Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2008, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,200,144 times
Reputation: 4937

Advertisements

Again folks - this thread was not to debate gay marriage per se. It was merely to note that a motion to STAY the Courts action is being filed pending the November Election.

Personally, I think the motion is a reasonable one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2008, 03:28 PM
 
Location: CNJ/NYC
1,240 posts, read 3,966,153 times
Reputation: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
My point in this thread is that the court overstepped its bounds.
Did the court overstep its bounds in the interracial marriage case?

Quote:
The marriage laws don't address affection.
In California they recognize homosexuals as a suspect group worthy of equal protection, meaning that if a limit is to be imposed on something this suspect group wishes to do, there must be damn good reason for imposing the limit. Because the issue regards a fundamental right (in CA apparently the right to marriage is a fundamental right) the argument shifts from "why should homosexuals have it" to "what sufficient reason is there to deny them"?

Quote:
They only state that a person can marry another person of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right currently, regardless of sexual orientation.
Again, did the court overstep its bounds in 1948, and the SCOTUS in 1967? The question is "what grounds are there for denying this?"

Quote:
It wasn't until relatively recently in history that love became part of the marriage tradition. In some countries it still isn't.
The court specifically ruled that "tradition" is not a sufficient enough argument in a case regarding fundamental rights.

Quote:
If you are going to argue that everyone has the right to marry whoever they love then are you going screen people to make sure they really are "in love?"
That is not my argument. My argument is that if something is to be denied (made illegal) there better be a damn good reason for it, and there just isn't such a reason regarding same-sex marriage.

Quote:
I don't like slippery slope arguments in general, but it is hard to argue for gay marriage and against polygamy because you are introducing affection into the definition. What if a group of people really love each other? Who are we to say they can't all marry?
No slippery slopes here. Same-sex marriage should be evaluated on the merits of same-sex marriage. Polygamy may be next, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. For now we're talking about the rights and lives of 9 million - 30 million (depends on whether you subscribe to the 3% or 10% statistic) people in this country.

Quote:
I am not going to address the argument that being black is the equivalent of being homosexual because then we are going to get into a religious argument that serves no purpose here.
There is nothing religious about being black or being homosexual. I'm not sure why the heck you're even brining up religion.

Quote:
I do know that many black Americans find that argument offensive.
Irrelevant. The court ruled on the precedent of interracial marriage.

Quote:
Although I don't entirely agree with his article, I'll let Dennis Prager restate much of my argument for me:
Townhall.com::California Decision Will Radically Change Society::By Dennis Prager
Let's count the bull****:

Quote:
1- "Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history:...".
Short memories suck. Marriage was redefined in the US in 1967 by the SCOTUS when it ruled that legal marriage should not take into account race of the spouses.

Quote:
2- " Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison."
Really? Just what effect will this have on the 90% of Americans who are heterosexual? I wager that the womens' lib movement changed American society far more than this will or can. Heck, the opinion head forgot Lincoln!

Quote:
3- " And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this."
It's really amazing that most people don't buy into a bull**** argument based on false assumptions? Shocking!

Quote:
4- "Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage."
A- There are sects of Christianity and Judaism that recognize and support same-sex marriage.

B- The issue before the court, both in the interracial marriage and in same-sex marriage, is not one of religion but of secular law. It matters not whether religions ever approved or disapproved of same-sex or interracial marriage. No need to drag religion where it doesn't belong.


Quote:
5- " Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman."
Bull**** per his own following sentence!



Quote:
6- " The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage."
Absolute unadulterated bull****! The top researchers into sexuality are "know-nothings"? What the hell are his credentials? If marriage is such a great steward for heterosexuality why the hell are homosexuals who marry still homosexual? What a nitwit.



I'm not going to continue picking apart this article. It's trash and I'm not wasting any more time on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 03:55 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,431 posts, read 18,965,841 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
It is also helpful to note that judges are rarely voted down. Technically they are subject to the will of the people but they are not appointed by the people.

Also, voters resoundingly approved Proposition 22 only 8 years ago by a 61% vote. The court could have went either way in this decision. The could have easily fit the will of the people within a reasonable interpretation of the state constitution. Instead they decided to overthrow the will of the people. The least they could do is say that prop 22 doesn't fit with the state constitution but the voters have until November to pass something that does.

The governator vetoed the bills because he deferred to prop 22 as the voice of the people. (I only wish now he would have the courage to stand up and say the court overstepped its bounds and he will not enforce the ruling until after November.) The CA legislature has overrode propositions approved by voters several times in the recent past. They are arrogant insulates who have nothing by disdain for the the voters if the voters stand in the way of their agenda.
on the contrary, i think that gov schwarzenegger is showing incredible courage and good governance by upholding the court's ruling. the court also did so since i'm sure that this brings out the radical crazies to make death threats against those justices who voted this way. the court possibly could have delayed the implementation, but i think that would be very rare and suspicious if it decided to do it in only in this case.

Last edited by wehotex; 05-23-2008 at 04:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 6,019,237 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiloMike View Post
Did the court overstep its bounds in the interracial marriage case?
You keep asking me to restate the same arguments. But you still have yet to explain to me exactly what rights heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't. Your answer is to bring up interracial marriage. I can't equate a man and woman marrying, regardless of race, with two men or two women marrying.

You can complicate the argument all you want about equal rights, interracial marriage, the role of the judiciary to interpret law, or whatever.

The fact remains that a straight man can't marry another man either. Gays are asking for a special right that no one currently has (at least before the ruling). Maybe that is a right they should have. In the context of this thread I am only saying that the people should have a say in that type of societal change. It should not come from four people in robes (with whom three of their colleagues disagreed).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 04:53 PM
 
Location: CNJ/NYC
1,240 posts, read 3,966,153 times
Reputation: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
You keep asking me to restate the same arguments. But you still have yet to explain to me exactly what rights heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't.
The difference in rights is well illustrated here in the decision by the court:

Quote:
As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that
have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to
marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic,
inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution),
we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to
marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive
legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral
to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated
or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative
process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the
individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and
protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.
As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving
relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their
own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family —
constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and
personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the
benefit of both the individual and society.

.....snip.....

We need not decide in this case whether the name “marriage†is invariably
a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would
violate a couple’s constitutional right even if — perhaps in order to emphasize and
clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of
marriage — the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official
designation of the formal family relationship for all couples. Under the current
statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all
couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official
family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex
couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish
an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional
right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity
and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and
assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage†exclusively for opposite-sex
couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex
couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the
provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples
most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the
current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging
upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California
Constitution.

Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a
different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as
contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex
couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right
to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. In
analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first
must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory
classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential “rational
basis†standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment
accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more
exacting and rigorous standard of review — “strict scrutiny†— is applied when
the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called “suspect classification†or
impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree
with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current
statutory scheme6 that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or
gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that
strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question
properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual
orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and
religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential
treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex
couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the
same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.
Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in
order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory
classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be
served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate
interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not
only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state
interest. Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and
same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the
interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage —
cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal
protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.
A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of
same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in
order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are
enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to
the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and
will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex
couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties
that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the
traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate
and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose
appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such
couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely
to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples
enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the
widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the
more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of
marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed
relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex
couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for oppositesex
couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex
couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now
emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples
1 2
are in some respects “second-class citizens†who may, under the law, be treated
differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex
couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the
traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.
On what basis do you disagree with the court's opinion?

Quote:
Your answer is to bring up interracial marriage. I can't equate a man and woman marrying, regardless of race, with two men or two women marrying.
For what reason, exactly?

Quote:
You can complicate the argument all you want about equal rights, interracial marriage, the role of the judiciary to interpret law, or whatever.
It's not a complication of the argument- it's a reference to precedent that marriage is a fundamental right and that traditional views on the makeup of spouses is no reason to deny a couple of consenting adults the legal recognition and spousal rights afforded by marriage. As you can see from the court's opinion above, the question is to justify withholding marriage from same-sex couples and there is no legally acceptable reasoning for: it doesn't serve the state's interest and it's not grounded in preventing anything that is actually demonstrably harmful.

