Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[irishfan]

Lets just get rid of all marriage licenses and the bs from the government. Oh...I forgot that would just give less for big brother to pry into our lives.

 

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

I would have to agree, civil unions for consenting adults, with equal and non-preferential rights. There should be no marriage or civil union "penalties" or "advantages". Let religions define and sanctify marriages however they wish. Equality under the law is the only legitimate way for this issue and many others to be handled by government.

 

[Stickfight]

My point, since under the new rules no one can answer is that all the arguments used against gay marriage were used against interracial marriage

Not necessarily, since politics is still fair game. The ideology expressed below is still around, as we are all aware.

 

[Fletch]

And then again, accept that they must self sacrifice for the greater good?

Any time "greater good" and "self sacrifice" are mentioned in the context of government action, I get real antsy.

 

[Eddie]

Any time "greater good" and "self sacrifice" are mentioned in the context of government action, I get real antsy.

I went back and read that post again. Not sure if I understand what the greater good is.

 

[CarmelHP]

My point, since under the new rules no one can answer is that all the arguments used against gay marriage were used against interracial marriage, with the addition of the "what about the kids," argument, of course.

Get the government out of marriage, let people bind themselves together any way they wish contractually, and let private business discriminate against who they wish.

And, so? How's that a Constitutional argument? The Supreme Court has made it clear that race is a special category that is afforded the very highest level of scrutiny. That means that it is almost impossible to ever have a race based decision on marriage withstand a challenge. There are Reconstruction Amendments meant to erase vestiges and badges of slavery. However, they have almost made clear that there is no such status for "sexual orientation." Therefore, a rational basis test applies, meaning that on a challenge that every possible conceivable rationale that a state could have for the legislation has to be rebutted, a nearly impossible task. Federal courts are to be particularly deferential in an area that is within the states' plenary power and the federal government occupies little to none of the field. That's what makes this a radical, activist decision. It overturns almost every principle of Constitutional analysis. It is federal interference with a state based on no delegated power, vested right, common law precedent or credible Constitutional understanding or intent. It is judicial legislating, remaking the world as the judge thinks the legislature should have done.

 

[dross]

And, so? How's that a Constitutional argument? The Supreme Court has made it clear that race is a special category that is afforded the very highest level of scrutiny. That means that it is almost impossible to ever have a race based decision on marriage withstand a challenge. There are Reconstruction Amendments meant to erase vestiges and badges of slavery. However, they have almost made clear that there is no such status for "sexual orientation." Therefore, a rational basis test applies, meaning that on a challenge that every possible conceivable rationale that a state could have for the legislation has to be rebutted, a nearly impossible task. Federal courts are to be particularly deferential in an area that is within the states' plenary power and the federal government occupies little to none of the field. That's what makes this a radical, activist decision. It overturns almost every principle of Constitutional analysis. It is federal interference with a state based on no delegated power, vested right, common law precedent or credible Constitutional understanding or intent. It is judicial legislating, remaking the world as the judge thinks the legislature should have done.

I didn't weigh in on the Constitutional argument because I've never really understood how the 14th Amendment works in these matters.

I have difficulty understanding why people care about this issue, other than on religious grounds. If their only argument is religious, I consider their position to be indefensible. As to other arguments, I present the interracial analogy.

I think this is clearly in the area of natural rights. It's hard for me to understand how the government at any level has a compelling reason to regulate who can and cannot bind themselves together contractually. As to marriage, I think the government should stay out of it.

After reading some of your arguments on previous threads, I more clearly understand full faith and credit, so I'm more inclined to agree that this is a state issue. If that's the case, I assume you agree that a federal law mandating that marriage only be between a man and a woman is also not defensible?

 

[hoboboxerjoe]

But nothing traditional ?


Well, I personally dont. I dont need a Govt official, or some Churchanity preacher to endorse my sanctity, when both are so full of crap.

However, again, this is a traditional thing, Religion and Marriage go back to when man was still squating in caves.

I dont think there is a single religion which does endorse homosexuality. Could be interesting to read.


Materialism is not enough to support, IMO.




I want everyone to be happy, but not at the expense of another. This is essentially my entire basis of being in my political endevors.

I wonder how happy those guys were in HS, explaining to they're guy friends about both daddies, or something else.

This is a clash of values and opinions, too. What may be OK, for another, wont be OK for someone else.

It's appearant that someone will be infringed, will it be the minority or the majority populous?





How can one be, something they know nothing of, not exposed to?

I'd ask, if the child is gay, would he/she understand that they're choice could lead to genetic deadend, and would they have the ability to decide that LIFE is greater than the self and take self sacrifice to heart? <------ Would they bare children? of they're own DNA.

And if they made the right choice, would they then be able to understand the importance of the presence of Daddy or Mommy, and the combination?

It takes a Man to be a Dad, and raise a Man, just as it takes a Women to be a Mother and raise a Women.

And then again, accept that they must self sacrifice for the greater good?

Lead to a genetic dead end? Self-sacrifice? You'd rather have your child be miserble their entire lives instead of being who they are? Your points about marriage stretching back to the stone age is also moot, along with points of traditionalism. People use "It's against tradition!" on interracial marriage, they used it on royal-lines, they used it for "keeping it in the family" in many, many places all the world over. There has also been recognized homosexual marriages in the past, throughout history.

Your whole "it takes a man to raise a man" theory falls short when there are plenty of fatherless men who grew up just fine. And motherless women, too.

Your little comment about "I wonder how those guys felt having to explain they have two dads in HS" doesn't hold any weight, either. Maybe you'd feel damn proud about it, it wouldn't be a big thing for you because you grew up around it. Maybe not, but one thing is for certain, High School will hold both pain and pleasure for all kids.

It seems all of your arguments just stem from being completely uncomfortable with homosexual behavior. When asked how you would deal with your own child being gay you would expect them to just, not be gay. Really? Is it that difficult to accept what is different than you? I have no problems accepting the fact that the majority on most gun forums and where I live disagree with me. Not only politically, but don't agree with my atheism as well. I accept that.

What I won't accept is being told I have to sit at a different section than you guys. What I won't accept is being told that one group of people is less than another simply because they are acting on their sexual urges with another consenting adult.

You can go on and on about how wrong it is and that one group is going to be made unhappy no matter what. Well guess what? If it's the group that is simply being intolerant to another group, then tough ****. IF there was any evidence that homosexuality would be dangerous to our society, those signs, and that evidence would already have presented itself. Or have been presented. All I have gotten from the anti-gay side is a bunch of religious quackery, and "I'm not comfortable with it."

Sorry, not good enough. And thankfully, it's not good enough in the eyes of the judge who overturned prop. 8.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Lead to a genetic dead end?

Well, ofcourse... Two gays cannot have a baby, unless the opposite sex is involved in some way.

Self-sacrifice?

Yes. What if the homosexuals' father wants to continue his family name? He would love to have grandchildren, someone to carry on the legacy.

You'd rather have your child be miserble their entire lives instead of being who they are?

And "Who" are they? Children want to please they're parents, naturally.

It's almost appearant that homosexuality is on the rise as with the promotion of it/vice and it's acceptances; Being "Different" is in the "IN" thing.

I think if it's out of sight, it will be out of mind.

I'd want my children to be happy, but I fail to see how being a homosexual is better. The joy of your own children, smiling to you would be more than worth that sacrifice, IMO.

Your points about marriage stretching back to the stone age is also moot, along with points of traditionalism.

Care to explain how my points are moot? I take them for more than a punchline, so they are not moot to me.

People use "It's against tradition!" on interracial marriage, they used it on royal-lines, they used it for "keeping it in the family" in many, many places all the world over.

And... There are reasons for those arguements, you may not agree with them, but they are still applicable.

There has also been recognized homosexual marriages in the past, throughout history.

There was also punishment of death for homosexuality.

Your whole "it takes a man to raise a man" theory falls short when there are plenty of fatherless men who grew up just fine. And motherless women, too.

I think there is overwhelming information which would contradict this statement.

Im not saying a women cannot raise a boy, but it DOES TAKE A MAN TO RAISE A MAN.
There are certain thing's women will never understand about being a man and vice verse.

Having two daddies would undoubtedly stunt the boys' preception of the opposite gender.

Your little comment about "I wonder how those guys felt having to explain they have two dads in HS" doesn't hold any weight, either.

Why are all my points/observation not holding any weight.
I attended High School, and let me assure you, that any 'weakness' precieved was jumped on, and ridiculed to death.

A male child attending HS, and having to put up with 'attacks' because he, through no fault of his own has two daddies, sounds like the perfect remedy for columbine, or even some psycho "it puts the lotion on it's skin" crap.

Maybe you'd feel damn proud about it, it wouldn't be a big thing for you because you grew up around it. Maybe not, but one thing is for certain, High School will hold both pain and pleasure for all kids.

Perhaps. I've seen perfectly intelligent fail in school because they were called geeks/nerds etc.

School, unfortunately is all about 'fitting' in. A homosexual parent is the oddball, the not normal, his choice would come back to harm the child under his care.

I cant imagine how you dont see this, brother.

It seems all of your arguments just stem from being completely uncomfortable with homosexual behavior.

I dont agree. They dont personally effect me. Perhaps my question is why are they so uncomfortable with hetrosexuality? Why do they feel the need to "CHANGE" EVERYTHING to suit they're minority status?

I wonder what school would be like if all the children wanted pizza, and some oddball kid wanted Shrimp, smoked fish and seaweed to eat instead.

When asked how you would deal with your own child being gay you would expect them to just, not be gay.

They can be gay, but family comes first, and that includes raising, healthy children in a healthy hetrosexual family unit, and not be obvious about they're choice.

Really? Is it that difficult to accept what is different than you?

It's not a matter of differences. I can accept differences. I dont ask for robots. But I do accept aspects which are destructive, and IMO, homosexuality is destructive in some degree.

You have to remember, that Societies through the world punished this behavior, they understood it to be destructive.

Were they wrong, and the new PC crowd is right?

I have no problems accepting the fact that the majority on most gun forums and where I live disagree with me. Not only politically, but don't agree with my atheism as well. I accept that.

Force your beliefs on the majority, watch what happens...

Alot of what the Gun owners stand for is actually correct, too. May not be fore YOU, but for the greater good, yes.

What I won't accept is being told I have to sit at a different section than you guys. What I won't accept is being told that one group of people is less than another simply because they are acting on their sexual urges with another consenting adult.

No one is saying that

Funny you said "acting on" because that does imply choice.

You can go on and on about how wrong it is and that one group is going to be made unhappy no matter what. Well guess what? If it's the group that is simply being intolerant to another group, then tough ****.

Well there we agree... I keep telling the Homosexual community tough cookies, and they dont seem to agree..

IF there was any evidence that homosexuality would be dangerous to our society, those signs, and that evidence would already have presented itself. Or have been presented. All I have gotten from the anti-gay side is a bunch of religious quackery, and "I'm not comfortable with it."

LOL good slight... You dismiss all the arguements as if they have no merit, this is your opinion. To others, these opinions are law, well founded and have kept society well.

Sorry, not good enough. And thankfully, it's not good enough in the eyes of the judge who overturned prop. 8.

Yep, the Judge went against the people on the bogus 14th A, which is completely unconstitutional.

The Judge did nothing more than demonstrate to America that Votes DO NOT MATTER. That "WHAT" THE PEOPLE DESIRE DOESNT MATTER.

That only the minorities matters. Guess what that's called... ELITISM. ARISTOCRACY. WRONG.

Good job supporting that system.

 

[Fletch]

The Judge did nothing more than demonstrate to America that Votes DO NOT MATTER. That "WHAT" THE PEOPLE DESIRE DOESNT MATTER.

That only the minorities matters. Guess what that's called... ELITISM. ARISTOCRACY. WRONG.

Good job supporting that system.

The opposite is pejoratively called "mob rule", and it's no more laudable than aristocracy.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

The opposite is pejoratively called "mob rule", and it's no more laudable than aristocracy.

Why anger the mob? Why go against them?

I would never say mob rule akin to aristocracy, simply because the difference within the classes of people and the desires of each would be different.

 

[Fletch]

Why anger the mob? Why go against them?

Why climb a mountain? "Because it's there."

