

Andaras and everyone else who wants to discuss abstract theories of governance, there is already a thread on that. Go to it.

The topic of this thread is the decision on same sex marriage in California. Stick with it.

Andaras and everyone else who wants to discuss abstract theories of governance, there is already a thread on that. Go to it.

The topic of this thread is the decision on same sex marriage in California. Stick with it.

I don't know, Ard, seems to me that an illustrative parallel can be drawn between marriage and the schism between marxist and capitalist governments.

You see, if a man marries a woman, its like Trotsky being hammered in the skull in Mexico and he wakes up in the hell of having to make sure the toothpaste is squeezed in a certain way.

But if a man marries a man, its more like Washington triumphantly fording a river with his men...who are wearing stockings and wigs.

That said, my own experience with marriage is such that gays should be required to get married, and join the rest of us at Home Depot on Saturday afternoon.

I have yet to see a credible arguement against same sex marriage. All the tried and true ones the religious right throw out are bunk. Bringing procreation into it... utter crap. Hundreds of thousands of children are born out of wedlock every year. All five of mine were. They have no less rights than those born into a marraige. They have the right to inheritance, you have no problem putting them on your employer provided health coverage, you still have all the same rights and resposibilities as a parent... even the old 'stigma' associated with children born outside of marraige is virtually non-existant today.

Marriage isn't about the children and procreation.

I finally married the mother of 4 of my children after 14 years for financial and practical reasons. I could finally put her on my health plan, there were significant tax benifits and we were granted unquestionable right of survivorship, to name just a few. These are civil benifits granted to married persons. These are the reasons why gay people want the right to marry, to reap the same benifits other citizens are afforded.

Don't involve religion in it either. My marriage wasn't religious, we were married in a courthouse (my divorce will happen there too). Marriage is virtually a world wide institution and has been for centuries, even in those places that don't practice the Abrahamic religions. It always has been a social contract between two people and it's evolved to have legal definition and benifits. And in the US all people are supposed to be equal under the law. No ones messing with your uptight religion.

Don't give me that crap about 'gay' marriage cheapening or undermining the institution of marriage (the favorite of those who insist 'gays can have civil unions, not marraige'). If the actions of two complete stangers somehow can undermine your marriage, the problem lies within your marriage or within yourself, not in what those two strangers are doing.

I don't know, Ard, seems to me that an illustrative parallel can be drawn between marriage and the schism between marxist and capitalist governments.

You see, if a man marries a woman, its like Trotsky being hammered in the skull in Mexico and he wakes up in the hell of having to make sure the toothpaste is squeezed in a certain way.

But if a man marries a man, its more like Washington triumphantly fording a river with his men...who are wearing stockings and wigs.

That said, my own experience with marriage is such that gays should be required to get married, and join the rest of us at Home Depot on Saturday afternoon.

:p

OP: Good for California. If anyone is interested, tomorrow (Saturday) is International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) http://www.homophobiaday.org/

Now I can say I am proud of something from California.

Marriage was used to bind families, kingdoms etc, but if they did not procreate what would be the purpose of the combining families, kingdoms etc?

Families, kingdoms etc used marriage to procreate to continue their legacy.Exactly. And because people didn't marry for love back then, there's no reason why they should do so now.

What I'd like to know is what functions I am unable to perform as spouse to a woman. I mean, the anti-gay-marriage crowd seem quite certain that a woman MUST HAVE A MALE SPOUSE for a "real" marriage, so I want to know why. What can a male spouse do that I am unable to do simply because I am female? What aspect of the marriage contract am I innately unable to fulfill due to my femaleness?

Exactly. And because people didn't marry for love back then, there's no reason why they should do so now.

There is little more important and fundamental things than increasing our numbers.

What I'd like to know is what functions I am unable to perform as spouse to a woman. I mean, the anti-gay-marriage crowd seem quite certain that a woman MUST HAVE A MALE SPOUSE for a "real" marriage, so I want to know why. What can a male spouse do that I am unable to do simply because I am female? What aspect of the marriage contract am I innately unable to fulfill due to my femaleness?
Father a child?

Father a child?
Many males are unable or unwilling to father a child, yet they are permitted to marry, so clearly that is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage.

Father a child?

Many males are unable or unwilling to father a child, yet they are permitted to marry, so clearly that is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage.

That and a male can father a child without a marriage contract.

That and a male can father a child without a marriage contract.If I'm not much mistaken, the same crowd that harps on against same sex marriages is the same crowd that bitches about males fathering children out of wedlock.

Many males are unable or unwilling to father a child, yet they are permitted to marry, so clearly that is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage.
Oh, you wanted a LOGICAL reason. Sorry, I have no friggen clue there.

