NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

a group opposed to gay marriage has asked the court to stay its decision until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Stop! You should wait until we are able to try to get someone in office that will help us force our religious beliefs on the entire state.



Did anyone see The Colbert Report last night where he had Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council on to talk about the ruling? If not: http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/05/the_colbert_report_on_gay_marriage_with_tony_perki.php

Getting schooled by a sunday school teacher! Ouch. Good stuff.

You know, I really can't stand people who are against gay marriage. Good for California! :)

That was actually one of the best interviews I've seen him do. He made the guy feel comfortable while mocking him, which is not an easy feat.

Other than that, go California, you have Massachusetts (wow, I still misspell my state) on your side.

That wasn't a real interview, but whatever.

Good on California. The radical homosexual agenda is on target!

That was very well played. "Paul also came out in favor of adult circumcision," lawl.

That wasn't a real interview, but whatever.

Good on California. The radical homosexual agenda is on target!

I seriously doubt all of that is scripted, since some of those questions and answers are just...absurd. Unless you are using a different definition of interview.

Click Stand;13726034']I seriously doubt all of that is scripted, since some of those questions and answers are just...absurd. Unless you are using a different definition of interview.
No, I'm just saying Colbert didn't really talk about the guy's book at all.

No, I'm just saying Colbert didn't really talk about the guy's book at all.

That wasn't the purpose of the interview AFAIK... it was to comment on the ruling I think. He just brought up the book because that was probably the deal they made with the guy to get him on the show.

Ok, I love homosexuals and all that, but I am against gay marriage. But that's beside the point.

What's happening in California is awful. Not the marriage... that I can tolerate for a while. What I CAN'T STAND is rubbish like Senate Bill 777 that forces us to accept homosexuals, bans any kind of discrimination against them, etc. etc. etc.. I hate that we are losing our rights to the "poor, helpless, absolutely ABUSED" LGBT's in California.

Gay marriage I can tolerate for until I can become active in politics. But s*** like Senate Bill 777 will ruin our nation. Not because it makes us accept homosexuals, but because it makes us accept homosexuals. I don't care, if I want to hate anyone that eats peanut butter, that's my business, I'm insane, etc.. But that doesn't mean you should take away my right to hate peanut butter-eating people.

Hate speech is something we need to live with. Humans are flawed; there's no point denying that. Which means that in order to get the greater good (right to free speech), we have to accept some necessary evils (right to hate speech). Now you might say "Well, gee, I'm all for preventing offense, think of my self-esteem!" But who's to decide what's offensive? I get offended all the time because I'm a weakling. But I take it as their right to free speech. As much as it bothers me sometimes, I realize that they have that right, even if they use it for negative things.

As much as I wish that heterosexists could love homosexuals, or at least accept them as human beings (but not necessarily accepting homosexuality), I am against forcing them to. That is a moral decision they must make themselves. Even if hating peanut butter is ridiculous.

That wasn't the purpose of the interview AFAIK... it was to comment on the ruling I think. He just brought up the book because that was probably the deal they made with the guy to get him on the show.
Probably. Then again, I don't really care about his book, because I find social conservatism to be evil. Whatever.

Probably. Then again, I don't really care about his book, because I find social conservatism to be evil. Whatever.

To point this out, just about anyone who comes on the show will present a book if they have it. This is true of the Daily Show as well. I think the idea is to try to get people to read more.

Personally if they want to do that they should bring on someone like Stephen Baxter.

To point this out, just about anyone who comes on the show will present a book if they have it. This is true of the Daily Show as well. I think the idea is to try to get people to read more.

Personally if they want to do that they should bring on someone like Stephen Baxter.

Iain M Banks for the win.

Where are you getting this religious beliefs shit from mate, the article makes no mention of the group being a religious group nor does it say they are against because it is their religious beliefs.

Believe it or not any government official elected into office will attempt to enforce their belief which doesn’t mean that it is a religious belief on the state.

Show me who this group is and show me that the reason they are against this Supreme Court ruling is due to religious grounds, before you go jump off the deep end.

Actually, this was a bad move for gay marriage proponents.

Now the constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage has a better chance in passing. Once that does passes, the courts will be taken out of the equation.

Policy through judicial fiat is never a good idea.

Sorry, I'll be too busy diving into the Spore Creature Creator.

Policy through judicial fiat is never a good idea.
Yes it is; in fact it's almost always a good idea. Quick note: I'm defending the concept of judicial review, not judicial activism (whatever the hell that means).

When the majority is malicious, it should be thwarted by the judiciary. Official racism was pretty malicious, and part of what made racial egalitarianism move forward was judicial fiat. We can argue the finer points of Brown v. Board I and II, for example, but the essential point of that case, and the courts generally, is to use the doctrine of judicial review to prevent a malicious majority from getting its way contrary to the Constitution.

Show me who this group is and show me that the reason they are against this Supreme Court ruling is due to religious grounds, before you go jump off the deep end.

Gladly.

http://www.frc.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

The Family Research Council (FRC) is a Christian right non-profit think tank and lobbying organization. It was formed in the United States by James Dobson in 1981 and incorporated in 1983. The group was designed to be a lobbying force for conservative legislation on Capitol Hill. In the late 1980s the group officially became a division of Dobson's main organization Focus on the Family, but in 1992 IRS concerns about the group's lobbying led to an administrative separation. Its function is to promote traditional family values. The current president is Tony Perkins.



On their founder:

He is an evangelical Christian[3] with conservative views on theology and politics.He was recently named "The Most Influential Evangelical Leader in America" by Christianity Today magazine, and many see him as the successor to evangelical leaders Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.. In January 24, 1989, he was able to interview America's most noctorious serial killer, Ted Bundy right before Bundy's execution. [4]

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



You ready to admit you have no idea what you are talking about?


