Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 113 of 113

Thread: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

  1. #91
    Reigning Black & Gold Array title="venom has a reputation beyond repute"> venom's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    N Y C / Chicago
    Gender
    Posts
    26,248

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    I lean to the right on most areas but if gays want to marry , go ahead . Im all for them .

  2. #92
    Tiger Lion and Steel Array title="SteelCityMan786 will become famous soon enough"> SteelCityMan786's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Where the lands are a mix of Black and Gold with some Blue and White
    Posts
    1,349

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattsme View Post
    A little off topic, but am I the only one that thinks the abbreviation "SCOTUS" sounds just a little dirty?
    you running on a dirty mind today Mattsme?

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    How about you show me first why they have to prove anything. You answer my question with a question, I'll be happy to answer yours, but you answer mine first, deal? When the government takes away a right from ANYONE, the GOVERNMENT must provide justification for doing so. You tell me how you shift the burden to homosexuals in this instance.
    Like I did in posts 61 and 77?

    For various reasons. One of the most common arguements is that gays are gays by default. Gordon M Sheppard and Marc Breedlove(Neuroscientists), in their own studies proved that no genetic link has been found. Gays act out on this lifestyle daily. You can't change how you are genetically from birth. This is caused by sexual behaviors.(Which in essence can alter the brain). Also it is claimed that any gay can't marry who they love when as I pointed out earlier when love is not required for a marriage contract. That "promise" could mean anything. Other arguements include how they save the adoption process whenever it's a hot commodity with heterosexuals as is. No one has presented to me how this could benefit society as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    Well, I think the court disagrees with your definition of the right of marriage. You say between a man and a woman and they have that right so it's equal. They looked at what marriage has traditionally been defined as; foundation for the household, sharing of assets and debts, lifelong commitment, etc. A same sex couple does not have the right to enjoy those things as you or I have. Even though I'm against it, I certainly get that definition of the right of marriage. If I honestly defined marriage, marrying a woman wouldn't even be in my definition, it would be much more in line with the court's conclusion.
    At least the court who ruled on Prop 8 this time around. We'll see later in the event this goes in front of the SCOTUS.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    That is a mighty dangerous risk considered the current composition of the SCOTUS. I think even the staunchest of anti-gay judges would have a difficult time upholding Prop 8. I said the day Prop 8 passed it was the best thing to happen for opponents of it. It almost guarantees it will be heard all the way up to the SCOTUS. The distinction is once the SCOTUS rules on it, it goes for everyone, right now it's just CA.
    Unless they find a way to strengthen their case and found a way to strengthen their case

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    Why exactly do they have to prove it's beneficial??? The way the law stands, the government has to prove under a strict scrutiny standard why they should be denied a fundamental right. The gays don't have to prove ANYTHING. They are a suspect class and marriage is a fundamental right. No one disputes that.
    (See earlier remark)
    786 Ways to score touchdowns

  3. #93
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    There have been no benefits strong enough to prove that gay marriage is beneficial though. That is the problem.
    No there doesn't. Why do you have that idea? They're human beings not lab rats.


    I have nothing against them living that way or entering into their own civil unions. I just have an issue with it being called a marriage.
    Well, until civil unions carry the same benefits that a marriage does, I'll never agree that they are equal...because they're not. Besides, if you've already given in to the fact that a marriage isn't alway about love (hence, it does not alway deal with a sacred bond), why does it need to be called something different if two gay people want to enter into the same contract? That doesn't make any sense to me.

