Cali Supreme Court is a disgrace to our judicial system. [Archive]

Kralizec

03-06-2009, 17:47

Time article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1883508,00.html?xid=rss-nation-cnn)

an older one (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1857980,00.html)

The legal challenge endorsed by the governor is a suit filed by the ACLU and other groups who allege that the referendum that won on Nov. 4 with nearly 53% of the vote is invalid. "It would constitute a constitutional revision, not a constitutional amendment and, as such, the California Constitution provides that it may not be enacted by initiative," reads the request for an immediate stay to stop Proposition 8 from becoming law. In plainer language, what the suit says is that because the gay-marriage ban so fundamentally alters the state constitution by taking away a fundamental right from some citizens, the change should be viewed as a revision instead of an amendment — and the California Constitution requires that so-called revisions be passed by both houses of the legislature before being submitted to voters. (See the Top 10 ballot measures.)

So their argument is that the citizens can't themselves "remove" something wich judges have "added" to the constitution. And Schwarzenegger agrees :inquisitive:

Husar

03-06-2009, 18:13

Sometimes the sheep act stupid and need guidance by the shepherd and his dogs. :sweatdrop:

Devastatin Dave

03-06-2009, 18:15

Maybe you could give those of us who have no clue as to what you are on about a bit of help?

What is Prop 8?

Its a law outlawing homosexual couples from marriage....

God, if you only knew how hard it was for me to post that without getting a warning!!!:laugh4:

Personally, I don't think the government should recognise anye marraige, including heterosexual marraiges.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-06-2009, 21:21

Maybe you could give those of us who have no clue as to what you are on about a bit of help?

What is Prop 8?

Why would the state Supreme Court be hearing a case on it? What is the issue at hand? Isn't the Supreme Court responsible for constitutional fidelity so why would it be outside their purview? (One assumes in your opinion, rather than theirs).

Basic List of Events:

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California)

Xiahou

03-06-2009, 21:36

From what I've heard, all indications seem to point to the court upholding the amendment- as they should. You don't have to like it or consider it a good idea, but it was legally added to the state's constitution.

Marshal Murat

03-06-2009, 22:04

Seamus Fermanagh

03-06-2009, 22:27

I agree wit the amendment, which would strip the label of "marriage" from "civil unions". I don't know why they have to have the name to make themselves feel special, but in any case the citizens of California have voted to make it illegal for those contracts between homosexuals to be labeled as "marriage".

The argument boils down to acceptance. To label same sex unions anything BUT marriage is, in the eyes of many in the homosexual community, to accept a "lesser" status. Their whole point is to actively take the status of full equal, that a union between same-sex individuals is every bit as normal and community affirming as a differing sex union. By extension, they wish to proclaim that their lifestyle/orientation is every bit as normal as anyone elses.

I think getting government out of marriage entirely would be nice. However, that's water under the bridge after this many centuries of government being involved and taxing the thing. Nor will the gay marriage advocates LET you separate the two now -- it is part of their goal to keep it under the government aegis and to use that aegis as a means of asserting their equality.

If the only issue had been establishing partnership rights akin to those afforded marriages by the government, it would have been resolved long since. There is more on the agenda than simple equality of legal privilege.

Mooks

03-06-2009, 23:01

Meh, same sex marriage is going to happen sooner or later. Like integrated schools were in the 1950's.

Marshal Murat

03-07-2009, 00:07

Meh, same sex marriage is going to happen sooner or later. Like integrated schools were in the 1950's.

It's not a questions of whether same-sex marriage will occur, it's simply whether we will call it "marriage" or "civil unions".

Yoyoma1910

03-07-2009, 00:27

I don't know why everyone wants to get married so much. They're really just doing themselves a disservice.

Major Robert Dump

03-07-2009, 00:54

should have been called Proposition 69 it would have a better shot

Lord Winter

03-07-2009, 00:58

I cannot believe that they actually decided to hear the case on Prop 8. The very fact that they are even debating it now is a mockery of justice. You can agree or disagree with the Prop 8, but there's MUCH more at stake here: it is a case of Supreme Court deciding a constitutionality of a constitutional amendment. That's just crazy! It is absolutely beyond their jurisdiction to do that. Anything *in* the constitution is constitutional by definition and not a subject of debate.

Gah.

Cali judges never cease to disappoint me.

Even if they weren't going after the process instead of the actual law, I guess they could start moving the case towards the federal supreme court and try to get it overturned under the 14th amendment.

Mooks

03-07-2009, 02:00

It's not a questions of whether same-sex marriage will occur, it's simply whether we will call it "marriage" or "civil unions".

Ya, we might as well keep it "seperate but equal"....right?

a completely inoffensive name

03-07-2009, 02:17

People should not be voting on people's rights in the first place. Why don't we hold a vote to bring back slavery or not.

Banquo's Ghost

03-07-2009, 09:44

People should not be voting on people's rights in the first place. Why don't we hold a vote to bring back slavery or not.

Rights, however universal or inalienable, must be supported by law. Democracies make law by vote.

At least in the United Kingdom (and at the time her Empire) there was a long parliamentary process (http://slavetrade.parliament.uk/slavetrade/index.html) that did indeed, finally vote to end slavery. There were a couple of attempts a little later to overturn the act.