If I'm not much mistaken, the same crowd that harps on against same sex marriages is the same crowd that bitches about males fathering children out of wedlock.

Even if they do, it doesn't change that children can and are conceived out of wedlock.

This action should guarantee that the California constitutional amendment will pass, when it shows up on the ballot.

I'm not so sure about the re-election of the four judges that voted to overturn this law. Remember the law, Prop 22, passed by a margin of almost 2 million votes, 4.6 million in favor and 2.9 million against.

They've made a lot of Californians mad.

How exactly is discriminating on the basis of sexuality any different than discrimination on the basis of race? Both things are innate to the individual and they have no choice over, it's even worst than persecution based on politics.

I think discrimination against homosexuals needs to be opposed just as much as racism was, it's such a shame that homophobia has become the new racism of our times, by that I mean just like segregation it's become a 'don't ask, don't tell' silent discrimination and the common people are just turning away while it happens.

Reactionaries should be given no quarter.

Wow, a post from AP that isn't filled with communist rhetoric...
*dies from shock*

Seriously though, I agree with AP.

Many males are unable or unwilling to father a child, yet they are permitted to marry, so clearly that is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage.

Ohh ohh is it slap your wife around?:p

If I'm not much mistaken, the same crowd that harps on against same sex marriages is the same crowd that bitches about males fathering children out of wedlock.

Yeah, the bastards!:D

This action should guarantee that the California constitutional amendment will pass, when it shows up on the ballot.

I'm not so sure about the re-election of the four judges that voted to overturn this law. Remember the law, Prop 22, passed by a margin of almost 2 million votes, 4.6 million in favor and 2.9 million against.

They've made a lot of Californians mad.

So judges actually doing their jobs can't count on being reelected, but if they had abandoned their integrity and failed in their duties they could count on it?

Nice system...

So judges actually doing their jobs can't count on being reelected, but if they had abandoned their integrity and failed in their duties they could count on it?

Nice system...
This is one of the perverse things: state Supreme Court judges are elected rather than appointed. (wtf?)

And yes, the trampling herd must have their way! God said so.

So judges actually doing their jobs can't count on being reelected, but if they had abandoned their integrity and failed in their duties they could count on it?

Nice system...
It's called a democracy.

If these judges are elected, then they understand the game. If they're appointed, then never mind.

I'm not so sure about the re-election of the four judges that voted to overturn this law.
Too bad that said judges don't run for re-election under the California system then.

Too bad that said judges don't run for re-election under the California system then.
See my comment above.

But they have virtually guaranteed that a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot in November and have most likely pissed off enough people that the initiative will pass.

That's one of the neat things about California lawmaking -- anyone, with the determination to get the required signatures, can get a proposition on the ballot and bypass a bad legislature.

It's called a democracy.

If these judges are elected, then they understand the game. If they're appointed, then never mind.
Actually, I say that the protection of a Constitution requires that judges are removed from the whims of the mob. This is precisely why they are appointed on the federal level, and I think there is a decent argument for appointment on the state level.

This is one of the perverse things: state Supreme Court judges are elected rather than appointed. (wtf?)

And yes, the trampling herd must have their way! God said so.
California Supreme Court judges are appointed.

I'm a bit split on the issue of electing judges, Nevada lost some fine judges after they tried to work out a difficult problem thanks to two sections of the Nevada Constitution that was at loggerheads. The No Taxes EVER crowd went apeshit about it and arranged to vote them out the next election, one retired rather than face that. In one swift stoke, Nevada lost its most experienced justices.

On the other hand though, with justices being voted on, you don't get a problem like Scalia.

This action should guarantee that the California constitutional amendment will pass, when it shows up on the ballot.

When it does, it will be voted down. I guarantee that as smugly as you guarantee the former.

I'm not so sure about the re-election of the four judges that voted to overturn this law. Remember the law, Prop 22, passed by a margin of almost 2 million votes, 4.6 million in favor and 2.9 million against.

They've made a lot of Californians mad.

Californians who voted for a proposition poorly constructed enough to not be able to pass a test of constitutionality with the Supreme Court bench stacked in their favor. It seems that "a lot" of Californians were sold a lemon.

It's called a democracy.

If these judges are elected, then they understand the game. If they're appointed, then never mind.

Funny, I thought we were talking about the law, not a game. How sad.

California Supreme Court judges are appointed.

I'm a bit split on the issue of electing judges, Nevada lost some fine judges after they tried to work out a difficult problem thanks to two sections of the Nevada Constitution that was at loggerheads. The No Taxes EVER crowd went apeshit about it and arranged to vote them out the next election, one retired rather than face that. In one swift stoke, Nevada lost its most experienced justices.