  4. #94
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    For various reasons. One of the most common arguements is that gays are gays by default. Gordon M Sheppard and Marc Breedlove(Neuroscientists), in their own studies proved that no genetic link has been found. Gays act out on this lifestyle daily. You can't change how you are genetically from birth. This is caused by sexual behaviors.(Which in essence can alter the brain). Also it is claimed that any gay can't marry who they love when as I pointed out earlier when love is not required for a marriage contract. That "promise" could mean anything. Other arguements include how they save the adoption process whenever it's a hot commodity with heterosexuals as is. No one has presented to me how this could benefit society as a whole.
    I'll agree with you on one thing...being gay is not genetic. It's not sickle cell or tay-sachs. But that doesn't mean they can change who they are attracted to anymore than you can. Some people like fat chicks, some have foot fetishes, some only dig guys with great abs, etc. etc....some people are just gay. That's just the way it is.

    And since you're stuck on how they can benefit society as a whole...they make great loving parents, and that's been proven many times over. If that doesn't benefit society, I don't know what does. They shouldn't have to "prove" their worth to society though anymore than two drunks who bang one night and decide to get married in Vegas in a drunken stupor should have to "prove" their worth when they get hitched by Elvis.

    And please...don't say they are stealing adoption babies from straight couples. A good loving home is a good loving home, no matter who it is with.

  5. #95
    Tiger Lion and Steel Array title="SteelCityMan786 will become famous soon enough"> SteelCityMan786's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Where the lands are a mix of Black and Gold with some Blue and White
    Posts
    1,349

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    I'll agree with you on one thing...being gay is not genetic. It's not sickle cell or tay-sachs. But that doesn't mean they can change who they are attracted to anymore than you can. Some people like fat chicks, some have foot fetishes, some only dig guys with great abs, etc. etc....some people are just gay. That's just the way it is.

    And since you're stuck on how they can benefit society as a whole...they make great loving parents, and that's been proven many times over. If that doesn't benefit society, I don't know what does. They shouldn't have to "prove" their worth to society though anymore than two drunks who bang one night and decide to get married in Vegas in a drunken stupor should have to "prove" their worth when they get hitched by Elvis.

    And please...don't say they are stealing adoption babies from straight couples. A good loving home is a good loving home, no matter who it is with.
    This is exactly what I have been asking for. Even if I feel some research of my own would also be of benefit to me personally.

    I didn't say that even if it sounded like I did for one second. I know there are broken homes with heterosexual parents at the head of household.
    786 Ways to score touchdowns

  6. #96

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    Preacher...I'm sorry, but I don't see your point in bringing up what you think people are going to persecute others on if you don't think a majority of people are going to be doing the persecuting. If you are just throwing around the term to mean that a small group of people are going to bash an organization, then I don't think you get what the actual definition and social ramifications of persecute means (in the context of mass persecution, which is what was implied in your original post). It's just how you made your post sound, that you thought that by allowing gay marriage that it would open up unforeseen doors to religious persecution in the US and worldwide.

    And I stand by my statement that humanity will always (eventually) find a reason to persecute others. It's one of the most repeated themes in the history of man, and I doubt it will end in our lifetimes, let alone any foreseeable future.
    Once again, I think you are completely taken what I am saying out of context. Let us go back to my first post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
    Sigh.

    As a Christian, and a pastor, I could care less about the actions of those who do not confess the same belief that I do. It is only those who claim to be Christian and that they believe God within the Christian belief condones their actions that I have a problem with... because we have a common foundation. I believe the biblical text on this matter is 1 Cor. 5:12-13. "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." My only care about those outside the church is that I get the opportunity to share, "Come, and meet the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

    As far as protecting the church, it is simple. I am going to lead the church to state in their bylaws that only members in good standing are to be married in the church. Problem solved.

    I do however, shiver at what I consider the activist courts. Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights. Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money). Therefore, there is no denial of civil rights, IMO. Sadly however, White American Christendom (as opposed to actual Christians) have brought this on, and especially the "white christian south". When elected officials, police, etc. were actually violating civil rights (anyone remember blacks sitting at the back of the bus, drinking from small, corroded drinking fountains, get food at the back of a restaurant- those ACTUAL civil rights that were violated), the american public, the American church, and the senate and house, all turned a blind eye until the courts were forced to rule on the issue. Give the courts an inch of authority, and they'll take a mile. After all, just look at how the interstate commerce clause has been completely abused.