Oh yeah, on to the interview. Colbert schooled the hell out of him.

"Can you tell me where Jesus talked about gays in the New Testament? Because Id like to win some arguements."

"Well...Paul did..."

Fail.

Oh, and the "Do you keep kosher?" thing was pure brilliance too.

Actually, this was a bad move for gay marriage proponents.

Now the constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage has a better chance in passing. Once that does passes, the courts will be taken out of the equation.

Policy through judicial fiat is never a good idea.

Believe it or not, whenever a court makes a ruling that you disagree with, they are not judicial activists.

A case was brought before them. They decided on that case. They declared it violated the constitution. Thus, that struck the law down. They did exactly what the Constitution says they are supposed to do. Something the right likes to ignore when it doesnt get its away. Just jump up and down and scream judicial activism and hope it sticks.

Now the constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage has a better chance in passing.

Watch it fail.

Polls vary on where the majority is... and that's now, when controversial ballot measures usually lose support over time. Especially because the Republican governor opposes it and the Supreme Court is unlikely to block marriages all the way until November... and once the door's open, they're not going to shut it.

In any case, courts should not make decisions based upon political considerations like that. If California voters want to make a constitutional amendment, that's their legal right; it doesn't change how the current version should be applied to marriage laws.

Believe it or not, whenever a court makes a ruling that you disagree with, they are not judicial activists.

A case was brought before them. They decided on that case. They declared it violated the constitution. Thus, that struck the law down. They did exactly what the Constitution says they are supposed to do. Something the right likes to ignore when it doesnt get its away. Just jump up and down and scream judicial activism and hope it sticks.

Nowhere did I make the claim of judicial activism. I'm sorry if I was unable to make my post clear. I don't think the courts did anything wrong.

I think the people who brought to the courts did something wrong.

Perhaps wrong is the incorrect term. I think there will be unintended consequences.

I think the people who brought to the courts did something wrong.

Nobody does something wrong when they seek a remedy for the malice of the majority.


Perhaps wrong is the incorrect term. I think there will be unintended consequences.
There probably will be such consequences, as there are unintended consequences for many things. However, they are unpredictable, where the intended consequences are.

My prediction is that the majority will get pissed off and pout about "family values" and "activist judges," and then they'll eventually settle down.

Eventually, they will be on the same page in the history books as those who supported racial segregation.

Gladly.

http://www.frc.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council




On their founder:



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



You ready to admit you have no idea what you are talking about?


Oh yeah, on to the interview. Colbert schooled the hell out of him.

"Can you tell me where Jesus talked about gays in the New Testament? Because Id like to win some arguements."

"Well...Paul did..."

Fail.

Oh, and the "Do you keep kosher?" thing was pure brilliance too.

Yes I am willing to admit it. After that bit posted like you has no bearing on me whatsoever. In fact I am all WTF, but surely you are just posting it without trying to refer it to me specifically, I don't really care what some guy who claims to be a funny has to do with the article.

The article doesn't say that it is this group in particular, so show me that this was the group that the article was referring to. Otherwise bringing up another group which may or may not be it has no relevance.

I could make a lot of money.

Set up a KY stand and tent right outside the city hall, for those who want to consummate their marriage on the spot.

Yes I am willing to admit it. After that bit posted like you has no bearing on me whatsoever. In fact I am all WTF, but surely you are just posting it without trying to refer it to me specifically, I don't really care what some guy who claims to be a funny has to do with the article.

The article doesn't say that it is this group in particular, so show me that this was the group that the article was referring to. Otherwise bringing up another group which may or may not be it has no relevance.


So, let's look at this another way then. Where do you think the idea that marriage is only to be between one man and one woman comes from? I already gave my answer that it's from the religious groups. They are always the ones claiming that it is. Can you point me to any non-religious activist groups that claim it?

What's happening in California is awful. Not the marriage... that I can tolerate for a while. What I CAN'T STAND is rubbish like Senate Bill 777 that forces us to accept homosexuals, bans any kind of discrimination against them, etc. etc. etc.. I hate that we are losing our rights to the "poor, helpless, absolutely ABUSED" LGBT's in California.
Nonsense. It's not like the Civil Rights Movement actually eradicated racism, right? You probably also dislike the fact that men and women are equal for the law. People of the same sex have been able to marry each other for years now over here in the Netherlands and it's not like Jesus Christ descended from the heavens with a host of hallowed stormtroopers to cast our little corner of Europe in the fiery pits of hell.

Nonsense. It's not like the Civil Rights Movement actually eradicated racism, right? You probably also dislike the fact that men and women are equal for the law. People of the same sex have been able to marry each other for years now over here in the Netherlands and it's not like Jesus Christ descended from the heavens with a host of hallowed stormtroopers to cast our little corner of Europe in the fiery pits of hell.

Which is unfortunate, not because of the equal rights for gays, but the elimination of the Netherlands would be nice.

That's an interesting opinion. Please tell the good people of the NationStates forum why you would be pleased if the Dutch kingdom ceased to exist.

What's happening in California is awful. Not the marriage... that I can tolerate for a while. What I CAN'T STAND is rubbish like Senate Bill 777 that forces us to accept homosexuals, bans any kind of discrimination against them, etc. etc. etc.. I hate that we are losing our rights to the "poor, helpless, absolutely ABUSED" LGBT's in California.
Funnily enough, you have no right to discriminate or abuse people.

Apparently it's possible for some individuals to feel discriminated and abused if they are denied the 'right' to discriminate and abuse other individuals. I guess that makes perfect sense.

Funnily enough, you have no right to discriminate or abuse people.