Herd/pack behavior is nothing to be protected, lauded, or respected. People should think for themselves, and failing to do so is abdicating one's responsibility to be human.

I would never say mob rule akin to aristocracy, simply because the difference within the classes of people and the desires of each would be different.

Wholly irrelevant, IMO. It matters not what the desires of the ruling classes are; what matters is that they rule.

 

[dross]

Let's get to the core of some of these matters. Putting aside what the current state of the law is, do those of you who base your opinion about this on religion and tradition believe that there should be a law against homosexual activity?

 

[MilitaryArms]

The 14A is Unconstitutional; And furthermore not in line with the Founders intentions of what America would be.

Unconstitutional? Based on what, your interpretation? That's funny, I've not seen a SCOTUS ruling saying it's unconstitutional. Can you proved a link?

Oh yes, this seems pretty out of line with what the founding fathers wanted:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm sure they wanted everyone to have the laws enforced differently depending on a persons skin color, sexual preference, eye color, height, weight, fitness level, etc.



Notice I'm not talking about section 2, 3, 4, or 5. I'm only referencing section 1 which deals with this case.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Let's get to the core of some of these matters. Putting aside what the current state of the law is, do those of you who base your opinion about this on religion and tradition believe that there should be a law against homosexual activity?

Good question. Let's see just now free these freedom lovers want people to be.

 

[Fletch]

Let's get to the core of some of these matters. Putting aside what the current state of the law is, do those of you who base your opinion about this on religion and tradition believe that there should be a law against homosexual activity?

I base my opinion on religion and tradition, and I say absolutely not. Get government out of the marriage business, rescind all automatic benefits, and put everybody in the same boat of working these things out contractually.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Herd/pack behavior is nothing to be protected, lauded, or respected. People should think for themselves, and failing to do so is abdicating one's responsibility to be human.

I dont think the "majority opinion" is herd behavior, nor do I consider them mindless zombies

Unconstitutional? Based on what, your interpretation? That's funny, I've not seen a SCOTUS ruling saying it's unconstitutional. Can you proved a link?

Ofcourse.

Google type in Unconstitutional basis of 14A.

Oh yes, this seems pretty out of line with what the founding fathers wanted:

Going by what they themselves said...

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

Let's get to the core of some of these matters. Putting aside what the current state of the law is, do those of you who base your opinion about this on religion and tradition believe that there should be a law against homosexual activity?

It would be hard to give an honest answer without admitting bias due to socialization. From the time we are little boys we are taught to not be sissies and crying is bad. We're also taught that homosexuality is gross. As it turns out, I believe all 3 of those things to this day, good bad or indifferent.


From a rational perspective, Homosexuality spreads disease, inhibits procreation and makes a lot of homosexuals very unhappy people, hence a very high suicide rate. There may be some social effects that influence that, but at the end of the day, I believe it's a personal choice to be gay. I don't buy the physiological, it's a fact perspective.

Again, Imo.\

*edited, thanks for the heads up.

 

[Fletch]

It would be hard to give an honest answer without admitting bias due to socialization. From the time we are little boys we are taught to not be sissies and crying is bad. We're also taught that homosexuality is gross. As it turns out, I believe all 3 of those things to this day, good bad or indifferent.


From a rational perspective, Homosexuality spreads disease, inhibits procreation and makes a lot of homosexuals very unhappy people, hence a very high suicide rate. There may be some social effects that influence that, but at the end of the day, I believe it's a personal choice to be gay. I don't buy the physiological, it's a fact perspective.

Again, Imo.

Which of these, IYO, justifies government handouts in the form of free legal services to hetero couples?

 

[groovatron]

snip.

From a rational perspective, Homosexuality spreads disease, inhibits procreation and makes a lot of homosexuals very unhappy people, hence a very high suicide rate. There may be some social effects that influence that, but at the end of the day, I believe it's a personal choice to be gay. I don't buy the physiological, it's a fact perspective.

Again, Imo.

(purple) Yeah, sounds like a great idea! I think I'll decide to be gay. That way I can spread some disease and then go ahead and kill myself.

That's some rational prospective you got there

Mods:........can we kill this thread already? It's really starting to **** me off. If we wanna clean up this board, posts like these would be a good way to start.