    My problem however, is as an American citizen. Not as a Christian. It will only become my problem as a Christian if the courts 1. force me to officiate ceremonies of gay couples, 2. Force me to open the doors to the church building for gay weddings, 3. Try to control what I say from the pulpit on the issue, or 4. if my church, my association, or my denomination moves to legitimating homosexual marriage within the church.

    Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.
    My word of warning was to those who TODAY see this as a slap at the church. Because sometime IN THE FUTURE, I do believe there will be MASS PERSECUTION of the church. And I simply pointed out, that when that begins, the homosexual community will be persecuted right along side the church.

    It was a statement to the few people TODAY that support Gay rights, and wants to see the church slapped down (notice here, I do not say one immediately equates to the other.)

    I have no idea how you built that up to everything you have been saying... such as the following...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    You are speaking of persecution though. Nobody here has persecuted the church. I for one just want churches to do what they do and the government to do what it does...separately. Gay marriage has been legal in other countries for some time now, and it hasn't destroyed the church in the slightest. All decisions were made through the courts there as well. Denmark would be the biggest hotbed for persecution if this were true. It's not though...it's just Denmark.
    And, I do take a bit of personal insult at the idea of not understanding "mass persecution". From having my spiritual forefathers lit on fire to illuminate the night in Rome, to being burned at the stake by the Catholic church (and anglican), to the Swiss catholics drowning them in laughter all the while saying, "You want to be re-baptized? Let's re-baptize you.." and never letting them up out of the water. To the confessing church in Hitler's Germany being persecuted. I have been detained by the police for hours for nothing more than my faith (not in this country). Trust me, I know what persecution is, and what it isn't (and even my detention was not persecution). I also know how it begins when it comes to the church... and also to whom it also relates outside of the church. It is from that place, that I stated, "Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it"


  7. #97
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    I do get your point...I originally thought you were speaking about some in this thread. And yes, the Church will most likely be persecuted again, as will gays. Like I said in a previous post, it's just the natural order of humanity to persecute others. And while you posted a few examples of gays bashing churches, I'm sure I could find some examples of churches bashing gays as well. I don't take the extremes from either side to represent the whole of either community though.

    Sorry if there was any confusion in what you meant though, I wasn't trying to offend in any way.

  8. #98
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    Like I did in posts 61 and 77?

    For various reasons. One of the most common arguements is that gays are gays by default. Gordon M Sheppard and Marc Breedlove(Neuroscientists), in their own studies proved that no genetic link has been found. Gays act out on this lifestyle daily. You can't change how you are genetically from birth. This is caused by sexual behaviors.(Which in essence can alter the brain). Also it is claimed that any gay can't marry who they love when as I pointed out earlier when love is not required for a marriage contract. That "promise" could mean anything. Other arguements include how they save the adoption process whenever it's a hot commodity with heterosexuals as is. No one has presented to me how this could benefit society as a whole.

    (See earlier remark)
    Here's reply #61

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    Rock and Porn can be debated all the way around. That is for sure.(When you're talking people's morals)

    Which is one more reason why I say that gays have the same rights, they just don't like their options given to them.

    How can that be justifiable? There has been no proven problem with an interracial marriage. In fact, it has been proven to be very beneficial to allow interracial. The same hasn't been proven yet for gay marriage YET.

    And those of us who oppose it haven't been persecuting them either. Just because we disagree with one's lifestyle doesn't mean automatically we're persecuting it.

    Not really. Minors can marry at age 16 in some states if their parents sign off on the marriage. It's just not as common to see happening.

    Also for those who do think that love is required as part of a marriage contract, that isn't the case. The 4 Most Basic Requirements to certify a marriage are 1.) 2 Consenting Adults, 2.) 1 Witness on each side, 3.) A Celebrant, and 4.) A Promise. The Promise doesn't mean you have to love them. It can mean anything such as taking care of one person financially etc.