Thank you to all who provided links. Fascinating stuff. :bow:

a completely inoffensive name

03-07-2009, 10:04

...

Banquo's Ghost

03-07-2009, 10:30

If the right can be ignored because it is not supported by law then it is not a right but a privilege. And its a good thing that America is a Republic not a Democracy, where the minority can be protected from the tyranny of the majority just like the Founding Father's envisioned, oh wait....

A person's quality of life and freedom should not be determined by the social and moral standards of the day.

You will come to know that I am quite a human rights activist. Nonetheless, that a right exists does not make it enforceable without law. I agree with you that quality of life and freedom should not be determined as you note, but reality may disagree. In a democracy, one must advance rights through persuasion and law, and that law is likely to be challenged by those who disagree - who also have rights.

The Supreme Court is doing what it should be doing, protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. To think that taking away someones rights is acceptable because the majority of people think it should is completely wrong. Plurality does not mean right.

You say they are doing the right thing, because you agree with the minority so identified. Many people do not. In a democracy, any endeavour to over-turn the will of the majority must be undertaken with extreme care. As I understand it, rvg's case is that this may not be addressed with appropriate safeguards, or indeed that the Supreme Court is not empowered to make such a decision.

Also I don't understand your bringing up of the ending of the British slave trade. Are you saying eventually, the people make the right choice? Because somehow I don't think that the gay community will just accept Prop 8 knowing that "eventually" sometime in the future, the people will probably give them back their supposedly "inalienable" rights.

It was you who brought up slavery and whether it should be voted on. I merely demonstrated that it was, in a time when social and moral standards were very different. As one of the triumphs of parliamentary democracy, the achievements of the abolitionists rested on persuasion and moral certainty. The right to be free always existed - but until written into law, slaves could not exercise that right.

Just as the abolitionists wept with frustration at their repeated failures to get the legislature to listen, in the face of vested interests apparently overwhelming in their power and patronage, gay activists may have to hold to their beliefs and try again and again until they convince enough people that their cause is just. Remember, the other way to emancipation in a great democracy was civil war.

You will note that human rights and democracy go hand in hand. This is why one must never subvert the other.

Xiahou

03-07-2009, 10:36

If the right can be ignored because it is not supported by law then it is not a right but a privilege.
Who ever gave you the idea that there's an "inalienable" right to marriage?

a completely inoffensive name

03-07-2009, 10:41

...

Xiahou

03-07-2009, 10:48

Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence), that all Men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity) with certain unalienable Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I still don't see marriage enumerated anywhere as an inalienable right. Are you saying that anything that brings one happiness is an inalienable right? That's certainly not the case- I can think of many things that might make someone happy and are still illegal.

a completely inoffensive name

03-07-2009, 11:02

...

a completely inoffensive name

03-07-2009, 11:07

...

Crazed Rabbit

03-07-2009, 11:44

Trying to uphold the rights of the minority?!

BAH!

There is no right to government recognized marriage. There is nothing that normal couples have that gays cannot obtain. There is no right to have a government-recognized marriage with any person or persons.

The homosexual lobby rejected traditional Christian morality. Fine - but that means they can't claim to have any right to a fundamental sacrament of Christianity.

This was a legally passed amendment to the state constitution.

Either that simple fact is recognized, or voting in our country is pointless. Decide now whether you want the people to rule themselves or if you want to be ruled by judges.

CR

KukriKhan

03-07-2009, 14:51

Marriage, schmarriage. It's about whether the great people of the blessed state of California can change the basic rules they operate under (their Constitution) by means of a simple majority vote (50% +1).

As it stands now, they can. So, Prop 8 = law in Cali. Next election is next year, so I expect to vote again on the topic.

I personally think it's a mistake; Amendments to the Constitution should require a super-majority of at least 75%. The current process insures only chaotic and conflicting law, based on whichever yay-haw group manages to whip up a temporarily popular cause.

Strike For The South

03-07-2009, 17:05

Referendums? We don't need no stinkin referendums! I think me and Koga argued this until the cows came home lemme see if I can find it.

Crazed Rabbit

03-07-2009, 21:29

I personally think it's a mistake; Amendments to the Constitution should require a super-majority of at least 75%. The current process insures only chaotic and conflicting law, based on whichever yay-haw group manages to whip up a temporarily popular cause.

On that I agree. Having a simple majority for constitution changes isn't good.

On the other hand, California passed a similar referendum around 2000 I think, which was overturned by judges, I believe.

CR

Lemur

03-07-2009, 22:43

There is nothing that normal couples have that gays cannot obtain.
Care to back that up? Last I checked there are issues of inheritance (http://www.afterellen.com/blog/juliamiranda/annie-leibovitz-is-in-a-jam), taxation (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/02/seto-the-tax-advantages-of-gay-marriage.html), hospital rights (http://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html), insurance (http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/healthinsurance1/a/aa052204a.htm), property (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600797_pf.html) and rentals.

I know the last one from personal experience. Two days ago my car was in for servicing, and the dealership gave me a loaner. Only I or my legal spouse could drive the car. As it turned out, I needed to work the day my car was ready, so my wife took the loaner in. If we had been any sort of same-sex couple this would have been impossible. Not a life-and-death issue, certainly, and no more annoying than being asked to use a different water fountain or sit in the back of the bus. But I would imagine it rankles.

