A Gay Mistake In California?

I am trying not to be overly optimistic, but I just don't see how the SCOTUS cannot vote in favor of gay marriage. They have waited far too long for equal rights. Every single reason that has ever been given as to why gays should not marry has been shot down repeatedly. A lot of these couples have children and those children have a right to have married parents. They deserve to be families just as much as I deserve to have my family. It really bothers me that I have had the privledge of being married to a wonderful man for 26 years, but only because I picked the right sex. How ludicrous is that?

The plaintiffs case rests on that there are no real barriers to their being married. Interracial marirage was shot doewn because there was no evidence that interracial marriage did anything to disrupt same-race marriage, and there there were no reasonable legal barriers to it. It was barred on the premis that same-sex marriage somehow disrupted hetero marriages, but there has been no evidence whatsoever of that.

All they need to do is show that gay marriage and same sex marriage are no different legally. All they need is a few witnesses to show that. Everyone knows that legally they are the same. Prop 8 lawyers have been asked repeatedly to show that same sex marriage somehow disrupts other marriages, but they themselves have admitted that there is no evidence of that.

One must also remember that in 1972 homosexual acts among men were still illegal in many places. This ended in 2003 with the Lawrence vs. Texas decision. As mentioned in this weeks Newsweek piece on Conservatives for Gay Marriage, Scalia noted at the time of the decision in his dissent that with homosexuality legal there was no viable reason to deny gay marriage. The legal impediments for gay marriage have largely disappeared.

The problem opponents in CA face is that these individuals HAD the right, and it was unfairly stripped from them.

At this time in California there is a definite inequality that must be addressed. That is that those gay couples who were married before Prop 8 passed are still considered legally married, while no gay couples are allowed to marry after the prop passed. Either the marriages prior to Prop 8 must be invalidated or gay couples must be allowed to married. It seems at this point we actually have two different laws in place, and that certainly does not make for equal treatment under the law.

If prudes aren't the issue then why is it that churches in Utah spearheaded the fundraising for Prop 8 in California?

And marraige can be done secularly without a whif of religion. I could go to the court house and get a justice of the peace and a marraige certificate and be married then and there, without all the pomp and circumstance of a ceremony in a church, and it'd be 100% identical to the marraiges that are held in churches.

And need I point out the blatant inequality of a state law (or ANY law) that bars a segment of the population from having the same rights as others. In Loving v Virginia, It was ruled unconstitutional for blacks and whites to be married, and the defenders of that law used the same arguments you are.

Uhhh, prude is not an inflammatory word, so your comparison to the N word isn't really valid. Nor does it associate the person in question with any overarching negative stereotypes. As I mentioned above, the Lawrence v. Texas decision makes it very questionable whether the rationale presented in the Baker v. Nelson decision still holds water. We'll all have to wait and see.

Personally I think marriage is an issue that should be decided by the states, despite the horrible patchwork of interstate marriage laws that has the potential of creating, but the Loving v. Virginia case does establish marriage as a fundimental right which can be decided at a federal level, so the SCOTUS has already decided to disagree with me in that regards.

Whether you like it or not religious people have the right to oppose or support any law, just like you have that right. Screaming prude instead of addressing the issue is no different from saying n***** in a race debate.

Religious people can do what they like. Religious organizations, with their tax-exempt status, have no right to do anything politically, unless they want to forfeit their tax-exemption. Heck, can we at least limit the religious meddling to be restricted within the states which the issue is brought up? Millions of dollars that went into the Prop 8 advertising came from out of state. I don't know about you, but I don't like people in other states trying to have a say what goes on in mine.

In Baker v Nelson the court ruled Loving does not apply to gay marriage because in a constitutional sense and in commonsense there is a clear distinction between a marriage restriction based on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex.

And I'm sure that when Virginia and the other deep-south states passed their racist marraige laws, they did so based off of logic that stated it was common sense that there is a clear distinction between same-race and mixed-race marraiges. As society became more inclusive than exclusive, we began to accept equality and the law was struck down.

My view is that each state should be allowed to decide this, 5 have approved gay marriage and l have no problem with that. I also have no problem with the 45 states that have not approved same sex marriage.

Except Loving v. Virginia established a precedent that the states can sit and spin on their laws if they're unconstitutional, not to mention integration in schools among other things. Or do we want a repeat of the incident where the national guard got spanked by the 101st Airborne when the governor of that state didn't like that his bigotry wasn't legal?

Quite simply, a right that's been established as a fundamental right of all American Citizens (marraige) should not be negated when travelling between states. If a person gets married in Massachussettes, legally, then all states should recognize that person's rights and the legal contract they made. To do otherwise is by definition inequality.