    Because they're that hell bent on protecting marriage as one man one woman. That's only reason why.

    Also if you consider the fact that the govt. also gives out taxbreaks for each time a couple has a child(By Birth I know, as for an adoption, I have to check that), yeah it has become somewhat of a govt. institution to.
    Here's #77

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    No, I have taken more the enough classes in American Govt. to know that the constitution is for all 300+ Million Americans who have actual citizenship. It doesn't apply to those who are here illegally.
    There must be a justifiable government intrusion on the fundamental right. Where, in either of those posts, is the justifiable government reasoning? Gays being gay by default is not a government reason for denying someone a right. We deny them the right because they choose to be gay? Does that really make sense to you? Does that mean we can go back to owning slaves as long as someone consents to be our salve? Of course not.

    I think you are asking the gays to prove something and the simple fact is they don't have to. YOU have to prove that you can deny them of a fundamental right with a compelling reason, of which you have yet to come up with one. If I'm missing it please let me know.

    This is not just me being stubborn, this is the legal requirement for the upholding of an anti-gay marriage ban. There most be some justifiable reason the government is preventing gays from a fundamental right. The reason it must pass strict scrutiny, in this case, is because no one objected to the designation of homosexuals as a "suspect class." Neither marriage being a fundamental right nor homosexuals being a suspect class was argued by the proponents of Prop 8.

    "Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Prop 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest." Carey v. Population service Intl. 4321 US 678.

    Additionally, once you fail to object to something, you can no longer use that as a basis for appeal. So the suspect class ship has sailed so to speak.

    Now to address your argument about they have the same right as we do to marry someone of the opposite sex so they have the same rights, the proponents of Prop 8 admitted, "there is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnerships and marriage." This goes back to separate but equal, it's not the same, if it were the same would you be OK with not marrying who you love and just getting a domestic partnership?

    Please, read the ruling. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

    At least the court who ruled on Prop 8 this time around. We'll see later in the event this goes in front of the SCOTUS.
    I think you even agree with their definition of marriage you were the one saying it doesn't require love. Of the 4 things you listed, what can a gay couple not do?

    Unless they find a way to strengthen their case and found a way to strengthen their case
    Again, they are stuck with the state of the record as they made it. They cannot advance new arguments, they can't make new ones, they can't now object to something they didn't before. They are stuck with the same shitty record they created.

  9. #99
    Tiger Lion and Steel Array title="SteelCityMan786 will become famous soon enough"> SteelCityMan786's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Where the lands are a mix of Black and Gold with some Blue and White
    Posts
    1,349

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    There must be a justifiable government intrusion on the fundamental right. Where, in either of those posts, is the justifiable government reasoning? Gays being gay by default is not a government reason for denying someone a right. We deny them the right because they choose to be gay? Does that really make sense to you? Does that mean we can go back to owning slaves as long as someone consents to be our salve? Of course not.

    I think you are asking the gays to prove something and the simple fact is they don't have to. YOU have to prove that you can deny them of a fundamental right with a compelling reason, of which you have yet to come up with one. If I'm missing it please let me know.
    In the opinion Kristin Perry states that she wants marriage for a more secure and stable relationship. Is that supposed to mean that she couldn’t have a stable relationship as unmarried or a relationship that has the same benefits of a marriage under the title of Civil Union? Is she also leaving me to believe that you can’t have a stable relationship without being married? Who said unmarried couples can’t have an stable one as is?

