|
|
|
|
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:43:30 PM | Sanderick brought up a good point:
Q:What's to stop people from polygamy?
A:The law.
We as a society in the US have said that polygamy is immoral and legislators have made it illegal.Some religious groups claim polygamy is perfectly normal and natural but the state comes down harshly on those groups as we have seen recently in Texas.
We Californians will be voting on a constitutional admendment in November and if it fails by a popular vote I will accept it but I won't agree with it.
BTW:polygamy is still marriage between men and women while making an oath to God(Allah,etc). | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:57:33 PM | | The Artful Codger - Every example you provided was done precisely following the Constitution. This one is different. This one did not or at least 4/7th of it didn’t. . You’re deluded by the similar and controversial aspects of the subject matter and that is skewing your good judgment. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:23:10 PM | as per post 21, the "dictionary has been continually amended" due to changes in culture and world view. the laws change, the definition changes. just that simple.
as to the canadian attititude towards all usa pof'ers and lumping us together as americans appear to have done to gays as per this thread, all i can say is: you win some, you lose some. have you read any of the disability threads regarding canadian policy? you have the health insurance, we have the disability coverage. you have the gay laws, we have other things in place. maybe i should live right on the border. half my house here and half my house there given that i have a disability?!* then i could be a bed and breakfast for all my gay/lesbian friends while they run up to canada and get married (on a humorous note).
if it's not one thing, it's another. boil it all down to human nature and the fact that usa people love to argue out in the open. but to those canadians, who don't always need to likewise "discriminate" and put everyone in the usa down (to put themselves up): my lesbian friends just got married in canada and i am grateful that it made them happy. for the sour pusses: unfortunately, they still don't want to live there despite it all. so although we all bicker, i guess we feel we have something to fight for. in sf, solid citizens are winning the battle.
by the way, a large community of wealthy gay male republicans live up in sf. life is not all that it appears to the non participatory observer. not every gay and lesbian is an underdog. they will win, because it's right. people take time to adjust when they come from parochial and homogeneous geographic sub-areas.
the most ominous barrier are large group employers and small business owners who foster this anti gay marriage sentiment because they just don't want to pay the additional employee benefits. national health insurance would change a big part of this apparent attitude or underlying ploy. | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 10:02:45 PM | | I actually think that we get rid of marriage all together. Nobody can get married. Instead, in the eyes of the state, the only thing you have is civil unions. Gay, straight, its all a civil union. You want to get married, go to a freaking church. That is where that crap belongs. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 11:20:57 PM | RE: Msg 31 -
Aside from the direct process of amending the Constitution, the way the Constitution is understood is also influenced by the decisions of the court system, and especially the Supreme Court. These decisions are referred to, collectively, as precedents. The ability of the courts to interpret the Constitution was decided early in the history of the United States, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court. Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has affected a change in the way many Constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution.
Legislation, passed to implement provisions of the Constitution or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many agencies of the federal government have a similar effect. If the actions of Congress or federal agencies are challenged as to their constitutionality, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether or not they are allowable under the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
The 1967 SCOTUS judgement excerpted earlier, may well prove to be the precedent for something like this:
'Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' and to deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual preference, is a classification so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious discriminations based on sexual preference. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of the same sex resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.'
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" also appeared in the judgment, Justice Warren writing:
'The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Further, I'd wager there might even be enough wiggle room in the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments to support a challenge to the constitutionality of discriminating against a certain segment of the population...but I got kicked out of law school for getting caught naked after hours at the faculty club with the dean's wife, so I will leave it up to smarter people than me.
However they approach it, as mentioned in Msg: 32 - 'they will win, because it is right'.
Eventually.
...and to my mind, there are lots of more important things we could be focusing on, that actually affect us in real and tangible ways. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 9:46:25 AM |
I got questions...How is it that gays a considered a minority? For instance..Since I am a white male and there are more women does that make me a minority?