Red - at some point your illogical prejudices lead you too far from reality; and here it is

You say "The issue is should a state be required to allow one group to marry when state law forbids it." - that is actually should a state be forced to follow the 14th amendments guarantee of equal rights or have special rights of marriage for one group - it is about DENYING equal rights; of course they are required to allow all groups to marry with no discrimination based on gender

"Whether you like it or not religious people have the right to oppose or support any law" - not true; you can not propose any law which amounts to "sedition" for example; You could not pass a law that re established slavery - this depends on what you mean by "support or oppose".

NO, you can not just not pay taxes.

"Screaming prude instead of addressing the issue" - no, it is addressing the issue if the issue is being uptight about sex (which is an issue with many - some of whom can not even use the word or concept when talking to their post-pubescent children)

"Marriage, however done is a matter of public record, a license is issued by the state" - remember that; nothing to do with religion or sex - just a license issued by the state. PERIOD! - You said this!

"In Baker v Nelson the court ruled Loving does not apply to gay marriage because in a constitutional sense and in commonsense there is a clear distinction between a marriage restriction based on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex." - NO it did not. You are interpreting this, the court did NOT say that; they said the case as presented and the issues as presented lacked a significant federal question - the case was about Minnesota's right to have whatever marriage laws they wanted but only with the issues presented in the case - for example if 1st amendment rights to freedom of the same sex couple to the religion of their choosing were not referenced as the reason for the suit then no judge decodes on that issue; you do not understand the American justice system at all

The problem is this violates the 14th amendments requirement of equal protection under the law and the first amendments freedom of religion in that you are inflicting the religious values of some religions on others

The court ruled in 1972 states that states have a legal right to ban ss marriage.

AND...As I keep repeating...

Yes, the state (per all the courts) do have a RIGHT to make a ban (remember the state can make ANY ban)...

States have the RIGHT to make any laws they want...the important thing to ask is IS the LAW constitutional?...If the law is unconstitutional then it can be overturned EVEN if the law was made within the states right to make laws...

But, the point here is IS THIS PARTICULAR BAN (ssm) legal?...Is the ban constitutional?

That is what needs to be asked and answered. So far it has not been.

But, the point here is IS THIS PARTICULAR BAN (ssm) legal?...Is the ban constitutional?

In a word, no.

Thanks Arad...

I feel the same way...

I agree that the states have the rights to make their own laws...They just have to be sure that the laws they make are 'constitutional'. If not they will be reversed by vote or by the courts...

But I also feel that it is the right of citizens to challenge those laws in court on their constitutional basis...

Oh, this was in my paper today...

Couples tell of toll from state gay marriage ban as Prop. 8 trial begins

The problem for gays is the court has already ruled Loving v Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage, that in a constitutional sense and in commonsense there is a clear distinction between a marriage restriction based on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex.

That is an arbitrary distinction at best. It is based on personal belief and opinion. It may have been considered "common sense" of the time, but I think the argument that there is a distinction between restriction based on race or sex is beginning to fail, primarily because there is no real difference between a "gay" marriage versus a "straight" marriage, just as there is no real difference between an interracial marriage and one of same race. The distinction is not a true distinction. It's purely subjective.

There are many countries who now have legal gay marriage and their governments and the state of their families has not collapsed. I hope examples of successful gay marriage laws in other places will be considered as well.

Jane - "the court has already ruled Loving v Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage," - is a L I E that this person does not understand; the court held in one ruling that there was not a significant federal question but it had nothing to do with the issues presented here

- "the court has already ruled Loving v Virginia does not apply to same sex marriage," - is a L I E that this person does not understand; the court held in one ruling that there was not a significant federal question but it had nothing to do with the issues presented here

If Loving v. Virginia has nothing to do with the issue here, then how in the @!$%# can it apply to same sex marriage? It cannot that's how, Loving v. Virginia is a case about a White Man marrying a Black woman. Now if you can come up with the relevance of a White Man marrying a Black Woman and same sex marriage, have at it, write your dissertation right here for all of us to see. Better yet, why don't you simply write a brief, cite all your precedents and impress us...........................

Listen closely now:

IF A COURT HOLDS THERE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL QUESTION, THEN THE REFERENCED CASE DOES NOT APPLY.....................O DO WITH THE ISSUE HERE THEN IT DOES NOT APPLY.........................

Again childishly misinterpreting a court ruling to fit your ignorance

Won't work here, most of us have brains and can think in a straight line; the court never ruled the way you think it did but only on the particulars presented to them

Got proof of that statement? Or is this just a personal opinion without the facts to back them up?

Do you have any proof to the contrary ? You do not honestly believe our founding fathers ever envisioned that the idea of same sex marriage would ever occur ?

Well, You did make the statement first, so it is up to you to prove your point...

Besides, one doesn't prove a 'negative', (one cannot prove 'nothing' when there is 'nothing' there to prove') though one can prove the 'positive'...your statement was positive that the ff's were against ssm and thus would have banned it...

