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.
Especially when we have mountains of evidence from places where gays are allowed to contract civil marriages (various US states, a number of other countries) that what this Judge finds "conceivable" in fact does not happen.
This rationale is the kind of biased reasoning you'd expect from, say, a Bishop in the Mormon Church, not a judge. Oh wait, this judge is a Bishop in the Mormon Church.
Wow, this judge really is a Moron, sorry, Mormon bishop???
Quote:
“Should that institution (civil marriage) be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction
Isnt that bolded part what Mormons do already???? So they can secretly violate the marriage laws?
I am not dense, so please refrain from that judgement. I am just sick and tired of the reasoning being that straights can reproduce when that is no longer the sole reason for people marrying. But many people vote for laws banning gays from adopting, fostering or marrying. You often resort to terms that put gays in positions of inferiority, that is rude. I do on the other hand appreciate that you feel we do deserve equal rights when it comes to our relationships. I have no disablities to stop me from thinking things out logically and sensibly, but there are many people who cannot think for themselves without having their pastor or bible do it for them. The United States was and is supposed to be a land of freedom and equality, but as long as it singles out gay people to discriminate against, we are not a free country, but an oppressive country that chooses which citizens get full equality. There is no reason to deny us rights that equate the rights offered to straight people who choose to marry each other. I can reproduce if I wanted to, but I chose not to put a straight woman through the unfair torture of a false marriage for the sake of appeasing society. Give me and my gay brothers and sisters the same equal marriage rights and I will shut up, but keep denying me my full equality and I will keep protesting and so will the rest of us gays and lesbians. WE are concerned with secular law, not biblical bull forced on us by the majority. I grew up thinking that I would have the sam opportunities as my fellow American people, but when I got tired of lying to myself and my friends and family about my true sexual orientation and came out, I did not think that it would designate me as second class with second class rights. How would you feel if your belief in the bible would make you second class and society treated you as thus?
If you do appreciate my personal opinion, support for ssm, you'd stop calling me a bigot.
I've stated here and on other threads that I support ssm and gay adoption. In a thread about the Supreme Court potentially hearing a ssm case, I'm not sure how to discuss it without quotes from cases upholding bans and the rationale those judges used. If you find those rude or offensive or degrading, I'm sorry, but that's the subject.
If you do appreciate my personal opinion, support for ssm, you'd stop calling me a bigot.
I've stated here and on other threads that I support ssm and gay adoption. In a thread about the Supreme Court potentially hearing a ssm case, I'm not sure how to discuss it without quotes from cases upholding bans and the rationale those judges used. If you find those rude or offensive or degrading, I'm sorry, but that's the subject.
All y'all are going back and forth about marriage equality. I'm going to try again to get the discussion back to what the Supreme Court will actually be deciding:
Eight of the ten petitions ask the Court to review the constitutionality of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Just to be clear, these cases are not about whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Instead, the cases ask the Court to rule on whether Congress can pass a federal law that treats same-sex couples who are legally married under state law differently from married opposite-sex couples.
This was dated 11/29/12. As some may know, the SC has not reached a decision yet as to what cases they will agree to hear. If you follow scotusblog you can keep up with the latest news from the US Supreme Court.
All y'all are going back and forth about marriage equality. I'm going to try again to get the discussion back to what the Supreme Court will actually be deciding:
Eight of the ten petitions ask the Court to review the constitutionality of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Just to be clear, these cases are not about whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Instead, the cases ask the Court to rule on whether Congress can pass a federal law that treats same-sex couples who are legally married under state law differently from married opposite-sex couples.
This was dated 11/29/12. As some may know, the SC has not reached a decision yet as to what cases they will agree to hear. If you follow scotusblog you can keep up with the latest news from the US Supreme Court.
But Perry v. Hollingsworth, one of those ten cases, is about whether there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, albeit it in very narrow circumstances that are currently unique to California.
On the other hand, once the USSC takes a case it is not limited to the specific point of law being appealed. Still, most likely they would not expand the scope of the case.
You are right that the most notable decision is very likely to be re DOMA.
But Perry v. Hollingsworth, one of those ten cases, is about whether there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, albeit it in very narrow circumstances that are currently unique to California.
On the other hand, once the USSC takes a case it is not limited to the specific point of law being appealed. Still, most likely they would not expand the scope of the case.
You are right that the most notable decision is very likely to be re DOMA.