-edit-

Just to emphasize the degree to which some states are intent on preventing exactly what CR is mistakenly assuming is the norm:

Virginia state legislators passed a law two years ago that prohibits "civil unions, partnership contracts or other arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage." A proposed constitutional amendment, which will go to voters in November, excludes any "unmarried individuals" from "union, partnership or other legal status similar to marriage."

Many gay people in Virginia and some family-law attorneys say they worry that the state law and proposed amendment are more far-reaching than simple bans on gay marriage -- that the measures could threaten the legal viability of the contracts used by gay couples to share ownership of property and businesses.

The exact effects are unclear, and the 2004 law remains untested, but some gays say they fear the laws could affect their ability to own homes together; to draft powers of attorney, adoption papers or wills; or to arrange for hospital visitation or health surrogacy.

Married people get these rights automatically through long-established common law; gay people use legal documents to ensure they can leave their property at death to their partner or allow their partner, rather than the patient's birth family, to make end-of-life decisions for them. Some gay people worry that hostile family members could use the language in the laws to seize their possessions or take custody of their children if they could prove the couple had a relationship that illegally approximated a marriage.

-edit part deux-

Forgot immigration rights. If you travel to France and fall in love, you can legally bring your bride home no problem. She'll even gain automatic citizenship. If you fall in love with a boy, well, good luck, sucker (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3042260120080702).

Crazed Rabbit

03-07-2009, 23:30

Care to back that up? Last I checked there are issues of inheritance (http://www.afterellen.com/blog/juliamiranda/annie-leibovitz-is-in-a-jam),

I'm against the death tax in the first place. No one should have to pay that.

taxation (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/02/seto-the-tax-advantages-of-gay-marriage.html),

Marriage is the stable foundation of a family that involves raising children. So I'm not against tax breaks for married couples.

Wait - reading more on that link:

In the absence of an attractive formal status that then invokes related-party anti-abuse rules, well-advised gay couples are, and will continue to be, permitted to pay systematically lower federal income taxes than heterosexual married couples—a result unlikely to be acceptable to a majority of Americans in the long run.

So gays pay less in taxes and you're complaining? :inquisitive:

hospital rights (http://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html),

So is this a government law that allows/forces hospitals to allow spouses and family members? Or just hospital policy? Either way, I am in favor of civil unions that would grant visitation rights.

insurance (http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/healthinsurance1/a/aa052204a.htm),

So the problem is there aren't enough insurance companies that provide benefits to gay partners?

property (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600797_pf.html)

Well that's a result of too much government interference - the government may be voiding the contracts gay partners use with that law. I'm against that, just the same as I'm against most government interference.

and rentals.

I know the last one from personal experience.

So? I'm not in favor of having the government dictate the practices of private business. Same as with the insurance companies.

EDIT: I was referring to California, so I wasn't considering Virginia's bizarre actions (which seem to be the minority).

CR

Lemur

03-07-2009, 23:40

CR, you're spinning like a top. Your answer to the inequitable treatment of inheritance is that you, personally, are against the "Death Tax," so there's no issue to discuss. Unbelievable.

Inequality in taxation and tax status is fine if teh gays receive benefits? Absurd.

Hospital visitation rights you don't even seem to understand.

As for health insurance, if you are gainfully employed and have health insurance, your wife is automatically covered. Not so with a gay partner. What part of that do you find difficult to comprehend?

And with property rights, once again your particular brand of conservatism would solve the issue, so there's nothing to discuss. Amazing. Have you given any thought to how people should cope with these sorts of laws in the real world?

All of this is dancing around the point, which is that you stated that gay couples can contract themselves into all of the same rights that straight couples can, which is obviously, self-evidently and demonstrably false.

Oh, and your gay partner cannot receive widow or widower benefits from Social Security. But you don't believe in SS, so I suppose that's another of your non-issue issues.

Marshal Murat

03-08-2009, 00:36

I do believe that gay couples should have the same, "common law" rights of heterosexual marriages. However, calling these unions "marriages" is something that many people have a problem with.

While many no doubt fear oppression of the minority by the majority, I do wonder what of the minority oppressing the majority?

Crazed Rabbit

03-08-2009, 02:04

CR, you're spinning like a top. Your answer to the inequitable treatment of inheritance is that you, personally, are against the "Death Tax," so there's no issue to discuss. Unbelievable.

We can discuss the issue of the death tax. That's an unfair tax, and I see no reason why discussion must be limited solely to gay rights.

Inequality in taxation and tax status is fine if teh gays receive benefits? Absurd.

I didn't say it was fine, I asked why you put it up like some sort of injustice.

Hospital visitation rights you don't even seem to understand.

Well thanks for that and ignoring my support of civil unions instead of answering my questions.

As for health insurance, if you are gainfully employed and have health insurance, your wife is automatically covered. Not so with a gay partner. What part of that do you find difficult to comprehend?

Gee, maybe that dates to when wives, by and large, stayed at home raising the kids. And didn't you just link to a bunch of insurance companies that do cover gay partners?