On the other hand though, with justices being voted on, you don't get a problem like Scalia.

*sings* "How do you solve a problem like Scaliiaaaaa?"

Actually, I say that the protection of a Constitution requires that judges are removed from the whims of the mob. This is precisely why they are appointed on the federal level, and I think there is a decent argument for appointment on the state level.
Fortunately, that is a decision for the states to make. California has decided to appoint judges and make them subject to retention votes at the first general election following their appointment and every 12 years thereafter. These guys could skate because their retention election may be far enough in the future to avoid the public backlash.

That's one of the neat things about California lawmaking -- anyone, with the determination to get the required signatures, can get a proposition on the ballot and bypass a bad legislature.
Right... And I'm sure then that some of the odder California ballot questions that have passed were joyfully embraced by you as bypassing the bag legislature.

*sings* "How do you solve a problem like Scaliiaaaaa?"
Oh I have a number of ideas, sadly most of them would probably earn me a ban from NSG so... ;)

When it does, it will be voted down. I guarantee that as smugly as you guarantee the former.



Californians who voted for a proposition poorly constructed enough to not be able to pass a test of constitutionality with the Supreme Court bench stacked in their favor. It seems that "a lot" of Californians were sold a lemon.

It was a close decision.


Funny, I thought we were talking about the law, not a game. How sad.
If you're naive enough not to realize what politics is, then it is sad. Hopefully, you don't vote.

Fortunately, that is a decision for the states to make. California has decided to appoint judges and make them subject to retention votes at the first general election following their appointment and every 12 years thereafter. These guys could skate because their retention election may be far enough in the future to avoid the public backlash.

I love how you say "skate" like they've done something illegal, or even wrong.

You're a hoot.

California Supreme Court judges are appointed.

O rly? I had no idea. They are elected here in Montana, and I never heard of any state where it's different. When confirmed, are they permanently in office during "good behavior"?


I'm a bit split on the issue of electing judges, Nevada lost some fine judges after they tried to work out a difficult problem thanks to two sections of the Nevada Constitution that was at loggerheads. The No Taxes EVER crowd went apeshit about it and arranged to vote them out the next election, one retired rather than face that. In one swift stoke, Nevada lost its most experienced justices.

On the other hand though, with justices being voted on, you don't get a problem like Scalia.
Yes, but see, the No Taxes EVER crowd is a bunch of fucktards (read: the trampling herd) (read: the mob). Nine times out of ten, I don't want the trampling herd to decide what my rights are by intimidating the judges who are supposed to be independent and stick only to the Constitution).

And there is a solution for Scalia. I won't advocate it here, because that would be a federal crime taken very seriously by authorities.

Actually, I like having had Scalia, because the fact that he's appointed and can stay on the bench and fuck everything up means that Ginsberg can be there too. If federal Supreme Court positions were elected something like the Senate (say, three judges come up for re-election every two years, and all serve six year terms), we'd have a lot more people like Scalia, because, frankly, a lot of people like Scalia.

It was a close decision.

And that means it was nearly defeated BEFORE it was submitted as a constitutional amendment. That means that not only will it go down when some bunch of foaming conservatives try to make it one, but go down handily.

If you're naive enough not to realize what politics is, then it is sad. Hopefully, you don't vote.

Wow. That's really all you've got? Petty insults?

I know politics is a game. I also know that treating it thus is responsible for much of the bullshit we're dealing with now. If all the mob can do to get their way is game the system instead of actually convincing people on the strength of their arguments, then THAT is what's truly sad. Sadder still is that you seem to enjoy this kind of schoolyard politics.

O rly? I had no idea. They are elected here in Montana, and I never heard of any state where it's different. When confirmed, are they permanently in office during "good behavior"?


Yes, but see, the No Taxes EVER crowd is a bunch of fucktards (read: the trampling herd) (read: the mob). Nine times out of ten, I don't want the trampling herd to decide what my rights are by intimidating the judges who are supposed to be independent and stick only to the Constitution).

And there is a solution for Scalia. I won't advocate it here, because that would be a federal crime taken very seriously by authorities.

Actually, I like having had Scalia, because the fact that he's appointed and can stay on the bench and fuck everything up means that Ginsberg can be there too. If federal Supreme Court positions were elected something like the Senate (say, three judges come up for re-election every two years, and all serve six year terms), we'd have a lot more people like Scalia, because, frankly, a lot of people like Scalia.

No, they're not permanently appointed. They're subject to what California calls "retention". I assume the question is to retain, yes or no and the majority gets it's way.