You're right about Perry. As others may have mentioned, Perry might be denied a hearing by SCOTUS which would result in marriage equality being resumed in California. That would probably be the narrowest decision by the Supremes regarding Prop. 8, i.e., not expanding the scope of the decision.
SCOTUS won't be willy nilly expanding marriage equality throughout the nation. It's just too soon for a sweeping decree especially since the tide seems to be turning in terms of state legislatures soon to be considering repealing discriminatory statutes (MN, OR) and converting civil unions to marriage (IL).
You're right about Perry. As others may have mentioned, Perry might be denied a hearing by SCOTUS which would result in marriage equality being resumed in California. That would probably be the narrowest decision by the Supremes regarding Prop. 8, i.e., not expanding the scope of the decision.
SCOTUS won't be willy nilly expanding marriage equality throughout the nation. It's just too soon for a sweeping decree especially since the tide seems to be turning in terms of state legislatures soon to be considering repealing discriminatory statutes (MN, OR) and converting civil unions to marriage (IL).
The momentum is on the side of justice.
I wouldn't hold your breath on Minnesota. It was nice that we shot down the Constitutional amendment (surprise, surprise) but I think the legislature will move slowly, I am sorry to say. Oregon looks good, but its in the state Constitution there, and repeal is more difficult than mere legislative action (look for it to possibly be on the 2014 ballot).
Illinois looks like the big prize for 2013, with New Jersey and a few smaller states being possibilities as well.
Yep, the entirety of the momentum is on the side of marriage equality!
I wouldn't hold your breath on Minnesota. It was nice that we shot down the Constitutional amendment (surprise, surprise) but I think the legislature will move slowly, I am sorry to say. Oregon looks good, but its in the state Constitution there, and repeal is more difficult than mere legislative action (look for it to possibly be on the 2014 ballot).
Illinois looks like the big prize for 2013, with New Jersey and a few smaller states being possibilities as well.
Yep, the entirety of the momentum is on the side of marriage equality!
I hope that MN can at least possibly rescind the anti marriage equality law.... So glad that y'all rejected the amendment
Here's even more good news:
Gay Marriage in Mexico and Washington State (and perhaps soon in Uruguay)
Dale Carpenter • December 5, 2012 5:10 pm
The Mexican Supreme Court ruled today that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutionally discriminatory.* This follows a 2010 pro-SSM ruling that applied only to Mexico City.* It’s unclear how broadly this new ruling will apply beyond the Mexican state of*Oaxaca,*but the news story suggests that individual suits brought in other states will gradually bring same-sex marriage to those jurisdictions.
In Uruguay, the lower house in the*national assembly appears poised to approve a bill*on Monday*that would define marriage as “the union of two parties, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation thereof at the same terms with the same effects established in the Civil Code.”
And now there's a new case before the Supreme Court.
A District Court judge in Nevada recently ruled against appellants challenging the states same-sex marriage ban on Equal Protection grounds. The appellants have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
But interestingly, the defendants (ie, the winners at the District Court) have now petitioned the United States Supreme Court to rule on those Equal Protection grounds, hoping to circumvent the Ninth Sicruit entirely.
And now there's a new case before the Supreme Court.
A District Court judge in Nevada recently ruled against appellants challenging the states same-sex marriage ban on Equal Protection grounds. The appellants have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
But interestingly, the defendants (ie, the winners at the District Court) have now petitioned the United States Supreme Court to rule on those Equal Protection grounds, hoping to circumvent the Ninth Sicruit entirely.
You might be interested to read what Prof. Dale Carpenter has to say about this attempted end run around the Ninth Circuit:
"I expect the petition to be denied for at least three reasons. First, granting review before judgment is an exceedingly rare act reserved for the most compelling circumstances. Second, unlike the pending petitions in the Prop 8 case and in the Defense of Marriage Act cases, the decision below in the Nevada district court upheld the state marriage limitation. And finally, the fact that the Nevada case presents the “fundamental issue” of whether same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry actually cuts against immediate review. The Court usually likes to move in a more minimalist fashion, reserving the largest issues for resolution after more development in the lower courts. With the DOMA cases and the Prop 8 case, it can issue more cautious and theoretically less ambitious opinions to resolve those matters either way, leaving the underlying question of marriage for another time."
That would be the liberty to marry those who we chose, and the equal protection which is not being afforded to homosexual relationships and marriages.
And for reference, a snippet of the court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia.
Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival .... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
which is not applicable to gay "marriage"
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.
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.