    That is not a reason strong enough to overturn the ruling and one more reason why the government can act. It’s basically saying to me that you can’t have a stable relationship unless you are married.(And that comes directly from reading the ruling to). If they were to say it could improve it, then you might get somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    This is not just me being stubborn, this is the legal requirement for the upholding of an anti-gay marriage ban. There most be some justifiable reason the government is preventing gays from a fundamental right. The reason it must pass strict scrutiny, in this case, is because no one objected to the designation of homosexuals as a "suspect class." Neither marriage being a fundamental right nor homosexuals being a suspect class was argued by the proponents of Prop 8.
    "Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that Prop 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest." Carey v. Population service Intl. 4321 US 678.
    Additionally, once you fail to object to something, you can no longer use that as a basis for appeal. So the suspect class ship has sailed so to speak.
    That would have probably helped their(prop 8 proponents) case to the heaviest degree possible. I am really stunned they didn’t use that argument in all that I have read so far on the ruling. It wouldn’t surprise me though if they try to argue it anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    Now to address your argument about they have the same right as we do to marry someone of the opposite sex so they have the same rights, the proponents of Prop 8 admitted, "there is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnerships and marriage." This goes back to separate but equal, it's not the same, if it were the same would you be OK with not marrying who you love and just getting a domestic partnership?
    Please, read the ruling. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL
    This ultimately was their downfall right there. Now that you put it that way, when it comes to heteros then you could call me “in the middle"

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    I think you even agree with their definition of marriage you were the one saying it doesn't require love. Of the 4 things you listed, what can a gay couple not do?
    Again, they are stuck with the state of the record as they made it. They cannot advance new arguments, they can't make new ones, they can't now object to something they didn't before. They are stuck with the same shitty record they created.
    From a requirement standpoint, yes, however I do factor other things into it as well(Such as the church definition).
    786 Ways to score touchdowns

  10. #100
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    In the opinion Kristin Perry states that she wants marriage for a more secure and stable relationship. Is that supposed to mean that she couldn’t have a stable relationship as unmarried or a relationship that has the same benefits of a marriage under the title of Civil Union? Is she also leaving me to believe that you can’t have a stable relationship without being married? Who said unmarried couples can’t have an stable one as is?
    You certainly can have a stable relationship as an unmarried couple, but not as secure a one as a married couple (secure meaning tax benefits, undeniable custody rights should one of you die...her and her partner have 4 boys, your partners family cannot contest a clearly written will, your partners surviving family cannot seize property that you and your married partner owned should your partner die, nobody can deny you the right to visit your partners hospital bed or grave). These are very real benefits that married couples enjoy, but civil unions do not provide for. I think that's part of what she means when she says she wants a more stable and secure relationship.

    Here are some other examples...http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedd...ageBenefit.htm

  11. #101
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    That is not a reason strong enough to overturn the ruling and one more reason why the government can act. It’s basically saying to me that you can’t have a stable relationship unless you are married.(And that comes directly from reading the ruling to). If they were to say it could improve it, then you might get somewhere.
    Again, they don't need a reason to overturn; the government needs a reason to deny them the right. What is the reason the government has to deny them a right? Whether unmarried couples can have a stable relationship is irrelevant. It's sort of like a warrantless search; they are presumed illegal. The government must prove some reason for the warrantless search to justify it. So here's how it starts:

    Marraige = fundamental right, any restriction on that right to ANYONE is illegal. Now, give me a reason why the GOVERNMENT can restrict that right without mentioning anything a homosexual has to do, they don't have a duty to prove anything. They can just sit back and wait for the government to come up with a compelling interest. This would be something along the lines like homosexuals abuse their kids, they sell them into slavery, it makes them retarded. We all know those aren't true but thats what we are looking for. I can't think of one, so if you can, let us know!

    If the govt can't come up with a reason, then it remains illegal to restrict the fundamental right.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    That would have probably helped their(prop 8 proponents) case to the heaviest degree possible. I am really stunned they didn’t use that argument in all that I have read so far on the ruling. It wouldn’t surprise me though if they try to argue it anyway.
    I'm shocked they let this slide. There has been no single case that I can find that has designated homosexuals a suspect class until this one. By not objecting to it, they let it become the rule of law. I'll have to check into it but they may be able to challenge it if it reaches the SCOTUS because you are talking about the US Consititution and not just the CA one. I think it would be pretty weak though. However, what is happening is that the gay marriage advocates are methodically dismantling every argument the anti-gay people throw at them. This isn't a question of IF gay marriage will be made legal but WHEN.