No, they're not permanently appointed. They're subject to what California calls "retention". I assume the question is to retain, yes or no and the majority gets it's way.
I just went back and read a few posts up. 12 years is a long time. :)

I just went back and read a few posts up. 12 years is a long time. :)
I think it's a good compromise. It saves the people the trouble of getting a recall election set up for the purpose of removing some senile old coot that can't do the job anymore. But it makes it hard enough that the judges are subject to the tyranny of the majority at every step.

It's called a democracy.
It's called a bad form of democracy since it would ignore the basic foundations of the democratic system, namely an independent judiciary and the rule of law.

If these judges are elected, then they understand the game. If they're appointed, then never mind.
The strange part is that you seem to approve judges factoring in such considerations.

The strange part is that you seem to approve judges factoring in such considerations.

Myrm seems to approve of anything that has the potential to get rid of those who disagree with him.

*sings* "How do you solve a problem like Scaliiaaaaa?"

Damn you. That song's going to be stuck in my head all day now. :p

I think it's a good compromise. It saves the people the trouble of getting a recall election set up for the purpose of removing some senile old coot that can't do the job anymore. But it makes it hard enough that the judges are subject to the tyranny of the majority at every step.

Subject to the tyranny of the majority. What a lovely ring to it. It has that flavor of lynch mob with nary a thought to actual justice. Or rather, slavering at the possible spectacle of death and ruin brought upon someone because they want to slake their lust for something to hate.

But that's what you'd like wouldn't you? Throw out law and justice whenever it is convenient to whip up a mob to make them decide something else.

Perhaps not quite a mob. Or at least not in the uncontrolled rampaging group of people sense. The kind of Mob that involves "persuading" people to come up with a proper ruling hmm?

Subject to the tyranny of the majority. What a lovely ring to it. It has that flavor of lynch mob with nary a thought to actual justice. Or rather, slavering at the possible spectacle of death and ruin brought upon someone because they want to slake their lust for something to hate.

But that's what you'd like wouldn't you? Throw out law and justice whenever it is convenient to whip up a mob to make them decide something else.

Perhaps not quite a mob. Or at least not in the uncontrolled rampaging group of people sense. The kind of Mob that involves "persuading" people to come up with a proper ruling hmm?

Democracy is, as ever, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage.

So by your ridiculious definition, infertile heterosexual couples should not get married?

EDIT: Oops, forgot to put a header on this post.

Pretending for the moment that "marriage is for procreation" is a real argument, I'd like to invite anyone to address these questions, please:
There is little more important and fundamental things than increasing our numbers.

1) Why?

2) Important to whom?

3) If increasing the population is so important, then why are fertile people permitted to choose NOT to procreate (whether they marry or not)?

4) If fertile married couples can choose not to procreate but not lose the legal benefits that the state grants to marriage, then on what basis do you assert that "increasing our numbers" is "important and fundamental"? If it was "important and fundamental" enough to factor into a definitive concept of marriage, then surely the state would do something to encourage it or punish non-compliance. Yet it does not. To me that's a strong clue that the state does not consider it as all that important.

5) If procreation is not all that important, and male spouses are not actually required to perform that function, then how does your remark address Bottle's question of what spousal function she cannot perform as a result of her femaleness? Obviously, procreation is not a spousal function needed to fulfill the requirements of marriage.

1) Why?

2) Important to whom?

3) If increasing the population is so important, then why are fertile people permitted to choose NOT to procreate (whether they marry or not)?

4) If fertile married couples can choose not to procreate but not lose the legal benefits that the state grants to marriage, then on what basis do you assert that "increasing our numbers" is "important and fundamental"? If it was "important and fundamental" enough to factor into a definitive concept of marriage, then surely the state would do something to encourage it or punish non-compliance. Yet it does not. To me that's a strong clue that the state does not consider it as all that important.

5) If procreation is not all that important, and male spouses are not actually required to perform that function, then how does your remark address Bottle's question of what spousal function she cannot perform as a result of her femaleness? Obviously, procreation is not a spousal function needed to fulfill the requirements of marriage.
I think this is an example of sarcasm-based misunderstandings. :)

Soldnerism: "Marriage was used to bind families, kingdoms etc, but if they did not procreate what would be the purpose of the combining families, kingdoms etc? Families, kingdoms etc used marriage to procreate to continue their legacy."

Laerod: "Exactly. And because people didn't marry for love back then, there's no reason why they should do so now."

Andaras: "There is little more important and fundamental things than increasing our numbers."

Reality is what one makes it, rather Reality can be distorted to make it what you want; history does not disagree with me. How can one continue history with out procreating? How do we procreate?

not through marriage for one

How do we procreate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_and_bees

*Gives Soldnerism the talk*

But they have virtually guaranteed that a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot in November and have most likely pissed off enough people that the initiative will pass.

Uh huh. They said the same thing about Massachusetts.

And New Jersey.

