Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[Expat]

You all can jump the queer fence as far as I'm concerned. Just don't do it in my yard, or I'll turn the hose on ya!

Lesbians......I'm not interested in girls that wear more flannel than I do.

I say we make a requirement that a large percentage of lesbians have to be the hot stripper types instead of the lumber jack type...

 

[hoosiertriangle]

See the link below for a good discussion of why the judges ruling was likely incorrect.

Concurring Opinions Can 50 Million Frenchmen Be Irrational?

The post written by Prof. Magliocca of Indiana University School of Law Indianapolis, helps show what actually happened here. He goes on to say what might happen on appeal to SCOTUS, but at the present time, the ruling was incorrect.

 

[Eddie]

I say we make a requirement that a large percentage of lesbians have to be the hot stripper types instead of the lumber jack type...

Now that's a quota I could agree with.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Was it not that the fed was created for a limited number of items: defense of country, agree to treaties with other countries, etc.. but everything else was up to the states & how they wanted to handle it?

While I'm one of the biggest proponents of states rights, I'm also a Constitutionalist.

If a federal judge claims California's ban is unConstitutional, that needs to be vetted in the courts.

If California banned guns tomorrow by a majority vote or though an amendment to their state constitution, you would probably be one of the many screaming for federal intervention citing a violation of the Constitution.

We can't have it both ways.

As for the subject matter, gays getting married is pretty low on my list of things to be concerned with. It's right down there with finding out how many [FONT=verdana,sans-serf]Maud Island frogs there are in existence. [/FONT]

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Yes, you can have it both ways. The Federal Constitution doesn't place limits on every exercise of all government power. Some powers are delegated specifically to the states. The definition of marriage has traditionally be one of those. Some restraints have no such limit, like the second amendment and states can exercise no more power than the second amendment allows. However, they are more than welcome to give more power to the individual as they please. Indiana vs. Illinois constitution comes to mind.

While I'm one of the biggest proponents of states rights, I'm also a Constitutionalist.

If a federal judge claims California's ban is unConstitutional, that needs to be vetted in the courts.

If California banned guns tomorrow by a majority vote or though an amendment to their state constitution, you would probably be one of the many screaming for federal intervention citing a violation of the Constitution.

We can't have it both ways.

As for the subject matter, gays getting married is pretty low on my list of things to be concerned with. It's right down there with finding out how many [FONT=verdana,sans-serf]Maud Island frogs there are in existence. [/FONT]

 

[Roadie]

Yes, you can have it both ways. The Federal Constitution doesn't place limits on every exercise of all government power. Some powers are delegated specifically to the states. The definition of marriage has traditionally be one of those. Some restraints have no such limit, like the second amendment and states can exercise no more power than the second amendment allows. However, they are more than welcome to give more power to the individual as they please. Indiana vs. Illinois constitution comes to mind.

Exactly. Marriage isn't in the Constitution, the Right to Bear Arms is, meaning the comparison of the two is a bad example.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Exactly. Marriage isn't in the Constitution, the Right to Bear Arms is, meaning the comparison of the two is a bad example.

It's not about marriage per se, it's about equal protection under the law and discrimination based on sexual preference.

Read the 14th Amendment.

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's not about marriage per se, it's about equal protection under the law and discrimination based on sexual preference.

Read the 14th Amendment.

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That interpretation of the 14th Amendment will be our end. If defining traditional marriage between a man and a woman is irrational and born out of bias, how about marriage between multiple men and women? How about marriage between Men and boys (see NAMBLA)? If traditional definitions of marriage are irrational, just because they're over 4000 years old, what consititutes the "rational" basis for denying any two individuals or any number of a group who want to be married? Age? What's "rational" about 18 as a minimum age? Or 16? Or 13? Or 9? Gays have opened Pandora's box with the willing assistance of the Courts and it will be interesting to see how any court can "rationally" rule out any "marriage" under this reasoning.

 

[E5RANGER375]

That interpretation of the 14th Amendment will be our end. If defining traditional marriage between a man and a woman is irrational and born out of bias, how about marriage between multiple men and women? How about marriage between Men and boys (see NAMBLA)? If traditional definitions of marriage are irrational, just because they're over 4000 years old, what consititutes the "rational" basis for denying any two individuals or any number of a group who want to be married? Age? What's "rational" about 18 as a minimum age? Or 16? Or 13? Or 9? Gays have opened Pandora's box with the willing assistance of the Courts and it will be interesting to see how any court can "rationally" rule out any "marriage" under this reasoning.

Blackhawk, you and I agree on many other issues, but on this one we never will. But thats OK. life goes on and we can still be friends

 

[MilitaryArms]

That interpretation of the 14th Amendment will be our end. If defining traditional marriage between a man and a woman is irrational and born out of bias, how about marriage between multiple men and women? How about marriage between Men and boys (see NAMBLA)? If traditional definitions of marriage are irrational, just because they're over 4000 years old, what consititutes the "rational" basis for denying any two individuals or any number of a group who want to be married? Age? What's "rational" about 18 as a minimum age? Or 16? Or 13? Or 9? Gays have opened Pandora's box with the willing assistance of the Courts and it will be interesting to see how any court can "rationally" rule out any "marriage" under this reasoning.