Quote:
The fact remains that a straight man can't marry another man either.
Fact in 1947 was that blacks couldn't marry whites and vice versa.

Quote:
Gays are asking for a special right that no one currently has (at least before the ruling).
Neither whites nor blacks had the right to interracially marry before the 1948 ruling either. You are rehashing the same train of thought that has been stricken down by the SCOTUS in 1967.

Quote:
Maybe that is a right they should have. In the context of this thread I am only saying that the people should have a say in that type of societal change. It should not come from four people in robes (with whom three of their colleagues disagreed).
Those people in robes have their jobs precisely because they are more familiar with the law than the masses voting on others' rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 6,019,237 times
Reputation: 944
^^
OK, now you are just restating your arguments. We are never going to agree on this.

The court has made it interpretation. The least they can do is say to the voters: "Here is what the constitution means. Either live with it or alter it." Then give them until November to do it.

Whether or not the court decides to stay its ruling until November will tell whether they view their ruling as a social one or a legal one.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree at this point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 07:13 PM
 
4,050 posts, read 6,130,012 times
Reputation: 1574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
TwiloMike said the same arguments apply for both interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. How can you argue the same arguments apply if you are not arguing that race and sexual orientation are comparable? His argument, when analyzed, would be that both are born that way and both are persecuted minority groups. I disagree with that analysis and I think I have been clear as to why.
I don't see why it's necessary to go into what's innate and what's not. I do think the issues are comparable. I don't think they're identical because I don't think the prejudiced experienced by both groups is identical.

Quote:
All of you who are picking apart my arguments (which is fine; I welcome debate) are missing the larger picture. Four judges redefined marriage. They took what the voters said and threw it away. And the implications of that redefinition is huge. (see the Prager link I posted above) The voters defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I'm not saying that courts never have cause to block legislation. But this was split 4-3 decision. It is not clear-cut by any means. The absolute least the court can do is to stay the decision until the voters either overturn it or approve it by defeating the amendment in November.
If the people wanted separate bathroom facilities for blacks and whites, would it be unlawful and/or unacceptable for judges to vote against that?

Quote:
Even if I was in favor of gay marriage I would be just as angry with the arrogance and gall of the court.
"Arrogance" and "gall"? You don't think that's just a little strong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 07:15 PM
 
4,050 posts, read 6,130,012 times
Reputation: 1574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
The fact remains that a straight man can't marry another man either.
And he wouldn't want to. Nor would an exclusively gay person want to marry a person of the opposite sex? So, if the tables were turned, wouldn't heterosexual people be asking for "special rights"?

Quote:
Gays are asking for a special right that no one currently has (at least before the ruling). Maybe that is a right they should have. In the context of this thread I am only saying that the people should have a say in that type of societal change. It should not come from four people in robes (with whom three of their colleagues disagreed).
Aren't there some issues that should never be put to a vote? And this point has been made too much, I guess, but we don't have a pure democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 07:16 PM
 
4,050 posts, read 6,130,012 times
Reputation: 1574
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwflconch View Post
People should vote no for gay marriage and vote yes to keep the ban.
Care to explain your argument?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 11:31 PM
 
Location: CNJ/NYC
1,240 posts, read 3,966,153 times
Reputation: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
^^
OK, now you are just restating your arguments. We are never going to agree on this.

The court has made it interpretation. The least they can do is say to the voters: "Here is what the constitution means. Either live with it or alter it." Then give them until November to do it.
Why in the world should the court stay its decision until November? Same-sex marriage is legal now, the voters have been told that they're being unreasonable per their own Constitution. Why shouldn't those who have been waiting to marry get married now? If the voters want to amend the Constitution they will regardless of whether a bunch of couples get to marry beforehand or not.

Quote:
Whether or not the court decides to stay its ruling until November will tell whether they view their ruling as a social one or a legal one.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree at this point.
I guess so because you keep restating your arguments without any back up to explain why you see things the way you do and why precedent should be discounted when it comes to gays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top