Minority status is based on individual categories, not in a mix of categories. For example. Homosexuals are minority in the SEXUAL ORIENTATION category. The vast majority of population is heterosexual, this is when you are only talking about SEXUALITY. Race, color, religion, etc, etc, is not mixed into this category, that's something else.
.. and in the U.S, there are more men than women, the demographics have changed in the last 10 years. Therefore, if you are a man, you are in the majority in the SEX RATIO CATEGORY on a national level.
The California Supreme Court did the right ruling. Equality means equality. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 10:17:38 AM | "Equality means equality."
People keep kicking this term about like it is going to make all things well and right REGARDLESS of the issue at hand.
Logically in some issues this cannot/should not be done. So lets review the basics here. As has been the custom/practice for a few thousand years and more, a male and a female come together, unite in a union type like marriage to each other with the usual purpose to then procreate. Societies have recognized this union of male to female as a special union above any other type human relationship that has existed because their is not another human relationship that can be compared to it for it's central purpose...procreation of the species.
So if you logically compare a hetrosexual realtionship to a homosexual relationship....you will NEVER EVER have equality. It will NEVER EXIST because of the procreation factor. You can borrow from the hetrosexual equation to enable homosexuals to have kids but they cannot "naturally" all by themselves without the help of outside sources have kids.
This is why most people regardless of their sexual persuasion feel a marriage certificate belongs to the union of male and female. For most who believe this they are not homophobics, they are not anti-homosexual, they are not gay bashers or any other such anti-homosexual term homosexuals have usually coined. The most of society just feel that a marriage certificate belongs to a hetrosexual couple. Nothing more... nothing less. They don't feel homosexuals, bisexuals, bigamists or polygamists deserve a marriage certificate. Not hard to understand though apparently it is hard to accept for a minority that disagrees with the majority so they are forcing the majority to accept what they the minority feels is well and correct and screw you if you disagree! It is no longer up for vote. This minority will now side-step how the majority feels and they shall crawl through the laws and loop holes to force what they want done upon everyone. And they have did it in two states now. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 10:35:57 AM | | The Republicans have this as one of their campaign issues because it fits into the "Christianity is under attack" theme that works to get their voters motivated. They do focus groups to find what works on their followers, then create propaganda to play on their fears. If gays were to marry without Republicans using the fact for political propaganda, nobody would care. They would think it was cute. But once it becomes an attack on Christianity, there you go. Two terms of W, a war, and gas triples in price. But God is happy because homos can't marry. Step back from the issue and see how it fits into the political noise coming from your TV. (That's TeleVision, not TransVestite.) | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 10:46:21 AM | | Sodom and Gomorrah, Massachusetts and California, it's poetic. One has to struggle to ignore the connection between our abominations and the thousands of thermonuclear missiles pointed at us in a country being courted by the Islamic terrorists as the muscle they need to destroy their hated enemies, the great and little satans, the US and Israel. Hup, 2,3 4 ... march, march, march, march ... to hell we go, to hell we go, weeeeeeeeeeee | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 10:46:56 AM |
if you logically compare a hetrosexual realtionship to a homosexual relationship....you will NEVER EVER have equality. It will NEVER EXIST because of the procreation factor
So, by your "logic" an infertile heterosexual couple is nor equal, and should not have the right to legally marry.
Do I really need to point out that your "logic" contains no logic at all?
No matter how we look at it, all arguments against same-sex marriage are founded on bigotry and ignorance, and nothing else. Logic doesn't come into it at all, since logic dictates that homosexual couples must have the same rights under the law (if not biology) as heterosexual couples. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 10:48:48 AM | Again, Now that marriage can be with any person.
It's time for people being able to marry more than one person.
polygamy
Men and women, should be able to marry multiple partners.
They have every right to marry more than one person, just like every one has a right to marry any sex person they want. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 11:05:18 AM | This is why the small minorities of anything that want rights for something side step a populace vote and use the laws of that state to get what they want that the populace will show they don't want by taking their minority to the supreme court to get what the people feel should not exist.