Actually, you can discriminate all you like on private property.

If you own a private supper club, you can discriminate on who the members may be - this is still done in parts of the US.

If you own a public restaurant, you can't discriminate.

I found it fascinating that in Germany, a restaurant owner can openly and very loudly discriminate on who will be allowed to enter - I've seen signs saying "No Turks" and "No Blacks" and "No Americans".

The law would close you down here in the US if you had a sign like that on a public restaurant.

Ok, I love homosexuals and all that, but I am against gay marriage. But that's beside the point.

"I love homosexuals and all, but I don't think they should get equal protection under the law."

What's happening in California is awful. Not the marriage... that I can tolerate for a while. What I CAN'T STAND is rubbish like Senate Bill 777 that forces us to accept homosexuals, bans any kind of discrimination against them, etc. etc. etc.. I hate that we are losing our rights to the "poor, helpless, absolutely ABUSED" LGBT's in California.

"ZOMG! They're taking our 'right' to deny equal protection under the law to teh gays away! We're so oppressed!!!!"

Gay marriage I can tolerate for until I can become active in politics. But s*** like Senate Bill 777 will ruin our nation. Not because it makes us accept homosexuals, but because it makes us accept homosexuals. I don't care, if I want to hate anyone that eats peanut butter, that's my business, I'm insane, etc.. But that doesn't mean you should take away my right to hate peanut butter-eating people.

Um....no one is taking away your right to hate whoever you want. You just can't get in the way of their rights because of it.

Sort of like how you can hate black people, but you can't lynch them or keep them from getting jobs and stuff.

Hate speech is something we need to live with. Humans are flawed; there's no point denying that. Which means that in order to get the greater good (right to free speech), we have to accept some necessary evils (right to hate speech). Now you might say "Well, gee, I'm all for preventing offense, think of my self-esteem!" But who's to decide what's offensive? I get offended all the time because I'm a weakling. But I take it as their right to free speech. As much as it bothers me sometimes, I realize that they have that right, even if they use it for negative things.

Erm.....free speech is protected, dearie. You can say whatever mean things you like about the people you supposedly "love and all."

You just can't do anything to do them just because they're gay. You can do the words part. Just not the sticks and stones.

That's an interesting opinion. Please tell the good people of the NationStates forum why you would be pleased if the Dutch kingdom ceased to exist.

Because they are responsible for Global Warming.

In case it isn't obvious at this point, I'm joking.

Because they are responsible for Global Warming.

Well, yes, but they're also responsible for the world's biggest robot and the word "tulipomania", which at least partially cancels out the global-warming thing.

Luxembourg, on the other hand, has no excuses.

I found it fascinating that in Germany, a restaurant owner can openly and very loudly discriminate on who will be allowed to enter - I've seen signs saying "No Turks" and "No Blacks" and "No Americans".
The war is long over, grandpa :p

The war is long over, grandpa :p

that was in the mid-1990s...

Stop! You should wait until we are able to try to get someone in office that will help us force our religious beliefs on the entire state.

My feelings on this issue aside, if the MAJORITY votes against gay marridge (as it has done time and time again--something around 70% of the state), why should the minority be upheld and gay marridge legalized? To ignore the majority of the state vote would be undemocratic.

that was in the mid-1990s...

I'm sure we're all willing to take your word for it...




*Snickers*

I'm sure we're all willing to take your word for it...




*Snickers*

I'll be in Stuttgart in August. Why don't you come down and see it for yourself?

I'll be in Stuttgart in August. Why don't you come down and see it for yourself?

Take a picture for us!

Take a picture for us!

You'll say I Photoshopped it.

I'd rather have one of you there - in a pic with me - and you post the pic and you saying in your post, "Well, he was right dammit..."

My feelings on this issue aside, if the MAJORITY votes against gay marridge (as it has done time and time again--something around 70% of the state), why should the minority be upheld and gay marridge legalized? To ignore the majority of the state vote would be undemocratic.
That's why the US is a "republic", not a "democracy". The majority is not allowed to trample on the minority. The ideal is that to the maximum extent feasible, decisions should be freely made by each individual; collective decisions are forced on everyone only to the extent that this is necessary.

My feelings on this issue aside, if the MAJORITY votes against gay marridge (as it has done time and time again--something around 70% of the state), why should the minority be upheld and gay marridge legalized? To ignore the majority of the state vote would be undemocratic.

Luckily, we don't live in a pure democracy where the majority can easily override the rights of the minority.

Everyone, whether they are in a majority or not, has the right to equal protection under the law. The California constitution made this clear. Thus, the law that banned gay marriage in California violated the basis of their government and was rightfully overturned.

Luckily, we don't live in a pure democracy where the majority can easily override the rights of the minority.

Everyone, whether they are in a majority or not, has the right to equal protection under the law. The California constitution made this clear. Thus, the law that banned gay marriage in California violated the basis of their government and was rightfully overturned.

I don't know, part of me feels like this could be a bit of a slippery slope. I don't know where I stand on this issue, but I fear that enabling something that the majority has ruled against under "equal protection" opens the door for more extreme cases (polygamy comes to mind). There has to be some very clear guidelines... other than equal rights, etc.

My feelings on this issue aside, if the MAJORITY votes against gay marridge (as it has done time and time again--something around 70% of the state), why should the minority be upheld and gay marridge legalized? To ignore the majority of the state vote would be undemocratic.

One of the perks of a representative democracy is that a representative is elected by the majority to protect the rights of everybody, not just the majority.

At least that's the theory. :p

I'll be in Stuttgart in August. Why don't you come down and see it for yourself?

So you can find it in Stuttgart, eh? Care to be more precise? Name of the place and the adress, perhaps?