But I will say these words...gays have been around as long as humans have been around...it is noted that even Alexander the Great had a long term gay relationship with his best friend...

You do not honestly believe our founding fathers ever envisioned that the idea of same sex marriage would ever occur ?

Sure, why not? These ff's were knowledgeable men and great thinkers of their time (well most of them were anyway) and there are writings from them they left to us, that touch on a broad variety of subjects...So why couldn't they have not thought about it?...They were 'men ahead of their time' in many ways...

As to proof of our founding fathers NOT wanting ssm in the US...well, if they didn't want it, it would have been in the constitution now wouldn't it?....That is the line that strict constitutionalists say isn't it?...If it was meant to be, then it would have been written into either state or federal law over 200 years ago...And since it wasn't then they didn't care...

Do you have any proof to the contrary ?

Bzzt! Wrong answer! You made the claim, you have to now back it up with proof. Without proof, it's just your opinion.

Bzzt! Wrong answer! You made the claim, you have to now back it up with proof. Without proof, it's just your opinion.

Good point. The fact of the matter is that this is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You cannot give a route to legal and monetary perks for one group of citizens (heterosexuals) while denying them to another (homosexuals). Just the same, the precedent of "separate but equal" has also been struck down numerous times.

The defendants in this case are probably going to be fearing this if it reaches the docket of the Supreme Court, given the judicial precedence involved in other cases.

Not everything has to be based on what the founding fathers intended. The 14th Amendment which is the basis for most equal rights cases is obviously contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers who intended slavery to be legal in order to appease the southern colonies.

Not everything has to be based on what the founding fathers intended. The 14th Amendment which is the basis for most equal rights cases is obviously contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers who intended slavery to be legal in order to appease the southern colonies.

Excellent.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, that unfortunately so many people who enjoy channeling John Adams and Benjamin Franklin somehow still remain oblivious to. The paradox is the same now as it was then. It asks how can it be claimed that all men are created equal and are entitled to certain unalienable rights when inequality not only legally exists but is allowed to legally perpetuate.

Wild - you are trolling again

What you do not understand is that same sex marriages were being performed; the founders were very conscious that some people do not look beyond their small group and want everyone else to do what they want; so the founders had the very first amendment that guarantees freedom of religion - freedom of those whose religions include same sex matrimonies to do so without government interference, included in the "bill of Rights"

In other words you have no right to prevent same sex people from getting married; you do not get special rights for some heterosexuals

You do not get to inflict your religion on others

You are only equal, not superior to others - and that is what scares you so

"The high court has issued powerfully pro-gay-rights decisions at key points in the past 20 years — including striking down criminal statutes forbidding gay sex six years ago. But it has never voiced a word of enthusiasm for gay marriage. That has left scholars and longtime legal veterans of the gay-rights movement fearing disaster for gay marriage, should the issue be decided by the conservative-leaning Justices. "When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one," Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, told TIME.

"The stakes are extremely high," adds law professor Samuel Marcosson of the University of Louisville, author of Original Sin: Clarence Thomas and the Failure of the Constitutional Conservatives. "I think the plaintiffs are (unfortunately) very likely to lose — at least if the case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court — and set a precedent that didn't need to be, and shouldn't have been, set. The case was premature and ill-advised.""

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1951520,00.html

You do not honestly believe our founding fathers ever envisioned that the idea of same sex marriage would ever occur ?

Oh, you mean the same Founding Fathers who owned slaves and didn't accord voting rights to women?

By the way, the Founding Fathers realize their own limitations, and gave the Constitution something called an "amendment process." Maybe you've heard of it.

"[W]hat [remaining] justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'?" - Justice Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. Seems like an implicit word of support for gay marriage given the Lawrence decision from one of the most conservative judges on the bench. Scalia certainly isn't voicing "enthusiasm" for gay marriage, but he seems to be saying it's now legally supported. If this case ends up before the SCOTUS we may see if the other justices agree.

It doesn't matter if the founding fathers "intended" there to be gay marriage. They probably never intended for blacks to become free voting citizens either. But they created a form of government and a document that allows us to change our laws according to our current understanding of our country's needs.

"This week, Justices Breyer and Scalia came to the Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law to debate statutory and constitutional interpretation. Justice Scalia said outright that the idea that gay marriage was somehow protected by the Constitution was absurd. "

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/10/is-scalia-out-of-any-gay-marriage-case.html

Good point. The fact of the matter is that this is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You cannot give a route to legal and monetary perks for one group of citizens (heterosexuals) while denying them to another

If that is the case, then you must be outraged at the deal that reid gave Nelson in order to gain his vote on the unconstitutional healthcare bill.

So as a refresher

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

It is irrefutable that the rule of apportionment was adopted to insure federal power could not be used to place a disproportionate burden upon one state or several states to the advantage of another state or states, which is clearly the case under the Nelson bribe!