And with property rights, once again your particular brand of conservatism would solve the issue, so there's nothing to discuss. Amazing. Have you given any thought to how people should cope with these sorts of laws in the real world?

Does any other state besides Virginia have such laws that might invalidate contracts between gays? And no, I don't think only people with 'my particular brand of conservatism' are against that.

All of this is dancing around the point, which is that you stated that gay couples can contract themselves into all of the same rights that straight couples can, which is obviously, self-evidently and demonstrably false.

Meh, so I was wrong on some cases. Those problems could be solved outside of granting gays the right the marry.

Oh, and your gay partner cannot receive widow or widower benefits from Social Security. But you don't believe in SS, so I suppose that's another of your non-issue issues.

Gee, again that might be from when wives stayed at home and didn't earn social security. Somehow I don't think that's the case with the normal gay couple. These insurance and SS issues stem from trying to obtain all the same rights as married couples, who live in different circumstances.

Anyway, I see hospital visitation rights as the biggest issue, and is that even a problem in California?

And as for avoiding the issue, this thread is about judicial legislating, not the oft-repeated list of gay complaints.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

03-08-2009, 04:22

...

Strike For The South

03-08-2009, 04:40

1. I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage in the first place, but if it does then, it is still a right that everyone must have.

2. Because marriage has always been one of the highest and most sacred of rituals in the Christian religion. Back in the Middle Ages when kings forced their daughters to marry a prince she did not know for their own power, that was so sacred and pure right there.

3. Under the law, yes it was legally passed. But it infringes on others inalienable rights which are higher then the law, therefore it is void. I would rather have a small group of judges who know this rule over me then the ignorant masses clamoring "NO MOAR GAYS, THEY'RE DIFFERENT THEN US!!!"

Why should everyone have it? If the gays should have it (which they should if there's no hope of changing the system) then so should the polygamists and people who are part of plural marriages. All you need is consenting adults.

Marriage in a church has to do with Christianity but civil marriage is all about $$$

The people of California have shot down legislation that in no way contradicts the state of California's constitution and if the judges rule otherwise they are simply legislating from the bench and interjecting there own opinions.

Xiahou

03-08-2009, 04:45

As for health insurance, if you are gainfully employed and have health insurance, your wife is automatically covered. Not so with a gay partner. What part of that do you find difficult to comprehend?I was employed and had health insurance. My wife was most certainly not automatically covered. I had the ability to add her to my insurance- but I actively had to do so and it came with a hefty increase in my premiums.

CR's point was still correct anyhow. Homosexuals are allowed the same access to marriage as anyone else. There is no separate set of rules that are being applied to them- that is in fact what they are asking for. Whether your heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, the same rules apply. The perceived difference is when you talk about being able to marry a person you are sexually attracted to. That fails because sexual attraction is not the reason for legal marriage.

I've said this time and again. If homosexuals want government recognition and benefits for their relationships with each other, they're free to make the case for it and to try to convince the voters and their elected representatives. However, the constitutional argument just isn't there and the courts are the wrong vehicle for such recognition, as is evidenced by amendments such as prop 8, they lead to backlash. There was no talk of constitutional amendments to define marriage until homosexual activists took to the courts to try to force their view instead of using the democratic process.

Crazed Rabbit

03-08-2009, 10:07

1. I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage in the first place,
...
3. Under the law, yes it was legally passed. But it infringes on others inalienable rights which are higher then the law, therefore it is void. I would rather have a small group of judges who know this rule over me then the ignorant masses clamoring "NO MOAR GAYS, THEY'RE DIFFERENT THEN US!!!"

Right...

Government shouldn't have anything to do with it, but it's an inalienable right.

Sorry, it's not. Marriage in this country comes from the Christian tradition. I'm rather sick of gays claiming they have any sort of 'right' to marriage, which has absolutely nothing to do with them. They want to take a heterosexual, Christian tradition that has nothing to do with them and change it to their will. Marriage has nothing to do with gay partnerships, and vice versa.

If you like small groups of people ruling you, I hear Iran is nice at this time. Or Saudi Arabia. They have those wise judges and leaders you seem to like.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

03-08-2009, 10:27

...

Subotan

03-08-2009, 10:48

Banquo's Ghost

03-08-2009, 10:58

Sorry, it's not. Marriage in this country comes from the Christian tradition. I'm rather sick of gays claiming they have any sort of 'right' to marriage, which has absolutely nothing to do with them. They want to take a heterosexual, Christian tradition that has nothing to do with them and change it to their will. Marriage has nothing to do with gay partnerships, and vice versa.

I'm sure you don't mean to, but you are rather implying in this paragraph that citizens of other faiths don't have a right to marriage in the United States either.

Strike For The South

03-08-2009, 17:52

The same reason blacks wanted to sit in crappy Malt Bars in the Deep South fifity years ago.

It's not the same thing. Not even close.

a completely inoffensive name

03-08-2009, 19:21

...

Strike For The South

03-08-2009, 19:36

Lately there has been a surge in Gay rights are equal to civil rights which is simply not true. First lets forget the fact that gays arent nearly subject to 1/100000000 of the prejudice that blacks were. There isn't a constitutional precedence for it either and to say there is one means you take such a literal meaning interpretation of the constitution that you make the legislative branch utterly useless. Here are some of the arguments I have heard

So you only think the constitutions laws are the ones your republic can have?