I am for what ever should be well and right. But what I am against is small minorities that push what they think is well and correct upon the majority that show they think contrary to that minority
As if in 1965 the populace would have voted to allow blacks the right to vote. Ummm yeah...we'd still be waiting for equal rights. The court system (state and federal) was created because the founding fathers knew issues would crop up where the people wouldn't agree whatever they might be.
It's also important to remember our country has a responsibility to protect the minority opinion and give it an opportunity to be heard. That's the basis for why the FF fled their land of origin. Oppression by the majority.
If we had to rely on the popular majority vote for everything minorities--ethnic, gender, sexual orientation and religious--would still be slaves to those who comprise the majority. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 12:04:51 PM | warmthnpassion
Think of it this way. If you allow the judges to vote like they feel and not follow the Constitution, then what happens when the courts get packed with judges that are totally apposed to your beliefs and values? You get horrible decisions that affect you personally and those that you love around you.
California Judges are ELECTED>>> So the Voters PACKED the court. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 12:15:28 PM |
am for what ever should be well and right. But what I am against is small minorities that push what they think is well and correct upon the majority that show they think contrary to that minority
The Founders thought this through and talked about it. They set up an independent judicial branch so that the rights of minorities would be protected against a tyranny of the majority.
You don't have to like it when a minority advocates for a change in laws that unfairly impinge upon their rights. But if you're smart, you'll think about whether or not you want to live in a society based on mob rule--because that's what you'll get if you don't have a mechanism in place to put a check on the power of the majority. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 12:24:36 PM | The most of society just feel that a marriage certificate belongs to a hetrosexual couple. Nothing more... nothing less. They don't feel homosexuals, bisexuals, bigamists or polygamists deserve a marriage certificate.
People also accepted slavery and laws againts interracial marriage because tradition held them to be acceptable practices. However, justice trumps tradition, and once
the case for justice can be made, the argument from tradition no longer prevails.
Once you bring in the priniple of equality under the law and remove the religious spin--which is what you must do in court--marriage contracts boil down to agreements between adults that cover mutual support, tax benefits, and inheritance. If we're all equal, there is simply no legal basis for restricting access to the benefits of those agreements based on the genders of the parties.
I think the religious folks who want marriage to be seen as a sacred union have a point. What happens at the County Clerk's office should be a civil union, regardless of who enters into it. What the preacher sanctifies through a religious ceremony should be a marriage. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 12:33:54 PM | Excellent point Loislane.....but a far different issue and it was not actually a "small minority" that wanted to change the laws and traditions of segregation in the 50's to 60's. A small minority became a huge number of Americans of all colors that wanted change. A very large majority of Americans wanted segregation to end and equality among the races to begin. That is why those laws were changed and instituted though a minority fought them every step of the way.
Well here it is just the opposite. The majority is not against sexual lifestyles. If you want to hump whatever in the privacy of your home have at it. The majority feels a marriage license should be for one specific human relationship. The minority says no deal and they are fighting what the majority has shown what they don't want in voting booths in all 50 states. The minority knows until the majority is finally acceptable of a license for any couple regardless of sexual orientation, they will never get a vote from the populace for what they want.
So they have one option.....force the majority to accept what a minority wants.
Mr. Mxyzptlk, I have come to enjoy the extremism that people as yourself resort you to prove a point.
"So, by your "logic" an infertile heterosexual couple is nor equal, and should not have the right to legally marry."
That is what you are saying. Not I . I didn't mention anything about infertile hetros. Most hetros that marry (IN YOUTH) are usually not aware that one or both in the relationship are infertile. So your extreme logic would have to be discussed for those that are infertile and know it who are applying for a hetrosexual license. Then also you have the fact that though people can be infertile, sometimes months to years to a decade or more later they find themselves fertile with a child on the way. So your point is mute in this extreme instance for comparison value.
"Do I really need to point out that your "logic" contains no logic at all?
No matter how we look at it, all arguments against same-sex marriage are founded on bigotry and ignorance, and nothing else."
I absolutely luv it when people use the word BIGOTRY without understanding the context of the true definition like yourself.
[bigot >noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.]