Tradition has nothing to do with law. You guys keep repeating "tradition" as if it has any legal standing what-so-ever.

Why do you guys go to nonsensical extremes like bring up NAMBLA? Are you honestly of the opinion allowing the marriage of two men or two women will somehow make child abuse or statutory rape legal? It's the use of these ridiculous analogies that hurt your cause. I say "your cause" because I honestly don't care if two men want to marry each other - it has no baring on any aspect of my life... other than perhaps I'll get more wedding photography gigs.

All these "the sky is falling" comments over a couple of dudes getting hitched is kind of silly IMHO.

Live and let live. I'll take true freedom, no matter how messy. That means you don't get to impose your morals on others and they don't get to impose them on you. I love it when those who claim to be freedom lovers go on rips about how they want to trample other peoples freedom because it conflicts with their morals or their traditions.

 

[Expat]

Blackhawk, you and I agree on many other issues, but on this one we never will. But thats OK. life goes on and we can still be friends

Nice! An good approach one does not often see here in the virtual world. Of course since Blackhaw is right...

 

[E5RANGER375]

Tradition has nothing to do with law. You guys keep repeating "tradition" as if it has any legal standing what-so-ever.

Why do you guys go to nonsensical extremes like bring up NAMBLA? Are you honestly of the opinion allowing the marriage of two men or two women will somehow make child abuse or statutory rape legal? It's the use of these ridiculous analogies that hurt your cause. I say "your cause" because I honestly don't care if two men want to marry each other - it has no baring on any aspect of my life... other than perhaps I'll get more wedding photography gigs.

All these "the sky is falling" comments over a couple of dudes getting hitched is kind of silly IMHO.

Live and let live. I'll take true freedom, no matter how messy. That means you don't get to impose your morals on others and they don't get to impose them on you. I love it when those who claim to be freedom lovers go on rips about how they want to trample other peoples freedom because it conflicts with their morals or their traditions.

when i saw a White House performance on TV honoring Sir Paul McCartney, and he and Stevie Wonder were singing EBONY & IVORY for Obama and family and they approved, I knew the planets had aligned and the world is finaly as one

 

[Expat]

Tradition has nothing to do with law. You guys keep repeating "tradition" as if it has any legal standing what-so-ever.

What do you think the common law is? It is centuries of usage and custom that has been adopted into the law.

 

[MilitaryArms]

What do you think the common law is? It is centuries of usage and custom that has been adopted into the law.

Nice try.

Tell ya what, when this goes to the SCOTUS let's see if anyone brings up "tradition" as a legal argument. If they do, I'll buy you dinner and drinks. No, I won't ask for your hand in marriage.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Nice try.

Tell ya what, when this goes to the SCOTUS let's see if anyone brings up "tradition" as a legal argument. If they do, I'll buy you dinner and drinks. No, I won't ask for your hand in marriage.

"Tradition" isn't the key word here. "Rational" and "bias" or even "cultural bias" are the words. Do you suppose there isn't any historical precedent anywhere for any of the questions I raised? If all one has to do is yell "Equal Protection under the Law", what societal mores can stand? What is "statutory rape" but an "irrational bias" against sex with a minor? No, I don't care what your "excuse" is for your law; to me it's "irrational" and it shouldn't be allowed. So what if it's your historical custom? Too bad for you; it's discrimination.

 

[CarmelHP]

It's not about marriage per se, it's about equal protection under the law and discrimination based on sexual preference.

Read the 14th Amendment.

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not about equal protection, as equal protection merely requires that similarly situated couples may marry, that is any man may marry any woman within the limits of important interests the state may assert such as consanguinity prohibitions.

 

[Stickfight]

You keep comparing gay marriage, which involves two adults who we have decided are capable of consent, to various situations involving one adult and one child/farm animal, which is a case where consent cannot be obtained.

You see the difference there, don't you?

 

[Stickfight]

It's not about equal protection, as equal protection merely requires that similarly situated couples may marry, that is any man may marry any woman within the limits of important interests the state may assert such as consanguinity prohibitions.

What other applications of the equal protection clause lead you to believe that it is gender selective?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You keep comparing gay marriage, which involves two adults who we have decided are capable of consent, to various situations involving one adult and one child/farm animal, which is a case where consent cannot be obtained.

You see the difference there, don't you?

I'm sorry, using the same "rational" reasoning of the judge in this case, your bias has no rational basis and therefore is not valid. Why should your foolish prejudices get in the way of my right to whatever marital status makes me happy? Who has given _you_ or anyone else the right to judge what _I_ and my friends want as being wrong?

 

[Expat]

What other applications of the equal protection clause lead you to believe that it is gender selective?

The law is full of differences between men and women in Civil Rights Legislation. There are also in many laws being enacted differring by sexuality (think of the hate crime legislation, non-discrimination laws for housing and employment.) Those have not been overturned under the equal protection clause.