Well no thats why we have congress but I can see why you would think that as they are always more busy with naming parks than tackiling tough issues

BUT ITS WRONG OH SO VERY WRONG

Well that maybe however the courts job is not to make law only to interpret the thing so no matter how "wrong" something may be it does not give the courts the right to project there on view of morality on the case (IE Roe V Wade)

Dred Scott V Sanford (1857)

The judgement is as folllows

Quote:
States do not have the right to claim an individual’s property that was fairly theirs in another state. Property cannot cease to exist as a result of changing jurisdiction. The majority decision held that Africans residing in America, whether free or slave, could not become United States citizens and the plaintiff therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. Furthermore, the parts of the Missouri Compromise creating free territories were unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to abolish slavery in federal territories. Judgment of Circuit Court for the District of Missouri reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Now slavery is a wrong however in this case the court ruled right. The constitution says nothing about slavery and there were laws that counted slaves as property. So therefore the court made the right decision here despite the fact it was "wrong"

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Now this is a legal ruling due to the fact that Plessy only used the 14th amendment and did not try to utilize other parts of the constitution. the 14th amendment says nothing about everyone being integrated only that they be equal. If he had pointed out that the facilities were "separate but equal in name only" then they would've had a case but they didnt and the civil rights movement shot itself in the foot.

Brown v. Board of education (1954)

This is the ruling that overturned Plessy and to me is an illegal ruling. I think the fact that even after this was ruled there are still white and black schools is a testament to this. School segregation was on its way out. The civil rights movement was getting up (and for the most part would go through the right channels with the civil rights act of 1964 which I consider a hallmark in Americas law processing) The EPA says nothing about integration just equality. With this ruling one could argue that the public school system today is a racist classist institution granted the supreme court would knock it down however at that point they would be more in line with a Plessy ruling than with a Brown one. Like in Plessy the courts were being used as a legislative branch only this time it worked.

In todays say in age the gay movement is trying this same route and it is only turning people off. Not to mention it is straight up illegal as the constitution (cali or otherwise) says nothing about marriage to begin with. They have even less precedent than the civil rights movement.
:smash:

Omanes Alexandrapolites

03-08-2009, 19:37

From this angle the US and its court system looks like a necessary evil.

If California were to become a gay majority state, I'm sure heterosexuals would be up in arms if the gays were to vote for (and pass) a constitutional amendment banning heterosexual marriage and making only homosexual partnerships legal.

The same would apply if white America were to pass a constitutional amendment calling it illegal to be black - its no more extreme - logic dictates to me that gays didn't wake up yesterday and say "hey, today I'm going to be gay" as much as blacks woke up and said "hey, today I'm going to be black".

Democracy is indeed important, but, as I'm sure has been said already (I'm too lazy to read the whole thread), the "tyranny of the majority" must be avoided.

Of course, this is just over a name - trivial in my opinion. I don't care whether you call it civil partnership, marriage or whatever. I suppose it is a sort of segregation, but its not really quite as extreme as pre-60s Jim Crow laws - even though it is separation its not unequal (from what I understand, black schools were often terrible in comparison to white schools). In truth, for total true equality the name does have to be there too (whether you demote heterosexual marriage or promote homosexual it doesn't matter), but its nothing worth fretting about.
Sorry, it's not. Marriage in this country comes from the Christian tradition. I'm rather sick of gays claiming they have any sort of 'right' to marriage, which has absolutely nothing to do with them. They want to take a heterosexual, Christian tradition that has nothing to do with them and change it to their will. Marriage has nothing to do with gay partnerships, and vice versa.After my last "argument" with Crazed Rabbit, in which I was mercilessly torn into several pieces, I should know better not to attack his ideology, but here I go. I never learn.

It's not at all Christian, marriage has existed across the world for thousands of years before Christianity even was thought of. It's simply a way of people displaying their love for each other - in my eyes that can be either two people of the same gender or separate.

~:)

Xiahou

03-08-2009, 20:02

The same would apply if white America were to pass a constitutional amendment calling it illegal to be black - its no more extreme - logic dictates to me that gays didn't wake up yesterday and say "hey, today I'm going to be gay" as much as blacks woke up and said "hey, today I'm going to be black".White vs black is defined by skin color. Heterosexual vs homosexual is defined by behavior. The two aren't remotely comparable. I think trying to equate gay marriage to the civil rights movement is somewhat offensive.

Lord Winter

03-08-2009, 20:13

@Strike, by the logic of that quote the Consitution becomes meaningless.

Strike For The South

03-08-2009, 20:21

@Strike, by the logic of that quote the Consitution becomes meaningless.

What Quote?

Lord Winter

03-08-2009, 20:25

What Quote?

Lately there has been a surge in Gay rights are equal to civil rights which is simply not true. First lets forget the fact that gays arent nearly subject to 1/100000000 of the prejudice that blacks were. There isn't a constitutional precedence for it either and to say there is one means you take such a literal meaning interpretation of the constitution that you make the legislative branch utterly useless. Here are some of the arguments I have heard

So you only think the constitutions laws are the ones your republic can have?