This exact definition fits every single soul that finds fault, etc., with anyone who thinks a marriage certificate is for a hetrosexual couple and not for any other type couple. Like yourself. I'll be the first to agree that some are motivated by ignorance and true bigotry/prejudicism. But for the most, according to statistics, (Google it) who care less what people do sexually as a couple or as a single person, they just feel that a marriage certificate belongs to a hetrosexual couple. Nothing more to explain about why this group feels this way and all gender sexual type relationships can be found in this group thinking this way.
By the way, your own statement....."all arguments against same-sex marriage are founded on bigotry and ignorance, and nothing else."......that makes you and others that think like you bigots to the raw definition because you are not accepting and you are intollerant and you are predjuiced of an opinion that is different then your own.
"Logic doesn't come into it at all, since logic dictates that homosexual couples must have the same rights under the law (if not biology) as heterosexual couples."
Actually that is an opinion. That is not logic or else if logic was a true factor, a marriage certificate for hetros, homos, bi, bigamy and polygamy would have long ago been established so that discrimination/prejudicism would never play a factor.
The real fact is that tradition holds in place what is....not opinions or logic or anything else. Tradition holds a marriage certificate for a male and female be they fruitful or barren. Get rid of that tradition and you will have established "equality" for any couple/couples for a marriage license. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 12:35:21 PM | finally this is getting somewhere, as someone who has met 100's of gay people , including
having a gay brother, a gay uncle and a gay cousin, I see nothing wrong with gay marriage ,
and its about time they see equal treatment, they pay taxes, they work, and everyone I've
met who has been gay have been very decent kind caring people... I also strongly believe
people don't choose to become gay, jesus christ I knew my brother was gay when he was 10 years old , saw it coming long before he hit his teens, Gay is Gay, and it's never going away
and I applaud them ....
as a footnote, why is it that lesbian porn is so hot to straight people ? lol | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 12:40:16 PM | It's not so much that they want mob rule or that they're even truly very concerned about democratic procedure. IMO what it seems like at least some of the Christians want (and I should even qualify the word Christians by specifying usually the fundamentalist and / or "evangelical" types for example) is more like a Christian theocracy here. Watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" for example. There is a disturbingly large segment of American society (an overall minority I'm sure -- but too many nonetheless) who literally believe the Bible should be the sole basis of legislation here. And they are infuriated by things just like this, like what just happened in CA. Yet another state legalizing gay marriage.
How does it bother them or hurt them personally ? It doesn't; it merely doesn't sit with their sense of what they feel a pious "Christian nation" should be doing. They're the American equivalent of the Islamists in the Middle East who want Koran-only governments and the Jews who feel Israel is illegitimate because it's not based on Torah law, etc. In short these people represent a (IMO) dangerous throwback to the (to quote Christopher Hitchens) "bawling infancy of our species".
They get sanctimonious about "majority rules", and "minorities" having the say and so on and so forth, but in reality , if only they had the power to do so, they themselves are one minority which would most definitely have no problem deciding what's best for all. That's why I think it's so important to have activists who continue after such things as gay marriage for instance (even though I'm not personally such an activist myself; I support them).
You have to keep in mind what these kinds of people , religious bigots in short, would do if only they could. And you have to fight against them (so to speak) to win. Not using half-measures. These are times of (again "so to speak") cultural revolution we're living through. It started in the late 60's, and it's an ongoing slow war. They're going to come out on the losing side of it, if only by sheer numbers and by attrition, but it's going to happen very slowly. This kind of thing, this CA Supreme Court decision, is another victory on another battlefield for the forces of progress and forward-thinking as opposed to knee-jerk reactionism and pious bigotry. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 12:58:31 PM |
Any minority that side steps a vote of the people in something that will affect the people in one or more ways by going to the courts to get a ruling by constitutional rights and not by what the general populace endorses.....that is pushing an agenda of a minority upon the majority
Yes. That is true. But the converse is also true. The majority is pushing an agenda upon a minority. Should the majority always win out, even over justice?