I would be interested to know where it was, since such a sign most likely would be illegal...

I don't know, part of me feels like this could be a bit of a slippery slope. I don't know where I stand on this issue, but I fear that enabling something that the majority has ruled against under "equal protection" opens the door for more extreme cases (polygamy comes to mind). There has to be some very clear guidelines... other than equal rights, etc.

The slope isn't slippery. Only your footing is. :)

I don't know, part of me feels like this could be a bit of a slippery slope. I don't know where I stand on this issue, but I fear that enabling something that the majority has ruled against under "equal protection" opens the door for more extreme cases (polygamy comes to mind). There has to be some very clear guidelines... other than equal rights, etc.

You're right. I mean, we never should have provided equal protection to the blacks, so why should we provide it to the LGBT community, right?

Equal protection is one of the fundamental aspects of our governmental system. I don't think we need extra guidelines on top of it, keeping us from providing it.

Are you saying that it's just obvious that equal protection covers gay marridge--but no one would dare cross some abigious line to claim that it also covers polygamy?

Are you saying that it's just obvious that equal protection covers gay marridge--but no one would dare cross some abigious line to claim that it also covers polygamy?

Some have tried, but the legal argument simply doesn't hold up. When discussing equal protection under the law, you have to provide the same protections to all citizens. No one can engage in polygamous marriage - the government doesn't even have a structure for it. Thus, equal protection doesn't apply.

However, the government does provide protection for 2-person marriages. Once upon a time, they discriminated based on ethnicity, and that was struck down. These days, they discriminate based on gender and sexuality. That is not equal protection.

Without guidelines and a majority vote, YES, people WILL claim "equal protection" to pursue bizarre practices. This is people we're talking about, remember... :)

Many bizarre practices are perfectly legal. Unless they harm others, they should all be perfectly legal.

What you trying to claim is that people will try and use "equal protection" to claim that the government must create new legal structures. While they certainly might try, it would be silly to think that the courts would agree with their arguments.

For instance, if the government provided no protection whatsoever for marriage, the "equal protection" argument wouldn't work to try and get the government to do so. But since it does provide protections, and does so in an arbitrarily discriminatory manner, it is failing to meet the standards of equal protection.

Well, I used the example of polygamy as a possible slippery slope… but what I'm really trying to say is that if we’re going to claim equal protection under a law, we need a clear definition of that law. Laws can be ambiguous. To be honest, I'm not sure if California's marriage law is as such.

If the law states that marriage is between "one man" and "one woman", then gay marriage does not fall under the equal protection clause. If the law is ambigous, it needs to be defined. If we don't clearly define it, this could, but does not necessarily, open the door for more extreme cases--the slippery slope.

Futhermore, if we want to change the law, so that marriage is defined as a union between two adults, this should be decided by a majority vote, IMO.

Futhermore, if we want to change the law, so that marriage is defined as a union between two adults, this should be decided by a majority vote, IMO.
But you wouldn't demand that if they wanted to change the law so it defined a marriage to be a union between a man and a woman?

But you wouldn't demand that if they wanted to change the law so it defined a marriage to be a union between a man and a woman?

That's quite an assumption. Do you know me? What makes you say that?

Many bizarre practices are perfectly legal. Unless they harm others, they should all be perfectly legal.
I agree.

On a side note as a genral statement, why should the government even be involved in marriage?

If the law states that marriage is between "one man" and "one woman", then gay marriage does not fall under the equal protection clause.
What the equal protection clause is interpreted to mean is that any distinction made in the law has to have some basis for it. The law distinguishes between adults and those under some age-line? The state needs to show that there is a reason for making such a distinction: this is easily done. The law distinguishes between whites and blacks? The state was unable to show any reason for that. The law distinguishes between same-sex and opposite-sex couples? Then the state needs to show a reason why, and this court helf that the state had failed to do so.

If the law states that marriage is between "one man" and "one woman", then gay marriage does not fall under the equal protection clause.

What a ridiculous statement. It's like saying, "If the law says 'white people only', it doesn't fall under the equal protection clause.

The fact that such a distinction is being made based on sex is actually precisely the reason that it falls under the equal protection clause.

Futhermore, if we want to change the law, so that marriage is defined as a union between two adults, this should be decided by a majority vote, IMO.

In other words, you are perfectly ok with institutionalized discrimination against certain groups, so long as the majority wants it..

Do you think that changing the law so that people of different races could marry also should have been decided by popular vote?

If the law states that marriage is between "one man" and "one woman", then gay marriage does not fall under the equal protection clause.

It's...well, to put it simply, it's considerably more complicated than that. If all it took to defeat equal protection was to phrase it like that, then Loving would have been dead in the water.

The thing about equal protection is you can't just write legislature to exclude fundamental rights, or deny certain legal rights, once created, from certain groups, merely by excluding them in the legislation. The idea of equal protection is, once the government creates a right, it can not artificially restrict that right to "fundamentally similarly situated" groups.

I agree.

On a side note as a genral statement, why should the government even be involved in marriage?

Because two people building a life together brings up all sorts of legal issues and/or problems. Assets and debts are not clearly defined as belonging to one or the other. The family ties are changed. Both are generally dependent upon the financial, etc. status they have together. And if they do decide to break it off, there is no clear legal default on how things are split.

The government certainly could ignore all of these things, but it would lead to a whole lot more litigation in the courts. So they provide a construct by which those entering into such a relationship can be seen, for many purposes, as a single legal entity.

That's quite an assumption. Do you know me? What makes you say that?

It's not an assumption, it's a question.

I agree.

On a side note as a genral statement, why should the government even be involved in marriage?