Well no thats why we have congress but I can see why you would think that as they are always more busy with naming parks than tackiling tough issues

BUT ITS WRONG OH SO VERY WRONG

Well that maybe however the courts job is not to make law only to interpret the thing so no matter how "wrong" something may be it does not give the courts the right to project there on view of morality on the case (IE Roe V Wade)

Dred Scott V Sanford (1857)

The judgement is as folllows

Quote:
States do not have the right to claim an individual’s property that was fairly theirs in another state. Property cannot cease to exist as a result of changing jurisdiction. The majority decision held that Africans residing in America, whether free or slave, could not become United States citizens and the plaintiff therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. Furthermore, the parts of the Missouri Compromise creating free territories were unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to abolish slavery in federal territories. Judgment of Circuit Court for the District of Missouri reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Now slavery is a wrong however in this case the court ruled right. The constitution says nothing about slavery and there were laws that counted slaves as property. So therefore the court made the right decision here despite the fact it was "wrong"

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Now this is a legal ruling due to the fact that Plessy only used the 14th amendment and did not try to utilize other parts of the constitution. the 14th amendment says nothing about everyone being integrated only that they be equal. If he had pointed out that the facilities were "separate but equal in name only" then they would've had a case but they didnt and the civil rights movement shot itself in the foot.

Brown v. Board of education (1954)

This is the ruling that overturned Plessy and to me is an illegal ruling. I think the fact that even after this was ruled there are still white and black schools is a testament to this. School segregation was on its way out. The civil rights movement was getting up (and for the most part would go through the right channels with the civil rights act of 1964 which I consider a hallmark in Americas law processing) The EPA says nothing about integration just equality. With this ruling one could argue that the public school system today is a racist classist institution granted the supreme court would knock it down however at that point they would be more in line with a Plessy ruling than with a Brown one. Like in Plessy the courts were being used as a legislative branch only this time it worked.

In todays say in age the gay movement is trying this same route and it is only turning people off. Not to mention it is straight up illegal as the constitution (cali or otherwise) says nothing about marriage to begin with. They have even less precedent than the civil rights movement.

I'll agree with the point about Dred Scott, but such a literal reading of the constitution as the quote is applying to Plessy and brown, makes any reading of the 14th amendment useless.

Subotan

03-08-2009, 20:26

It's not the same thing. Not even close.

How so? You have discrimination in the USA against homosexuals. I remember seeing a study wherin only 48% of Americans would vote for an openly gay President; about the same proportion as an atheist. Meanwhile, as we have just seen, America is willing to elect a black president. Therefore, there is more discrimination against openly gay people then black people.
QED

And besides, the very fact that there is a law saying "you can do this, but unlike the rest of us, you can't do this" Seems to me to be at least unlawful (All men are created equal?) Let alone morally reugnant. Black people in Missisippi may not have wanted to eat in some crummy little diner that had rats in the kitchen and dirt in the food. But the very fact that they couldn't, because of their skin colour was a symbol of the prejudice and hatred against black people. Now, we have exactly the same situation with homosexuals. Yes, I highly doubt that there are any restaurants where only straight people are allowed to eat, but only straight people can officially get married. It's exactly the same thing.

And btw, that big wall of text seems to be saying "It doesn't matter how morally revolting something is, if it's not forbidden in the Constitution, then it's OK to do it.".

Strike For The South

03-08-2009, 20:52

I'll agree with the point about Dred Scott, but such a literal reading of the constitution as the quote is applying to Plessy and brown, makes any reading of the 14th amendment useless.

Half and half. The schools were inequal but we still have that problem today in the inner city and in the rural areas of the country. Not to mention forced busing was one of the most retarded ideas to come out of congress.

The problem with the Brown ruling is that it mashes several problems (some race some not) and makes this ruling. In my eyes a violation but at the same time I'm willing to admit I'm spiltting hairs on this issue and the Brown ruling in itself was good, it was technically illegal.

How so? You have discrimination in the USA against homosexuals. I remember seeing a study wherin only 48% of Americans would vote for an openly gay President; about the same proportion as an atheist. Meanwhile, as we have just seen, America is willing to elect a black president. Therefore, there is more discrimination against openly gay people then black people.
QED

Thats a deductive fallacy.

And besides, the very fact that there is a law saying "you can do this, but unlike the rest of us, you can't do this" Seems to me to be at least unlawful (All men are created equal?) Let alone morally reugnant. Black people in Missisippi may not have wanted to eat in some crummy little diner that had rats in the kitchen and dirt in the food. But the very fact that they couldn't, because of their skin colour was a symbol of the prejudice and hatred against black people. Now, we have exactly the same situation with homosexuals. Yes, I highly doubt that there are any restaurants where only straight people are allowed to eat, but only straight people can officially get married. It's exactly the same thing.
.

The fact that you can compare the treatment of blacks from 1880-1954(at the very least) to gays of today is laughable and sad. The civil rights movement today is so disinfected when its taught in schools or otherwise. People had no problem straight up killing blacks and juries would let them off. Contrary to popular belief many of these men were never brought to justice and you have only heard .1% of these violent cases, as many times blacks were simply thrown in the river and forgotten about.

Make no mistake for every black that wanted equality so badly, there were whites who wanted to keep the status quo that badly.
.

And btw, that big wall of text seems to be saying "It doesn't matter how morally revolting something is, if it's not forbidden in the Constitution, then it's OK to do it."

That's why we have congress.

Subotan

03-08-2009, 21:30

Thats a deductive fallacy

It's a very simple and basic argument yes, but that doesn't mean it should be thrown out the window.

The fact that you can compare the treatment of blacks from 1880-1954(at the very least) to gays of today is laughable and sad. The civil rights movement today is so disinfected when its taught in schools or otherwise. People had no problem straight up killing blacks and juries would let them off. Contrary to popular belief many of these men were never brought to justice and you have only heard .1% of these violent cases, as many times blacks were simply thrown in the river and forgotten about.

Look at my argument again. I never said that It's the same as that kind of prejudice, I said that gays want to be married for the same reasons that blacks wanted to eat in the diners; to gain acceptance from the state, and society as a whole.

Make no mistake for every black that wanted equality so badly, there were whites who wanted to keep the status quo that badly.

And yet for every gay who wants equal rights, there's a Bob Phelps who want to keep the status quo, or worse.

That's why we have congress.

If so, why is there a need for the courts?

Marshal Murat

03-08-2009, 22:15

And btw, that big wall of text seems to be saying "It doesn't matter how morally revolting something is, if it's not forbidden in the Constitution, then it's OK to do it."

As I understand it, that's why we have the 10th Amendment.

The reason why we have Congress is to pass laws and ensure that everyone is represented, given a "fair shot" at things. The Judiciary is to either enforce those laws or to ensure that they are constitutional. That's why Bill Clinton couldn't line-item veto stuff, because it's not given to him in the Constitution. Were Congress and the States to pass an Amendment to that effect, it would be allowed.

No-where in our Constitution do we require "equality". Equality isn't the word. The Constitution wants to give everyone a "fair chance" to succeed, and do so by their own merits and abilities. Equality is to sandbag the successful and elevate the stupid.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-08-2009, 22:45

Marriage, in governmental terms, is a sanctioned union between two people. It is granted a special legal status with certain legal privileges. This treatment of marriage, and its legal particulars, have been an element of the republic since its founding. The treatment of marriage and those privileges accorded thereunto harken back to an even older legal tradition, predating European settlement of North America.

These legal privileges could certainly be afforded to any couple by contractual means or through some form of civil union. While this would be an improvement, it would not satisfy many of those championing gay marriage.

Their larger point is: To be gay is no more and no less a choice than to be Black or Inuit and is as fully normal as being Black or Inuit or White or left-handed. From that perspective, any restriction of behavior, privilege, or status that is not equally restrictive of all persons is discriminatory and wrong and should be abolished. Therefore, allowing someone who prefers to have sex with a member of the same sex to marry someone of the opposite sex is discriminatory, since a heterosexual has the privilege of marrying someone with whom they DO prefer to have sex.

In short, the key point is NOT rights and privileges per se, it is the demand to be treated as normal and equal in all things.

Notes:

To date, no research has definitively proven that sexual orientation is a "hard-wired" characteristic. Nor has research proven that it is not.

Many (most?) minority groups that are defined by race (Black, Latino etc.) tend to disagree with the parallel made by homosexual advocacy groups, asserting that a set of behaviors is NOT a direct equivalent to a demonstrably physical characteristic.

Many religious traditions view marriage as something "sacred" on some level, and for those religions whose creed decrys homosexuality, it is impossible to support same-sex marriage as being appropriate as it would be actively blasphemous.

Kralizec

03-08-2009, 22:48

White vs black is defined by skin color. Heterosexual vs homosexual is defined by behavior. The two aren't remotely comparable. I think trying to equate gay marriage to the civil rights movement is somewhat offensive.

Even if it´s a purely voluntarty choice of behaviour, the government shouldn´t penalize them for it. Giving everyone else advantages and benefits is de facto penalizing them for their sexual preference.

That said I agree with Banquo´s Ghost, this should be handled by actual legislation and democratic process.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

03-08-2009, 23:26

White vs black is defined by skin color. Heterosexual vs homosexual is defined by behavior. The two aren't remotely comparable. I think trying to equate gay marriage to the civil rights movement is somewhat offensive.Not really - African-Americans are usually (in my eyes) only offended due to their stronger than average religious beliefs. It's only because they are being compared with a minority that they disagree with the existence of.

In my eyes there are an awful lot of parallels between the struggle for gay rights and civil rights. The only problem is that religious beliefs are homophobic while not anti-black. In my eyes it is not insulting to compare one bit - they both are fighting for equality for something that they have little/no choice over.

It may not have been proved, but, think logically about this one, who would be unintelligent enough to choose to be gay? There's homophobia, anti-gay murders, death sentences and all sorts of injustices against homosexuals in the modern world. Gays exist all over the place, even in places where it is a taboo subject and is never portrayed at all - not even as abnormal - it just is totally ignored.

In my eyes, you are not capable of making any form of real negative judgement upon a person and their choices unless you have been there yourself and felt those emotions. It's hard to understand something which you have never felt.