When people have rights, majority rule can only go so far. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 1:25:35 PM | California Judges are ELECTED>>> So the Voters PACKED the court.
Wrong.
Municipal judges are elected,Supreme court judges are appointed by the governor.
Again the people who are against this ruling are of ALL faiths...not just Christians. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 1:57:42 PM | OK, I'm going to have some fun with this issue.
Let's assume we pass a law declaring that marriage be only between a man and a woman.
What is your definition of a man and a woman, genetics ?
Do you want to define your legal constitutional rights according you your genes ?
All men have a Y chromosome, right ? All women have 2 X chromosomes, right ?
Not exactly, a geneticist can tell you there are a few women who have a Y chromosome and a few men don't have any Y chromosomes. That doesn't make them less men or women.
So being a man or a woman is dependant upon what they appear to be or what role they have assumed.
What about transgendered people ?
Would it be OK for a man to marry a woman who used to be a man ?
How about a woman to marry a man who used to be a woman ?
Or, ( this is my favorite ) a man who used to be a woman marrying a woman who used to be a man ? Who could be against that ?
Under the surface of every great issue, there's somebody who wants to hold onto their power . | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 2:14:23 PM | 1. separation of church and state
2. marriage is a church matter
if government wants to be in the marriage business, it has to do so on an equitable basis, not along church doctrines.
let it sink in. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/16/2008 5:14:59 PM | I'm all for putting this issue up for a vote. If two people want to get married, regardless of their gender mix, I say let those two people vote on how or whether they'd like to formalize their relationship, only I'd insist that it be a unanimous decision before taking the big step.
This is one of those issues where we all tend to fall into one of two camps.
There are those, like myself and many others here, who feel it's not our business to intrude in the private affairs of other people who may have different preferences than we do.
Then there are those who object every time a law is passed or interpreted that legitimizes behavior they personally don't approve of. Somehow they feel that THEIR private affairs have been intruded upon if society accepts a range of behaviors that extends beyond their personal value system.
Tolerance is more difficult for some than others.
There are many behaviors I don't approve of, and a lot of behaviors that I think are just plain wrong. Few of of these, in my view, require legal mandates against those who practice them. Our prisons are full of people who did no harm to anyone else but themselves, yet society has deemed unfit to live free lives. (I'm thinking of drug possession convicts, offhand, but there are probably other examples)
The other day I posted a rant on another thread against those who base their vote on race or gender. I think that's wrong. But I'd never advocate that such people be denied the right to cast their vote.
I draw a distinct line between behavior that I may disapprove of, however strongly, and behavior that actually poses a threat to the common good and needs to be controlled as best we can. Fortunately, our founding fathers anticipated the need to draw and define that line, and established the judicial system with enough safeguards to protect those carrying the heavy mantle of interpreting the law from the whims of those who judge harshly all who differ from themselves.
My personal favorite solution to this particular issue is to let each of us pick one person as our designated 'special person' - a person who could enjoy all the legal rights a spouse currently does. I don't care who sleeps with whom. I'd just like to be able to have someone who'll decide whether to pull the plug on me, someone who could enjoy the whatever health benefits my spouse would be entitled to, etc... Why not let each of us just name that person with no question asked regarding our relationship with them. That way we single folks would quit being discriminated against.
Just a thought,
Dave | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 1:46:07 AM |
Again, Now that marriage can be with any person.
It's time for people being able to marry more than one person.
polygamy
Men and women, should be able to marry multiple partners.
and??? That should be legal too. Actually, Canada is thinking about legalizing that too, so is the Netherlands. They did a study for about two years I think, and they concluded, that the State has no business in forcing people to marry just one person, no matter what the sex is.
If you think about it, The U.S is a sausagefest, there are more men than women ( contrary to popular belief). If American men get 3 or 4 wives each from different countries in the world, the female:male ratio will be good. If one of the wives want to divorce, she will enter to the pool of women for men to choose from.
And yes, a man can be married to 3 different women, and one of those women can get married to some other man too. Why not? That is freedom. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