  12. #102
    Do no harm - take no shit Array title="Killer is on a distinguished road"> Killer's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gulf coast pimp
    Gender
    Posts
    992

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    This isn't a question of IF gay marriage will be made legal but WHEN
    Only when gay homosexual activist judges are in charge.

    Let's review what the people voted for in the first place - Nov 2008 elections.


    States issue verdicts on gay rights

    After expensive campaign, Calif. voters outlaw same-sex marriages


    Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard

    In California, the nation's most populous state, voters approved a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriages. With almost all precincts reporting, Proposition 8 had 52 percent approval.

    Ban-gay-marriage amendments were also approved in Arizona and Florida, states where such unions were never legal. Similar bans had prevailed in 27 states before Tuesday's elections.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27523989/

  13. #103
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    They felt the same way in Brown vs Board of Education too.

  14. #104

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    They felt the same way in Brown vs Board of Education too.
    Not taking one side or the other...because most of my thoughts on the matter are of a moral leaning....but from a LEGAL standpoint I was wondering if SteelersinCA might be able to help me wrap my mind around a point with marriage.

    IF marriage was allowed between consenting ADULTS....straight/gay....whatever....and IF Polygamy were allowed....what is the legal ramications towards health/retirement/socaial security benefits. I know that if were to pass away, my wife and children would recieve benefits from me. So hypothetically what would be the result a situation in which a man with lets say... 6 legal wives....were to die. If that person was a state employee could the state handle the benefit claim to all involved?

    How could a state/business set itself up to handle that type of situation? I dont think you could limit the amount of beneficiaries any more that if the man had 6 children...right? So in an extreme situation, If i was a state employee with 6 wives and lets say 36 children...and i should pass away....well...could that be part of the case against polygamy?
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  15. #105
    Do no harm - take no shit Array title="Killer is on a distinguished road"> Killer's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gulf coast pimp
    Gender
    Posts
    992

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    So it will be Perry vs. Schwarzenegger that caused God to finally snap off California and sink it.

    We'll see...He's a vengeful God when it come to abominations.


  16. #106
    Senior Member Array title="The WH will become famous soon enough"> The WH's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Vinninga, Sweden and Butler, PA
    Gender
    Posts
    1,296

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    did that lady get turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back?

  17. #107
    Senior Member Array title="Shea is an unknown quantity at this point"> Shea's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    595

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattsme View Post
    Shit, did I leave my webcam on again?

    I thought that feeling of being watched was just from the pot...
    That is funny as all hell!

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer View Post
    So now that God has created AIDS to kill the homosexuals they want you to pay for it.

    and they want marriage benefits for their AIDS and insurance claims to be paid by the taxpayers too. I bet that's a lot what this is all about.
    Wow ...

    Please tell me that this is just another example of your quirky sense of humor and that you really don't believe that.

  18. #108
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Great article on this, Chemerinsky is pretty much a ConLaw deity in jurisprudence. I think he makes an excellent point about no conservatives complaining about activist judges when the Chicago gun laws were struck down.

    THE PROPOSITION 8 RULING

    One judge vs. 7 million voters?

    John Diaz

    Sunday, August 8, 2010

    The reaction to Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling from opponents of same-sex marriage was swift, angry and predictable. How dare, they ask, could the opinion of one judge invalidate the votes of the 7 million Californians who supported Proposition 8? On Fox News, Sarah Palin expressed frustration at "that third branch of government undoing the will of the people." Similar sentiments reverberated from conservatives in the blogosphere, cable news and talk radio.

    Reasonable people may disagree about whether Walker's 136-page ruling made the case that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it lacked "any rational basis" for singling out gays and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses. But there should be no argument about the authority - indeed, the responsibility - of the federal judiciary to assess the constitutionality of a law.