~:)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-08-2009, 23:39

I looked this up, just to check, and I remembered correctly. The original wedding service from the BCP: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/compraym.html

Note the reasons for marriage, including production of children. Not possible in a homosexual relationship. This is ONE of the purposes of marriage, to regularise offspring. Therefore, as there can be no offspring a homsexual union is not a marriage.

a completely inoffensive name

03-08-2009, 23:51

...

Crazed Rabbit

03-08-2009, 23:59

Or maybe I will live in America, a country where we have (supposedly) the best and brightest of us leading us under permission from the public (with the public voting to allow which one of them leads us) who are a lot more knowledgeable then the average citizen.

Maybe you should read Watchmen.

After my last "argument" with Crazed Rabbit, in which I was mercilessly torn into several pieces, I should know better not to attack his ideology, but here I go. I never learn.

It's not at all Christian, marriage has existed across the world for thousands of years before Christianity even was thought of. It's simply a way of people displaying their love for each other - in my eyes that can be either two people of the same gender or separate.

Aha, but in this country it stems from the Christian tradition. And even so, I don't think marriage in other cultures ever included gays (I know there were instances of such partnerships, but I don't think they were thought of the same as a man-and-woman marriage).

I'm sure you don't mean to, but you are rather implying in this paragraph that citizens of other faiths don't have a right to marriage in the United States either.

Excuse me for not doing a thesis on the subject. But in a way, other faiths do have to comply with marriage in our country - no recognition of polygamy, for example.

If so, why is there a need for the courts?

To apply our legal system to specific events, not define our legal system.

Not really - African-Americans are usually (in my eyes) only offended due to their stronger than average religious beliefs. It's only because they are being compared with a minority that they disagree with the existence of.

I daresay it was because their struggle was hundreds of years long, involved brutal repression, and was based on an obvious physical characteristic. Gays claim because they can't snatch the world 'marriage' for their own use that their struggle is similar? What an insult to the civil rights movement.

CR

Marshal Murat

03-09-2009, 00:00

So if a couple is married and one is discovered to be infertile, then it really wasn't a marriage?
Just as long as you create a new religion and marry your wife's friend, and their friends until they give you a son. 6 women or so is normal. Besides, you're the head of the new religion.

Reynolds v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States)
US cannot mandate religion, but may mandate actions taken by religions (i.e. polygamy/ritual slaughter/etc.) So Congress could pass a law that mandates an action taken by religion as legal or illegal.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-09-2009, 01:28

Not the same. I know what you're going to say when I say "vagaries of fate" etc. You say, "well, one vagary is infertility and another is gender."

No dice. Even if the relationship is unfruitful it maintains the same nature, and it is different to a homosexual relationship. This doesn't make homosexual relationships less emotionally, but they are different.

Monarch

03-11-2009, 23:58

The argument boils down to acceptance. To label same sex unions anything BUT marriage is, in the eyes of many in the homosexual community, to accept a "lesser" status..

You don't have to be in the "homosexual community" (does that put me in the "heterosexual community" by the way? Do we have a newsletter? :inquisitive:) to be pro-equality.

I do believe that gay couples should have the same, "common law" rights of heterosexual marriages. However, calling these unions "marriages" is something that many people have a problem with.

While many no doubt fear oppression of the minority by the majority, I do wonder what of the minority oppressing the majority?

How does the right of homosexuals to have marriages oppress heterosexuals?

Major Robert Dump

03-12-2009, 10:28

You don't have to be in the "homosexual community" (does that put me in the "heterosexual community" by the way? Do we have a newsletter? :inquisitive:) to be pro-equality.

How does the right of homosexuals to have marriages oppress heterosexuals?

If both of the chics are fat and ugly it is oppressive

ajaxfetish

03-13-2009, 22:48

Marriage is the stable foundation of a family that involves raising children. So I'm not against tax breaks for married couples.
I looked this up, just to check, and I remembered correctly. The original wedding service from the BCP: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/compraym.html

Note the reasons for marriage, including production of children. Not possible in a homosexual relationship. This is ONE of the purposes of marriage, to regularise offspring. Therefore, as there can be no offspring a homsexual union is not a marriage.
Let's keep in mind that it's entirely possible for a homosexual couple to rear children. Homosexual couples are capable of raising adopted children, as are heterosexual couples, or, as in the case of my aunt, they can make use of donated sperm (I suppose a male couple could find a willing surrogate mother).

Ajax

HopAlongBunny

03-13-2009, 23:18

Care to back that up? Last I checked there are issues of inheritance (http://www.afterellen.com/blog/juliamiranda/annie-leibovitz-is-in-a-jam), taxation (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/02/seto-the-tax-advantages-of-gay-marriage.html), hospital rights (http://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html), insurance (http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/healthinsurance1/a/aa052204a.htm), property (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600797_pf.html) and rentals.

Forgot immigration rights. If you travel to France and fall in love, you can legally bring your bride home no problem. She'll even gain automatic citizenship. If you fall in love with a boy, well, good luck, sucker (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3042260120080702).

This is the real problem ie: claims on property and the rights of a "spouse". It seems many states wish to render the civil contract invalid for these claims. I don't blame the gay community for opposing that bit of "sleight of hand".