And Vermont

And Connecticut

And New Hampshire.

Funny how none of that ever happened huh?

Uh huh. They said the same thing about Massachusetts.

And New Jersey.

And Vermont

And Connecticut

And New Hampshire.

Funny how none of that ever happened huh?
More like fabulous. :D

Uh huh. They said the same thing about Massachusetts.

And New Jersey.

And Vermont

And Connecticut

And New Hampshire.

Funny how none of that ever happened huh?

I guess it's going to be a wait and see sort of thing. California laws are not all passed by the assembly and not all constitutional amendments originate there. It's a very different scheme than just passing a referendum that the legislature can ignore.

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of millions of California voters.

Oh noes! The people can't vote to discriminate against teh gays! How awful!

I think this is an example of sarcasm-based misunderstandings. :)

Soldnerism: "Marriage was used to bind families, kingdoms etc, but if they did not procreate what would be the purpose of the combining families, kingdoms etc? Families, kingdoms etc used marriage to procreate to continue their legacy."

Laerod: "Exactly. And because people didn't marry for love back then, there's no reason why they should do so now."

Andaras: "There is little more important and fundamental things than increasing our numbers."
I'm the one who should have been more clear.

I actually meant to turn Andaras's remarks back to the posters who actually make the "marriage is for procreation" argument and open up my questions to them.

Failed to make that clear. Sorry.

EDIT: I'll go edit it, I guess. :)

I guess it's going to be a wait and see sort of thing. California laws are not all passed by the assembly and not all constitutional amendments originate there. It's a very different scheme than just passing a referendum that the legislature can ignore.

actually it's even easier in Massachusetts where you need like...25% of the legislature to put an amendment initiative out. Only 25%.

What will happen here is what will happen in every state that's adopted gay marriage. People will freak out, start crawling over each other screaming doom and gloom, will watch in horror as the first gay couples wed while they crawl under their desks awaiting the inevitable apocalypse all the while screeching for an amendment to stop the insanity and then….will crawl out from under their desks, look around, notice the world hasn’t ended, we have not sunk into a pit of depravity, and nothing much really changed.

At which point they will, somewhat sheepishly, go back to their lives.

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of the trampling herd
Edited for accuracy.

I'm the one who should have been more clear.

I actually meant to turn Andaras's remarks back to the posters who actually make the "marriage is for procreation" argument and open up my questions to them.

Failed to make that clear. Sorry.

EDIT: I'll go edit it, I guess. :)
Hehe, no worries. It's kk.

At least nobody is making Kant's argument for marriage: that we need it to make moral sex possible, that we create some kind of a higher will between the two of us with some plan so that we can use the sexuality of each other without objectifying (never mind that the super-self objectifies us). :rolleyes:

actually it's even easier in Massachusetts where you need like...25% of the legislature to put an amendment initiative out. Only 25%.

What will happen here is what will happen in every state that's adopted gay marriage. People will freak out, start crawling over each other screaming doom and gloom, will watch in horror as the first gay couples wed while they crawl under their desks awaiting the inevitable apocalypse all the while screeching for an amendment to stop the insanity and then….will crawl out from under their desks, look around, notice the world hasn’t ended, we have not sunk into a pit of depravity, and nothing much really changed.

At which point they will, somewhat sheepishly, go back to their lives.
Don't you realize? Every culture that has embraced homosexuality has disappeared. G-d Himself is already beginning to judge us and the Sodomite activists who smear Fag semen and Dyke shit all over the Bible, which is the word of the LORD our G-d!!!

*rasp*

Edited for accuracy.


Hehe, no worries. It's kk.

At least nobody is making Kant's argument for marriage: that we need it to make moral sex possible, that we create some kind of a higher will between the two of us with some plan so that we can use the sexuality of each other without objectifying (never mind that the super-self objectifies us). :rolleyes:

Kant. They made the move "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" about him, right? ;)

actually it's even easier in Massachusetts where you need like...25% of the legislature to put an amendment initiative out. Only 25%.

What will happen here is what will happen in every state that's adopted gay marriage. People will freak out, start crawling over each other screaming doom and gloom, will watch in horror as the first gay couples wed while they crawl under their desks awaiting the inevitable apocalypse all the while screeching for an amendment to stop the insanity and then….will crawl out from under their desks, look around, notice the world hasn’t ended, we have not sunk into a pit of depravity, and nothing much really changed.

At which point they will, somewhat sheepishly, go back to their lives.
I think 0% is better than 25%, especially since the popular support is needs to be there in the first place. Not having to count on some weak-willed pol to get a binding issue on the ballot was some pretty good planning on the part of the early Californians

If it doesn't pass, California will still have celebs causing more damage to the institution of marriage than any same-sex couple could ever manage. Those are the ones that should be prevented from marrying.

Kant. They made the move "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" about him, right? ;)
:D

Basically, he's like, blah blah blah, and then I perk up when he says "treat people as ends in themselves," blah blah blah, "categorical imperative, universality," blah blah blah. His justifications of the State and marriage are frighteningly similar (and stupid).

If it doesn't pass, California will still have celebs causing more damage to the institution of marriage than any same-sex couple could ever manage. Those are the ones that should be prevented from marrying.
As much as I know you're joking, I must again make it clear that the "integrity of the institution of marriage" is not a "compelling state interest."

I love the responses to my rhetorical question. "How do we procreate?"

I also love the responses to my original post and it started a somewhat heated discussion. As can be seen, it is all based on one's own beliefs and a person can not impose his own beliefs on another.

With that said, I just want to say a government should not legislate morality. It should be a decision of the citizens and be decided upon per state.

:p

OP: Good for California. If anyone is interested, tomorrow (Saturday) is International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) http://www.homophobiaday.org/

Does anybody else look at the address of that website and think something seems out of place?

I think this is an example of sarcasm-based misunderstandings. :)

Soldnerism: "Marriage was used to bind families, kingdoms etc, but if they did not procreate what would be the purpose of the combining families, kingdoms etc? Families, kingdoms etc used marriage to procreate to continue their legacy."

Laerod: "Exactly. And because people didn't marry for love back then, there's no reason why they should do so now."

Andaras: "There is little more important and fundamental things than increasing our numbers."The problem with Andaras is that he's a Stalinist, and that makes it hard to tell whether the latest ridiculous post he made is for real or a joke. That and the grammar in that post is screwed up and correcting it yields ambiguous results.

With that said, I just want to say a government should not legislate morality.

Nonsense, what do you think the law is but legislated morality? Don't kill, don't take what's not yours, don't force someone into sex. Why do those laws exist? To punish bad behavior, behavior deemed bad by our moral framework

I love the responses to my rhetorical question. "How do we procreate?"

I also love the responses to my original post and it started a somewhat heated discussion. As can be seen, it is all based on one's own beliefs and a person can not impose his own beliefs on another.

With that said, I just want to say a government should not legislate morality. It should be a decision of the citizens and be decided upon per state.The two bold parts are in conflict with eachother.

Higher, I would say. Of course, that's just me, but if I could have only one of those three.

Are you serious, you would take marriage over the right to be able to vote, or to be able to express your own thoughts publicly without fear of the government locking you up till you agree to change your mind?

Nonsense, what do you think the law is but legislated morality? Don't kill, don't take what's not yours, don't force someone into sex. Why do those laws exist? To punish bad behavior, behavior deemed bad by our moral frameworkYes, no. There's reasons other than moral reasons to make murder, theft, and lying illegal. Keeping society from collapsing is one such reason.

As can be seen, it is all based on one's own beliefs and a person can not impose his own beliefs on another.

Actually, sometimes a person can be right, in which case sometimes she should impose the policies she believes in on another, by the use of force if necessary. And if we believe in a democracy, we shouldn't sugarcoat the fact that that's what we implicitly believe. We don't believe it about everything, but we do believe it.

I hope that the California decision can survive the referendum. It won't go to the Supreme Court of the United States because it was a decision based on the state's constitution (there was no federal constitutional challenge). With any luck, we can get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, either by vote, or by an equal protection or a full faith and credit (more likely) challenge.

The radical homosexual agenda is proceeding as planned...

*rasp*

Yes, no. There's reasons other than moral reasons to make murder, theft, and lying illegal. Keeping society from collapsing is one such reason.

perhaps, but then why don't we simply lock everyone up who has ever commited a crime for life? Largely because we do catagorize actions as "more bad" or "less bad", also leading into our moral viewpoints as society.

I'm not saying that law is entirely legislated morality, but I'm saying social norms of morality play a large part in that.

The two bold parts are in conflict with eachother.

Nonsense, a single person can not impose his own beliefs on others, that can only end in a dictatorship; but people who bind together form a society based on common beliefs and based on those beliefs they decide on how to form their society.

*snip*

Thank you for clearing that up for me. And also thank you Dempublicents1 for informing me. And any one else who informatively replied to my questions on US laws of constitution, amendments and the Supreme Courts in America

perhaps, but then why don't we simply lock everyone up who has ever commited a crime for life? Largely because we do catagorize actions as "more bad" or "less bad", also leading into our moral viewpoints as society.You can see it as an extension of "harmful to society". Removing a member of society and thereby causing problems with safety to other members of society is a bit more harmful than cheating people out of their money.
I'm not saying that law is entirely legislated morality, but I'm saying social norms of morality play a large part in that.And I'm not saying it isn't. Equality, for instance, is relatively unimportant to keep society functioning. And yet, we have laws that enforce it. I don't mind that, either.

Nonsense, a single person can not impose his own beliefs on others, that can only end in a dictatorship; but people who bind together form a society based on common beliefs and based on those beliefs they decide on how to form their society.You might want to explain that better then.

Nonsense, what do you think the law is but legislated morality? Don't kill, don't take what's not yours, don't force someone into sex. Why do those laws exist? To punish bad behavior, behavior deemed bad by our moral framework

Maybe I was not as clear as I should have been. The reason of a government is to protect society. Murder, rape, stealing ect... are in place to protect society. Now, on my statement of legislating morality, a government should not legislate one's beliefs.

What I'd like to know is what functions I am unable to perform as spouse to a woman. I mean, the anti-gay-marriage crowd seem quite certain that a woman MUST HAVE A MALE SPOUSE for a "real" marriage, so I want to know why. What can a male spouse do that I am unable to do simply because I am female? What aspect of the marriage contract am I innately unable to fulfill due to my femaleness?

The penis part.....obviously! :rolleyes:

Nonsense, what do you think the law is but legislated morality? Don't kill, don't take what's not yours, don't force someone into sex. Why do those laws exist? To punish bad behavior, behavior deemed bad by our moral framework

Yes for morality laws, but not the laws of man. Such as laws that concern where you may cross the road, laws that state the people cannot smoke within 20 metres of a government building. Those laws are not legislated morality

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of millions of California voters.

Bullshit. Striking down unconstitutional laws is nothing but democratic. In a democracy the minority is protected by abuses from the majority in this manner.

Now, on my statement of legislating morality, a government should not legislate one's beliefs.

I agree.

Can you please give me an example where the government has attempted such?

Thank you for clearing that up for me. And also thank you Dempublicents1 for informing me. And any one else who informatively replied to my questions on US laws of constitution, amendments and the Supreme Courts in America

It's not an all together easy subject, but you did get some good help heh.

The short answer is, our federal government is one of limited power, they can't pass any law they want. They only have the powers the constitution specifically gives them, and they can not pass a law telling the state how to handle its own affairs (for the most part).

You might want to explain that better then.

a person can not impose his own beliefs on another. This ends up with a single person telling everyone else what is right and what is wrong. That frame of thinking can only end in a dictatorship, leaving people oppressed.

It should be a decision of the citizens and be decided upon per state.
People who have the same beliefs normally form communities with each other and the community is run based on those beliefs. The decision shold be left up to the people of the state, since they are the ones that form the community.

I hope this helps.

a person can not impose his own beliefs on another. This ends up with a single person telling everyone else what is right and what is wrong. That frame of thinking can only end in a dictatorship, leaving people oppressed.

It should be a decision of the citizens and be decided upon per state.
People who have the same beliefs normally form communities with each other and the community is run based on those beliefs. The decision shold be left up to the people of the state, since they are the ones that form the community.

I hope this helps.

so it's bad when one person tells someone else how to think, but it's alright when a whole bunch of people tells someone how to think?

There's a flaw in your logic I fear.

The problem with Andaras is that he's a Stalinist, and that makes it hard to tell whether the latest ridiculous post he made is for real or a joke. That and the grammar in that post is screwed up and correcting it yields ambiguous results.
I think that's one of the attractive qualities about Andaras. ;)

Anyway, I think he just messed up what he meant to say in his post, because he seems sarcastic to me in the context of the conversation.

Nonsense, a single person can not impose his own beliefs on others, that can only end in a dictatorship; but people who bind together form a society based on common beliefs and based on those beliefs they decide on how to form their society.
I'm sorry, but your formulation would paralyze even anarchist society. Person A does something immoral. Person B uses force to punish person A or to prevent it in the future. Person B is imposing her beliefs on Person A, and is very right to do so. Anarchist society, like all other well-functioning societies, requires us to accept the principle that a person can be justified in imposing her will, in some cases unilaterally, on others.

What is liberal democracy but the plurality imposing its will by force on the minority?

What you really mean is that people don't have a right to impose their will on others when you don't like it.

The reason of a government is to protect society. Murder, rape, stealing ect... are in place to protect society. Now, on my statement of legislating morality, a government should not legislate one's beliefs.
This couldn't disagree much more!

First, the reason for government is to protect the property of the rich, and murder you if you resist. Now for quotes and stuff. Adam Smith: " Laws and governments may be considered in this and indeed in every case as a combination of the rich to oppress the poor..." James Madison: "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government." Committee on Industrial Relations 1916: "The existing attitude of the courts and government officials generally is that the entire machinery of the State should be put behind the strike breaker." The State is here so that the rich can get richer and stay rich. If you don't like it, tough cookies. If you want to resist, you will be viciously slaughtered.

Second, laws against murder, rape and stealing are in place to protect individuals who have equal intrinsic worth.

Third, the idea that morality shouldn't be legislated is kind of weird, because everything the state legislates has to be about morality, whether it's right or wrong to kill, rape, or steal. These are questions that we should be intensely interested in. When we find satisfactory answers, we should impose the view by force. Morality that says people of the same sex can't share the benefits heterosexual couples do is simply absurd and deserves to be ridiculed, not legislated.

Maybe I was not as clear as I should have been. The reason of a government is to protect society. Murder, rape, stealing ect... are in place to protect society. Now, on my statement of legislating morality, a government should not legislate one's beliefs.
It is impossible to legislate belief. You can pass any laws you like, but you can't dictate what people will believe.

But since you and I agree that the government should not be legislating morality, it's a good thing the California court made its decision, then, because the CA ban on same-sex marraige was in fact doing just that.

I agree.

Can you please give me an example where the government has attempted such?

Well, with the same sex marriage ban. Please keep this in mind, I am not sure how it was passed in California to start.

If the government comes out and says 'no same sex marriage' without the citizens of a state voting on that matter, that is legislating morality.

Now if the citizens of that state have voted for the ban, then the ban should go through the proper channels to make it an ammendment to the state constitution and the government of the state needs to follow the wishes of the poeple. Please see me post on people forming communities based on beliefs.

so it's bad when one person tells someone else how to think, but it's alright when a whole bunch of people tells someone how to think?

There's a flaw in your logic I fear.

Is that not how a society works? Be it a small state or the whole country?

Well, with the same sex marriage ban. Please keep this in mind, I am not sure how it was passed in California to start.

If the government comes out and says 'no same sex marriage' without the citizens of a state voting on that matter, that is legislating morality.

Now if the citizens of that state have voted for the ban, then the ban should go through the proper channels to make it an ammendment to the state constitution and the government of the state needs to follow the wishes of the poeple. Please see me post on people forming communities based on beliefs.

You obviously know little about this issue. The people of california, the people voted in the ban, but not as an amendment, but a regular law.

Is that not how a society works? Be it a small state or the whole country?

when, in the history of our society, have we been required to think in a certain way?

Act in a certain way yes, but not think

You obviously know little about this issue. The people of california, the people voted in the ban, but not as an amendment, but a regular law.

I admit that I am unaware of the whole issue. I had an idea that the people passed it as a law, but did not want to base my argument on something I kind of knew.

Since the people voted it as a law and not an amendment of the state constitution, I can agree that that law was unconstitutional. The proper way would be then to ammend the states constitution to state something to the point of "homosexuals are not covered by this constitution", or something of that sort. This would have to be voted on by the people, since the people form the state's community.

I admit that I am unaware of the whole issue. I had an idea that the people passed it as a law, but did not want to base my argument on something I kind of knew.

Since the people voted it as a law and not an amendment of the state constitution, I can agree that that law was unconstitutional. The proper way would be then to ammend the states constitution to state something to the point of "homosexuals are not covered by this constitution", or something of that sort. This would have to be voted on by the people, since the people form the state's community.

if you consider writing discrimination into a constitution as "proper", sure

Now if the citizens of that state have voted for the ban, then the ban should go through the proper channels to make it an ammendment to the state constitution and the government of the state needs to follow the wishes of the poeple.
Simply untrue. The will of the trampling herd is not to be respected just because it is the trampling herd.

when, in the history of our society, have we been required to think in a certain way?

Act in a certain way yes, but not think

I was taking think and act to be somewhat synonymous, since a person has to think the act in order to perform the act.

Obviously a person will have his own thoughts and they can change from what a society may tell them how to act/think. But, when people form together to create a society, they form it based on common beliefs. Those common beliefs then decide how a person should act with in that society.

Since, each state was designed to be their own societies/communities then it should be left up to the people of that state to ammend their constitution.

if you consider writing discrimination into a constitution as "proper", sure

This is all based on that the people of a state form their community around common beliefs. It may start out "proper" in the state, in legal terms, but ultimatley some one is be discriminated against.

If a person doesn't like the community they are in, they can form a community with people of the same beliefs.

This is all based on that the people of a state form their community around common beliefs. It may start out "proper" in the state, in legal terms, but ultimatley some one is be discriminated against.

If a person doesn't like the community they are in, they can form a community with people of the same beliefs.
But what if the community's belief is that those born into the community must stay?

The penis part.....obviously! :rolleyes:

You can buy those in stores nowadays. ;)