    This is exactly how our constitutional democracy is supposed to work.

    Don't blame federal judges for doing their jobs. The concept of judicial review has been at the core of our checks-and-balances democracy since the landmark Marbury vs. Madison ruling in 1803.

    "It's the nature of our constitutional system," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school. "It doesn't matter whether a law was passed by Congress, a state legislature, a city council or the voters - it has to comply with the U.S. Constitution."

    In reading Walker's opinion, which carefully and quite compellingly dissected the arguments of each side, it is apparent that a judge known for his diligence went to great lengths to put it on display in this case.

    Still, some critics of the ruling saw fit to note that Walker is gay, with the insinuation of an inherent bias. Many of those conservative commentators neglected to add that Walker was originally appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, and renominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1989.

    "This is by no means a renegade decision," said Jesse Choper, a constitutional law professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

    Nor is it the last word. The oft-echoed argument that "one judge" has somehow thwarted the will of the people is a "rhetorical flourish" that does not hold up to scrutiny, Chemerinsky said.

    "This ultimately will go to three judges (on the appellate level) for review, and then to nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.

    Chemerinsky added that many of the conservatives railing about judicial excess in the marriage case were not complaining when the federal courts struck down a Seattle law on the consideration of race in school assignments or Chicago's ban on handgun ownership.

    Walker's ruling was based in large part on the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Proponents of Prop. 8 failed to support their claim that same-sex marriages undermine the institution of marriage or are harmful to children, he asserted. "Moral disapproval" of homosexuality is not a sufficient basis for such discrimination, he wrote.

    As for the other complaint about the ruling - that judges should not force social change on a culture that is not ready for it - remember: It was the federal judiciary, invoking the Constitution, that desegregated schools and ended bans on interracial marriage. Discomfort with a minority group, whether based on skin color or sexual orientation, does not justify the denial of basic rights.

    And marriage has been determined to be a fundamental right in this nation.

    In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Wisconsin law that denied marriage licenses to noncustodial parents who were behind in child-support payments. In that case, unlike same-sex marriage, Wisconsin could plausibly claim it had a vested interest in denying a marriage license to a particular class of individuals - because the child of a deadbeat parent about to enter a new marriage could be at heightened risk of becoming dependent on the state.

    Also, as Choper noted, the Wisconsin residents precluded from marriage under that law had a straightforward way to get around the prohibition - "pay their darn child support."

    In the case of two people of the same sex who want to marry, "there is no way on God's Earth they can get around" the Prop. 8 exclusion, Choper said.

    Yet even with Wisconsin's legitimate interest in keeping deadbeat parents from marrying, the Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional because it "interferes with a fundamental right."

    In our system of democracy, no ballot measure - even one that passed by a margin of 600,000 votes, as Prop. 8 did - should be inviolate from the reach of the judiciary.

    "This is tyranny," roared talk-radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh, suggesting the judiciary had been overtaken by "leftist nut jobs." Limbaugh made a point of noting Walker's sexual orientation - but not the fact that he was selected for the bench by Reagan and Bush.

    Tyranny? I would be more worried about a democracy that did not protect fundamental rights from the "tyranny of the majority" that James Madison warned of in the Federalist Papers.

    As of today, deadbeat parents who want to marry enjoy a constitutional protection that is denied same-sex couples who want to build a family with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Walker's ruling was an essential step toward rectifying that injustice.

    John Diaz is The Chronicle's editorial page editor. E-mail: jdiaz@sfchronicle.com.