Because when shit hits the fans, the court system has to figure it out. Marriage is a contract, it needs laws so people don't get screwed, just like there are laws about renting out rooms in your house.

Because two people building a life together brings up all sorts of legal issues and/or problems. Assets and debts are not clearly defined as belonging to one or the other. The family ties are changed. Both are generally dependent upon the financial, etc. status they have together. And if they do decide to break it off, there is no clear legal default on how things are split.

The government certainly could ignore all of these things, but it would lead to a whole lot more litigation in the courts. So they provide a construct by which those entering into such a relationship can be seen, for many purposes, as a single legal entity.

So why didn't you become a lawyer? You just started working with different types of cells?

So why didn't you become a lawyer? You just started working with different types of cells?

Hubby's gonna be the lawyer. =)

Well, if I ever get done with my degree, anyways. Because that's when he plans on applying to law school.

I was hoping I wouldn't get into another argument...

"I love homosexuals and all, but I don't think they should get equal protection under the law."



"ZOMG! They're taking our 'right' to deny equal protection under the law to teh gays away! We're so oppressed!!!!"
I'll save that debate for later... as I said, it was beside the point.



Um....no one is taking away your right to hate whoever you want. You just can't get in the way of [b]their rights because of it.

Sort of like how you can hate black people, but you can't lynch them or keep them from getting jobs and stuff.
And I think that's a bad idea. SO WHAT if I don't want to give a job to a black guy? Everyone can hate me, my store can go out of business, and I'll rot in hell! But it's none of the GOVERNMENT'S DAMN BUSINESS WHO I HIRE! IF I DON'T WANT TO HIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE COLOR YELLOW THAT'S MY DAMN BUSINESS! I'M INSANE! BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO FIX THAT!



Erm.....free speech is protected, dearie. You can say whatever mean things you like about the people you supposedly "love and all."
I love them as human beings. I don't accept their behavior, and I probably wouldn't hang out with them on a regular basis. But I believe that they have the right to live their life. I love my older brother who gets into drug problems and theft all the time. But I don't accept his behavior, nor should I be expected to.

You just can't do anything to do them just because they're gay. You can do the words part. Just not the sticks and stones.
I think that I have the right to do whatever I want, just so long as it's not abusive. Obviously it's against the law to beat anyone with a stick, whether they're gay or not. But if I want to say that homosexuality is wrong, and prevent them from being in my house, business, etc., that is (or should be) perfectly fine.


You guys are missing the point. What this law does is not decide what's moral or immoral. What Senate Bill 777 does is take away our right to stand up for our beliefs. And I don't mean just in words.

You've all missed my point.

The equal protection clause only applies within the definition of the law it falls under. If the law is unambiguous, such as one man, one woman, we would have to change the law in order to include same sex marriages. This is a fact, not an opinion or personal viewpoint.

Furthermore, if there is any ambiguity within a law that is being used on an equal protection platform, it's important that this law be clearly defined to avoid abuse--that slippery slope, again.

As for my final point, it's my opinion that law changes should not be politically influenced, but be up to a majority vote. I'm an idealist, so what? I would feel this way regardless of the changes being voted upon.

It's not an assumption, it's a question.

Okay, then no.

You've all missed my point.
No, we all understand what you are saying, and are patiently explaining to you that you are utterly mistaken.
The equal protection clause only applies within the definition of the law it falls under.
Wrong. The equal protection clause forbids certain kinds of laws from being upheld, namely those whose definitions makes distinctions without a basis.
it's my opinion that law changes should not be politically influenced, but be up to a majority vote. I'm an idealist, so what? I would feel this way regardless of the changes being voted upon.
All property belonging to people whose screen name is "Merasia" should be confiscated for the good of everyone else.
All in favor, say AYE!

You've all missed my point.

The equal protection clause only applies within the definition of the law it falls under. If the law is unambiguous, such as one man, one woman, we would have to change the law in order to include same sex marriages. This is a fact, not an opinion or personal viewpoint.

The equal protection clause applies to ALL law. If a law is discriminatory and the government cannot back up that discrimination with a compelling enough interest, the law has violated the equal protection clause.

Again, by the ridiculous metric you're using, anti-miscegenation laws were perfectly Constitutional. By the ridiculous metric you're using a law that said, "Only white people can own property" would also be alright.

As for my final point, it's my opinion that law changes should not be politically influenced, but be up to a majority vote.

Um......"up to a majority vote" means "politically influenced."

Meanwhile, if you think that the majority should be able to do whatever they want to the minority, that's your opinion.

Luckily, it isn't the basis of our law.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.

The clause states that based upon the existing laws, everyone will be treated equally within the boundries of those laws. Just as I have said, if marriage is defined as one man, one woman, this law will have to change to include same sex marriages. Right? If it's not changed and we allow same sex marriages, this would be a serious problem.

Are you saying that it's just obvious that equal protection covers gay marriage--but no one would dare cross some abigious line to claim that it also covers polygamy?

What line? Why SHOULDN'T polygamy, or any other polyamorous configuration that involves consenting adults be covered?

What line? Why SHOULDN'T polygamy, or any other polyamorous configuration that involves consenting adults be covered?

I don't know, why?

No, we all understand what you are saying, and are patiently explaining to you that you are utterly mistaken.

Wrong. The equal protection clause forbids certain kinds of laws from being upheld, namely those whose definitions makes distinctions without a basis.

All property belonging to people whose screen name is "Merasia" should be confiscated for the good of everyone else.
All in favor, say AYE!

Hmm, I want to say AYE, but their stuff sucks so, NAY!

Ok, I love homosexuals and all that, but I am against gay marriage. But that's beside the point.

What's happening in California is awful. Not the marriage... that I can tolerate for a while. What I CAN'T STAND is rubbish like Senate Bill 777 that forces us to accept homosexuals, bans any kind of discrimination against them, etc. etc. etc.. I hate that we are losing our rights to the "poor, helpless, absolutely ABUSED" LGBT's in California.

Gay marriage I can tolerate for until I can become active in politics. But s*** like Senate Bill 777 will ruin our nation. Not because it makes us accept homosexuals, but because it makes us accept homosexuals. I don't care, if I want to hate anyone that eats peanut butter, that's my business, I'm insane, etc.. But that doesn't mean you should take away my right to hate peanut butter-eating people.

Hate speech is something we need to live with. Humans are flawed; there's no point denying that. Which means that in order to get the greater good (right to free speech), we have to accept some necessary evils (right to hate speech). Now you might say "Well, gee, I'm all for preventing offense, think of my self-esteem!" But who's to decide what's offensive? I get offended all the time because I'm a weakling. But I take it as their right to free speech. As much as it bothers me sometimes, I realize that they have that right, even if they use it for negative things.

As much as I wish that heterosexists could love homosexuals, or at least accept them as human beings (but not necessarily accepting homosexuality), I am against forcing them to. That is a moral decision they must make themselves. Even if hating peanut butter is ridiculous.

This is how this country works. You are NOT allowed do hurt people. Duh. You don't have the right to hurt people. Duh. You do have the right to not like people. You DON'T have a right to take away their rights. Such as the right to marriage. You do have the right to protest things with which you disagree. Duh. You DON'T have the right to hurt people when you protest.

Whether or not you agree with these ideas, they are part of the US. Don't like it? Move. That's actually my plan if the US gets ore conservative.

Just as I have said, if marriage is defined as one man, one woman, this law will have to change to include same sex marriages. Right?

Sure, if a law is ruled unconstitutional then it is struck down as an illegal law...that's fairly obvious and I'm not sure the point you're driving at.

The clause states that based upon the existing laws, everyone will be treated equally within the boundries of those laws. Just as I have said, if marriage is defined as one man, one woman, this law will have to change to include same sex marriages. Right? If it's not changed and we allow same sex marriages, this would be a serious problem.

by the way, here's a tip. If you're going to quote the Cornell Law's website (and you should, frequently, it's a fantastic site), the honest thing to do is give the entire relevant quote, to whit:

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

The clause states that based upon the existing laws, everyone will be treated equally within the boundries of those laws.

A law that says "only some people count" inherently breaks that rule.

Just as I have said, if marriage is defined as one man, one woman, this law will have to change to include same sex marriages. Right?

That's one way. The other is for it to be thrown out as unconstitutional on the basis that it does not provide equal protection.

Sure, if a law is ruled unconstitutional then it is struck down as an illegal law...that's fairly obvious and I'm not sure the point you're driving at.

My point exactly, but it was being questioned for some reason.

by the way, here's a tip. If you're going to quote the Cornell Law's website (and you should, frequently, it's a fantastic site), the honest thing to do is give the entire relevant quote, to whit:

And? How does this change anything I've said? The definition of the Equal Protection clause is exactly what I quoted. You're addition doesn't invalidate or change the definition I quoted, nor does it illustrate any attempt of dishonesty on my part.

I was hoping I wouldn't get into another argument...



You guys are missing the point. What this law does is not decide what's moral or immoral. What Senate Bill 777 does is take away our right to stand up for our beliefs. And I don't mean just in words.

Your ability to stand up to your beliefs end where enforcing them on others begin. If your beliefs are that gay marriage is wrong, guess what? Don't marry one. See? Isn't that easy?

Nobody is stomping on your beliefs. It's your persecution complex in action.

The clause states that based upon the existing laws, everyone will be treated equally within the boundries of those laws. Just as I have said, if marriage is defined as one man, one woman, this law will have to change to include same sex marriages. Right? If it's not changed and we allow same sex marriages, this would be a serious problem.

The law is applied individually, not in pairs. If a woman can marry a man, then so can a man. If a man can marry a woman, then so can a woman. That's equal protection in action.

And? How does this change anything I've said? The definition of the Equal Protection clause is exactly what I quoted. You're addition doesn't invalidate or change the definition I quoted, nor does it illustrate any attempt of dishonesty on my part.

It's the exact opposite of what you've been saying. Let's quote it again, shall we?

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.

Your claim has been that, as long as the discrimination is made clear in the law, the Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply. This quote is in direct contradiction of that claim - as those cases are exactly when it is needed.

I was hoping I wouldn't get into another argument...



You guys are missing the point. What this law does is not decide what's moral or immoral. What Senate Bill 777 does is take away our right to stand up for our beliefs. And I don't mean just in words.
Your ability to stand up to your beliefs end where enforcing them on others begin. If your beliefs are that gay marriage is wrong, guess what? Don't marry one. See? Isn't that easy?

Nobody is stomping on your beliefs. It's your persecution complex in action.

Look, the purpose of my post is even there, and you missed it. You even QUOTED it and you missed it. And I quote (as you did): You guys are missing the point. What this law does is not decide what's moral or immoral. What Senate Bill 777 does is take away our right to stand up for our beliefs. And I don't mean just in words.

Let me spell this out: I... Don't... Want... To... Argue... Whether... Or... Not... Homosexuality... Is... Wrong... Right... Now...

K, got it? I repeat: I... Don't... Want... To... Argue... Whether... Or... Not... Homosexuality... Is... Wrong... Right... Now... I... Am... Arguing... That... We... Cannot... Allow... Junk... Like... Senate... Bill... 777... To... Trample... Our... Rights... To... Discriminate...

Yes, our right to hate speech. It's hateful, but it's still speech. The Constitution protects our right to free speech. It doesn't protect our rights to speak in an inoffensive manner decided by others. It is evil, it is wrong, but it's necessary to provide our right to free speech. If we start restricting what's offensive, who decides what's offensive? Religion is offensive. Homosexuality is offensive. People who disagree with me are offensive. Get the point?:headbang::headbang::headbang:

That's one way. The other is for it to be thrown out as unconstitutional on the basis that it does not provide equal protection.


Correct. But if you remember way back when we first starting talking about this, I told you I couldn't help but feel like this could be a slippery slope by avoiding majority rule and leading to other types of marriage, such as polygamy (I used polygamy just as an example). I then stated that if we didn't have guidelines, what's stoping that? In other words, If we don't define what marriage is, then we are leaving the door open for any type of bizarre marriage relationships. Your response was that this would never happen since there aren't existing legal structures in place. But if we don't define marriage (or if we throw out the laws), we have no basis to exclude bizarre marriage relationships.

Correct. But if you remember way back when we first starting talking about this, I told you I couldn't help but feel like this could be a slippery slope by avoiding majority rule and leading to other types of marriage, such as polygamy (I used polygamy just as an example).

And I demonstrated that your premise was ridiculous, as polygamy would not fall under the equal protection clause.

And you didn't bring up any more examples of the slippery slope that might happen if we actually strike down unconstitutional laws.

I then stated that if we didn't have guidelines, what's stoping that?

But we do have guidelines. So, again, this is an irrelevant question.

In other words, If we don't define what marriage is, then we are leaving the door open for any type of bizarre marriage relationships.

The very fact that we have marriage law defines what legal marriage is. As I already demonstrated, the equal protection clause cannot be used to change that. It can, however, be used to ensure that all such relationships are equally recognized, without discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.

Your response was that this would never happen since there aren't existing legal structures in place.

Indeed. If the law doesn't recognize any polygamous relationships, there is no equal protection argument that would force it to do so.

If someone wanted to use the equal protection clause in an argument about polygamy, the government would already have to recognize polygamous relationships, but do so in a discriminatory manner. For instance, if the government recognized men with multiple wives, but did not recognize women with multiple husbands, that would violate the equal protection clause.

But if we don't define marriage (or if we throw out the laws), we have no basis to exclude bizarre marriage relationships.

Ah, I see the problem. No one is saying we'll throw out all the marriage law. You just have to throw out the restrictions based on sex or sexual orientation. The ruling in California didn't strike down all marriage law and force the government to start from scratch. It simply struck down a law which specifically restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Meanwhile, if we did throw out all marriage law, there'd still be no worry about "bizarre relationships" (whatever that means) being recognized. Why? Because no relationships would be recognized.

Meanwhile, Merasia, are you taking back this statement:

If the law states that marriage is between "one man" and "one woman", then gay marriage does not fall under the equal protection clause.

?

Look, the purpose of my post is even there, and you missed it. You even QUOTED it and you missed it. And I quote (as you did): You guys are missing the point. What this law does is not decide what's moral or immoral. What Senate Bill 777 does is take away our right to stand up for our beliefs. And I don't mean just in words.

Are we talking about this bill:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070409_amended_sen_v98.html

?


If so, how does that take away your rights - to free speech or anything else? It regulates what public schools and their employees - representatives of the state - can do.

K, got it? I repeat: I... Don't... Want... To... Argue... Whether... Or... Not... Homosexuality... Is... Wrong... Right... Now... I... Am... Arguing... That... We... Cannot... Allow... Junk... Like... Senate... Bill... 777... To... Trample... Our... Rights... To... Discriminate...[quote]

Public schools don't have a right to discriminate. In fact, just the opposite. They are required by the Constitution not to.

[quote]Yes, our right to hate speech. It's hateful, but it's still speech. The Constitution protects our right to free speech. It doesn't protect our rights to speak in an inoffensive manner decided by others. It is evil, it is wrong, but it's necessary to provide our right to free speech. If we start restricting what's offensive, who decides what's offensive? Religion is offensive. Homosexuality is offensive. People who disagree with me are offensive. Get the point?:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Again, how does this law supposedly restrict your right to free speech? Because you can't put hateful opinions into school curriculum, you're somehow oppressed?

So, let's look at this another way then. Where do you think the idea that marriage is only to be between one man and one woman comes from? I already gave my answer that it's from the religious groups. They are always the ones claiming that it is. Can you point me to any non-religious activist groups that claim it?

So you just assumed that it had to be this group, and while I do not know of a group (and I can't really be bothered looking for one) which does this I do know people who are self professed atheists and are against gay marriage.

You guys are missing the point. What this law does is not decide what's moral or immoral. What Senate Bill 777 does is take away our right to stand up for our beliefs. And I don't mean just in words.

Some how I don't thinkn they care because it so far has helped them, they will just overlook that fact, if it is true, and I'm not saying it is or isn't.

So you just assumed that it had to be this group, and while I do not know of a group (and I can't really be bothered looking for one) which does this I do know people who are self professed atheists and are against gay marriage.


The groups that have come out publicly today as well as in the past in California have all be doing so because of their religious views. I never claimed that people have non-bible related reasons to be against gay marriage but they sure are forming groups to work against it so i doubt there are many.

What reasons have you heard for why your atheist friends are against gay marriage?

I hope the gay marridge gets passed nationally. I really would like to marry my boyfriend onna these days D:

The groups that have come out publicly today as well as in the past in California have all be doing so because of their religious views. I never claimed that people have non-bible related reasons to be against gay marriage but they sure aren't forming groups to work against it so i doubt there are many.

What reasons have you heard for why your atheist friends are against gay marriage?

Bolded part I think is what you meant.

The article said a group and you immediately went on to say people should not try ans enforce their religious views on to other people. I asked for proof that the group in question was a group that is against gay marriage because of their religious beliefs rather than you just jumping the gun.

Reasons they have given good question I have to remember it isn't that big an issue over here.

I think some have said stuff like: It's wrong, The majority of people don't want it, gays are allowed to marry just not to the same gender just like all people regardless of their sexuality aren't allowed to.

I can't recall all the reasons, but I was surprised that one of my gay friends was against it, he said that marriage is an institution that should be between a man and a women, however, they should be able to receive the same benefits as a married couple, like being able to file their taxes as a couple.

People should be allowed to marry whoever they want.

Yes, our right to hate speech. It's hateful, but it's still speech. The Constitution protects our right to free speech. It doesn't protect our rights to speak in an inoffensive manner decided by others. It is evil, it is wrong, but it's necessary to provide our right to free speech. If we start restricting what's offensive, who decides what's offensive? Religion is offensive. Homosexuality is offensive. People who disagree with me are offensive. Get the point?:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Yep. I got the point. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Interesting point. :)

... nevermind. I give up, you guys win. Now that I admit "defeat", I'm going to go try and discover what irrational teaching techniques government education use to have this effect. I thank God that I wasn't sent to a "public" school where I would've learned that my rights are subject to anybody that challenges them.

One more question:

Public schools don't have a right to discriminate. In fact, just the opposite. They are required by the Constitution not to.

Where does it say that? Just curious, because I'm only learned in the Bill of Rights.

... nevermind. I give up, you guys win. Now that I admit "defeat", I'm going to go try and discover what irrational teaching techniques government education use to have this effect. I thank God that I wasn't sent to a "public" school where I would've learned that my rights are subject to anybody that challenges them.

One more question:

Public schools don't have a right to discriminate. In fact, just the opposite. They are required by the Constitution not to.

Where does it say that? Just curious, because I'm only learned in the Bill of Rights.

One more question:

Public schools don't have a right to discriminate. In fact, just the opposite. They are required by the Constitution not to.

Where does it say that? Just curious, because I'm only learned in the Bill of Rights.

The bolded part is your problem. You might want to look just a bit lower

Look, the purpose of my post is even there, and you missed it. You even QUOTED it and you missed it. And I quote (as you did): You guys are missing the point. What this law does is not decide what's moral or immoral. What Senate Bill 777 does is take away our right to stand up for our beliefs. And I don't mean just in words.

Let me spell this out: I... Don't... Want... To... Argue... Whether... Or... Not... Homosexuality... Is... Wrong... Right... Now...

K, got it? I repeat: I... Don't... Want... To... Argue... Whether... Or... Not... Homosexuality... Is... Wrong... Right... Now... I... Am... Arguing... That... We... Cannot... Allow... Junk... Like... Senate... Bill... 777... To... Trample... Our... Rights... To... Discriminate...

You don't have those. If you did we'd still have separate but "equal" schools.

I guess Pakar Rhoy would like the return of segregation, then.

My feelings on this issue aside, if the MAJORITY votes against gay marridge (as it has done time and time again--something around 70% of the state), why should the minority be upheld and gay marridge legalized? To ignore the majority of the state vote would be undemocratic.Not if the vote violates the Constitution. To violate the Constitution would be undemocratic, regardless of the number of people who wished to do so.

I think some have said stuff like: It's wrong,

Subjective and irrelevant.

The majority of people don't want it,

Irrelevant.

gays are allowed to marry just not to the same gender just like all people regardless of their sexuality aren't allowed to.

That's still discrimination based on gender.

In fact, it is exactly like going back to the days of anti-miscegenation laws and saying "Everyone is allowed to marry a member of the same race, so there's no discrimination."

I can't recall all the reasons, but I was surprised that one of my gay friends was against it, he said that marriage is an institution that should be between a man and a women, however, they should be able to receive the same benefits as a married couple, like being able to file their taxes as a couple.

The latter contradicts the former. Receiving the benefits of a married couple is the same thing as being legally married. The difference is that your friend is advocated "separate but equal" - something that is never truly equal.

... nevermind. I give up, you guys win. Now that I admit "defeat", I'm going to go try and discover what irrational teaching techniques government education use to have this effect. I thank God that I wasn't sent to a "public" school where I would've learned that my rights are subject to anybody that challenges them.

What rights of yours are supposedly being challenged?

One more question:

Public schools don't have a right to discriminate. In fact, just the opposite. They are required by the Constitution not to.

Where does it say that? Just curious, because I'm only learned in the Bill of Rights.

The 14th Amendment. Public schools are part of the government. As such, they cannot deny equal protection.

Not if the vote violates the Constitution. To violate the Constitution would be undemocratic, regardless of the number of people who wished to do so.

The ruling was in a California State Supreme Court, based on the California State Constitution.

The upcoming vote is to amend the Constitution of the State of California, to ban gay marriage.

It's all really silly if you ask me - eventually it will all come to the SCOTUS, and it will be all settled there - gays will be allowed to marry.

All of this ranting and court fighting is a waste of time and energy. Just pencil in, "gays can get married" and we can move on to other topics...

What Senate Bill 777 does is take away our right to stand up for our beliefs.
What the bill says is that teachers should not be allowed to mock and bully their students. If you have a problem with that, then I have a serious problem with you; but I suspect you have just been taken in by some absurd propaganda about what the bill actually says.

God Loves Gays. FACT.

People should be allowed to marry whoever they want as long as they are both consenting adults.

With this change I now agree with you.

With this change I now agree with you.

lolz.