The founding father’s intentions concerning the disbursement of federal revenue from the treasury to the States and the application of the required rule of apportionment is exemplified under the Act of Congress in June of 1836 when all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and the rule of apportionment was strictly applied. Under the Nelson bride, money is not disbursed from the federal treasury by the rule of apportionment to each state, but rather, Nebraska is made privileged state in violation of the intended rule of apportionment.

You're comparing 'goods and services' to a US citizen's human rights?

Nope

Sounds and looks like you just did.

And here s that infamous Dana lack of logic

"Under the Nelson bride, money is not disbursed from the federal treasury by the rule of apportionment to each state, but rather, Nebraska is made privileged state in violation of the intended rule of apportionment." is the same as "under the Dana rule, Marriage is not disbursed by the rule of apportionment to each person, but rather, Some Heterosexuals are made privileged in violation of the intended rule of equality"

Get IT NOW?

Such a shame that eriq has no clue of what he is talking about.

This is a clearly a very constructive post that adds value to the discussion. [/sarc]

Flagged as no value.

Just standard tactic for a troll

The bigger question is why is Dana here? What motivation does someone have to poo all over someone else's post?

That is the question to be answered

What motivation does someone have to poo all over someone else's post?

You mean like YOU DO, CONSISTENTLY AND REPEATEDLY? Is this what you mean?

And again you demonstrate the (complete lack of) maturity

Mother

I am in favor of removing the right to vote for those who do not pay taxes.

Wait a second Motherlessgoat. As a white property owning male I find nothing wrong with the Founding Fathers intent. I blame Woodrow Wilson and the whole Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century. They gave women the right to vote and look what we ended up with. Nancy Pelosi. You do the math from there.

Just remember, the Womens Lib Movement was started by women to ugly to get a man. Then for some reason Liberal men started marrying them. No wonder those poor bastards have lost their minds.

It's hard to get along when people feel they are being denied their full rights.

It's hard to get along when people feel they are being denied their full rights.

Case in point, teabaggers when they don't get their way.

Not getting your way and denying citizen's rights are two different things.

Precisely, but try telling that to the teabaggers. -_-'

you are so right!!! I think I will go and steal, murder, marry 6 wives, or marry a 16 year old, and let me see what other moral compasses have been pushed upon me? Now, please tolerate for it is my belief? please, allow me to be a necrophiliac, zoophiliac without prosecution, since this is my pursuit of life, liberty, and my happiness?

Grow with the changes or it'll roll right over you. ;)

you are so right!!! I think I will go and steal, murder, marry 6 wives, or marry a 16 year old, and let me see what other moral compasses have been pushed upon me? Now, please tolerate for it is my belief? please, allow me to be a necrophiliac, zoophiliac without prosecution, since this is my pursuit of life, liberty, and my happiness?

And there's that tired old argument again.

Stealing and murdering is in violation of other people's rights, since you're, y'know, stealing and killing.

Polygamy...I have no opinion on. If all parties legally consent to it I see no problem with it.

16 year olds cannot give consent and is therefore breaking the law. Necrophilia is a crime cause the dead can't give consent, same for the tired old 'animal' argument as well.

So, answer me this: How does allowing gay marraige change your life in any way whatsoever, besides the fact that it would rankle you that Christian Morality isn't the law of the land?

arad, it's not an argument,it is reality! people are people and there are many sexual preferences and soon it won't be thanks to this movement, thats how. slowly one by one will be acceted its only a matter of time. I can't wait for the time my sister and I will finally be accepted in public, its sad I am always looked at terribly and shunned by people all the time. It's driving me nuts!!!

Last I checked, incest isn't technically illegal once you're both of age.

And I am picking up on your rather blatant sarcasm, Jin. It's rather obvious that you're making a mockery of this debate while hiding behind snide glibness.

Free your mind was En Vogue, not Destiny's Child. I don't think they sang it originally though.

So, answer me this: How does allowing gay marriage change your life in any way whatsoever, besides the fact that it would rankle you that Christian Morality isn't the law of the land?

Arad, don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to that question. They'll never answer it because there is no good answer.

Thanks Jane..... You're right.....En Vogue.....

take care

Yes, I think that's what they're saying. Think that will work out for them? Yeah...not.

That's what it sounds like, I wanted to give the author the chance to clarify.

One wonders where we'd be if women had sat down, shut up, and not fought for the right to vote... Where we'd be if blacks sat down, shut up, moved to the back of the bus, and not fought for their rights. Where we'd be if the Lovings hadn't fought for the right to marry.

You keep repeating this lie, over and over, as if that will make it right

That is one definition of insanity

And you are still a stalking troll, I am just waiting for your racist remarks like you have used in the past. Get over it, you do not understand the garbage you are repeating.

D N F T T