    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0w24AtjZZ

  19. #109
    Senior Member Array title="urgle burgle is an unknown quantity at this point"> urgle burgle's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    land of nougat
    Posts
    161

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    the issue is in the gun ban law and others, their was no vote by the people to approve such measures. that would be going against the peoples mandate. however, if they did, with the gun ban, it would be ruled unconstitutional, which it eventually was. this will go to the supreme court, as it should. anything voted by the people that is unconstitutional, should not stand. the issue, is that the supreme court says that (through precedence) that marriage is a right afforded in the constitution for all. if that is what they said, that is what stands. although i do not agree. problem, is that the court know goes almost only through precedence, and not original intent. that is the true problem itself. not to mention, the govt. should get out of marriage entirely. but whatever......at this point, although i do not agree with homosexual marriage, i just do not really care anymore. just likes gays in the military...i am former army, and do not particualrly want gays in the military. but, i just dont care anymore. if the pro-gay, and DOD would just explain how they would implement gays into the military (housing, barracks, showers, etc), and it made sense, most would go for it. that is what most military is waiting for. just explain how it will eventually effect us. then we may get on board. but everybody is so busy calling everybody hate mongers, racists, etc. they wont even get to the important specifics. like i said.....i just dont care anymore. whatever.
    When a child cries....somewhere in a small, lonely, sad place in the world.....a hobo laughs.

  20. #110
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by LLT View Post
    Not taking one side or the other...because most of my thoughts on the matter are of a moral leaning....but from a LEGAL standpoint I was wondering if SteelersinCA might be able to help me wrap my mind around a point with marriage.

    IF marriage was allowed between consenting ADULTS....straight/gay....whatever....and IF Polygamy were allowed....what is the legal ramications towards health/retirement/socaial security benefits. I know that if were to pass away, my wife and children would recieve benefits from me. So hypothetically what would be the result a situation in which a man with lets say... 6 legal wives....were to die. If that person was a state employee could the state handle the benefit claim to all involved?

    How could a state/business set itself up to handle that type of situation? I dont think you could limit the amount of beneficiaries any more that if the man had 6 children...right? So in an extreme situation, If i was a state employee with 6 wives and lets say 36 children...and i should pass away....well...could that be part of the case against polygamy?
    Sorry LLT, didn't see this.

    It's difficult to answer your question without making several assumptions (typical lawyer answer right?). I assume you mean that if you died with 6 wives and no will or trust? The traditional pecking order, so to speak, in cases like that is your assets would go to your wife. Your kids would get nothing. Only when your wife dies do the kids get anything. So in your hypothetical your assets would be divided 6 ways to your wives. Then once they die in equal 36ths to the kids. Of course I'm also assuming you have the stamina and patience to create 36 kids, which I think we all know is a tad unrealistic (Joking only!)

    I honestly don't know what you mean by if the person was a state employee could the state handle it. Do you mean because they are a quasi interested party?

    Also, every state is different. Some are community property states and that would be an absolute nightmare for polygamy. I would think the estate would have to be valued at different times of marriage. Then you would get into a question of do the wife's marry the other wife's further clouding the "community property?" It has the potential to get very very messy.

    I suppose it could be a reason against polygamy but I don't think it would pass constitutional muster either. Just because something is hard or difficult to do doesn't make it a compelling reason. Then again, who knows what the judges would think. The best argument against polygamy is that it creates a new right, which is subject to a different type of scrutiny. Then the government doesn't have to meet such a stringent standard.

    I hope that helps.

  21. #111
    Freakin Amazing! Array title="JonM229 will become famous soon enough"> JonM229's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Gender
    Posts
    976

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer View Post
    Only when gay homosexual activist judges are in charge.
    You mean a judge who was attempted to be appointed by Reagan, but was denied because he was too conservative and then later appointed by Bush?

  22. #112
    Do no harm - take no shit Array title="Killer is on a distinguished road"> Killer's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gulf coast pimp
    Gender
    Posts
    992

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    It ain't over till it's over



    Appeals court stays marriage


    The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday agreed to keep same-sex marriages on hold until at least December.

    In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn



    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...g.html?showall

  23. #113
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    If the 9th circuit refuses to hear it, the SCOTUS won't either.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •