PDA

View Full Version : Religion Court: Calif. ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional


orange
02-07-2012, 11:28 AM
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court has declared California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law, NBC News reported.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

The passage of the ban followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California.

Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling.

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.

The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his lower-court decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man. Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker's ruling on constitutional grounds and because of the judge's personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision.

Walker's successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected the claims about Walker's personal life.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court's decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them.

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples married during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.

With same-sex marriages unlikely to resume in California any time soon, Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group based in Los Angeles, plans to start gathering signatures for a November ballot initiative asking voters to repeal Proposition 8.

Check back for more details on this breaking news story.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us_news-life/t/federal-court-rule-calif-ban-gay-marriage/

read decision here: http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/02/07/breaking-proposition-8-ruled-unconstitutional-by-9th-circuit-panel/

The appeals panel crafted a narrow decision that applies only to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states. California is the only one of those states where the ability for gays to marry was granted then rescinded.

"Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question," the court said. "We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case."

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/02/07/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Trial.html?_r=1

Cave Johnson
02-07-2012, 11:32 AM
Not surprising, given how terrible a case the Prop 8 supporters put on.

FD
02-07-2012, 12:14 PM
Pretty narrow ruling.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 01:39 PM
The ruling was not really a surprise at all. Gay marriage will be legal soon in CA unless the supreme court intervenes.

What is surprising is that the 9th circuit refrained from imposing the decision onto the entire 9th circuit, saying that it was sufficient to just strike down prop 8 for now, and they didn't need to go any further. If you agree with their reasoning for why they struck down prop 8 (which I do), then there's really no good reason not to strike down gay marriage bans in the entire 9th circuit. (except maybe the argument of "hey, no one in these other states in our circuit has complained yet")

Because they narrowly ruled only for CA, the supreme court might be inclined not to hear this unless there's a clear majority with a very strong opinion.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 01:41 PM
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110118210108/uncyclopedia/images/5/57/Nelson_haha.jpg

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 02:00 PM
I am not of an opinion that this is a ruling a court can make since it's in the Cally state constitution. This is not a power of deciding marriage is not a power granted to the Federal Government.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 02:04 PM
I am not of an opinion that this is a ruling a court can make since it's in the Cally state constitution. This is not a power of deciding marriage is not a power granted to the Federal Government.


"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 02:14 PM
I am not of an opinion that this is a ruling a court can make since it's in the Cally state constitution. This is not a power of deciding marriage is not a power granted to the Federal Government.

This would have been a winning argument prior to the Civil War.

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 02:14 PM
"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.

Being Gay isn't a protected class.

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 02:15 PM
This would have been a winning argument prior to the Civil War.

what consitutional amendment was passed prior to the civil war that repeals the 10 amendment?

La literatura
02-07-2012, 02:18 PM
Being Gay isn't a protected class.

The court did not qualify, as far as I can tell, gays as a protected class.

Cave Johnson
02-07-2012, 02:19 PM
what consitutional amendment was passed prior to the civil war that repeals the 10 amendment?

Is the 14th Amendment still in the Constitution?

La literatura
02-07-2012, 02:21 PM
what consitutional amendment was passed prior to the civil war that repeals the 10 amendment?

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause made equal protection of people in states a basic right.

BIG_DADDY
02-07-2012, 02:28 PM
I'm sick of looking at this shit. SC needs to rule on it so we all can move on.

vailpass
02-07-2012, 02:30 PM
Who cares about cocksucker's rights at this point in time? We have real and important issues with which to deal before allocating resources for this crap.

orange
02-07-2012, 02:32 PM
Is the 14th Amendment still in the Constitution?

You missed the part in his question about "prior to the Civil War." Everything from Lincoln on is tyranny. /Ron Paul

Pitt Gorilla
02-07-2012, 02:34 PM
Who cares about...rights at this point in time? We have real and important issues with which to deal before allocating resources for this crap.I think a lot of people do.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 02:38 PM
Who cares about one who sucks the penis's rights at this point in time? We have real and important issues with which to deal before allocating resources for this crap.

This is a good point. I don't know why each state, the entire federal government, and all private economic activity stopped in order to litigate this case.

Cave Johnson
02-07-2012, 02:39 PM
You missed the part in his question about "prior to the Civil War." Everything from Lincoln on is tyranny. /Ron Paul

So, it says somewhere in the constitution that a priori amendments supercede later ones?

vailpass
02-07-2012, 02:40 PM
This is a good point. I don't know why each state, the entire federal government, and all private economic activity stopped in order to litigate this case.

Because that is the only measure of whether resources could be better allocated? Got ya'.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 02:43 PM
Because that is the only measure of whether resources could be better allocated? Got ya'.

What do you think is the proper amount of resources to allocate here?

vailpass
02-07-2012, 02:50 PM
What do you think is the proper amount of resources to allocate here?

As much as is required to decide the issue.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 02:51 PM
Being Gay isn't a protected class.

Apparently it is, or is becoming one.

The_Doctor10
02-07-2012, 02:58 PM
Apparently it is, or is becoming one.

Well if you want to treat them differently, why shouldn't they be?

listopencil
02-07-2012, 03:09 PM
Well if you want to treat them differently, why shouldn't they be?

I think they should be.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 03:15 PM
Apparently it is, or is becoming one.

Not necessarily. The court ruled that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional under *ANY* standard of scrutiny, even under rational basis.

There are some protected classes which you can not discriminate against unless you pass heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny, but no group can be discriminated against if there is not at least a rational basis for it.

In other words, if the state passed a ban against blue-colored houses, and everyone with a blue house was given 5 years to re-paint, that would probably fail because of the 14th amendment under the rational basis test.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 03:19 PM
Not necessarily. The court ruled that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional under *ANY* standard of scrutiny, even under rational basis.

There are some protected classes which you can not discriminate against unless you pass heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny, but no group can be discriminated against if there is not at least a rational basis for it.

In other words, if the state passed a ban against blue-colored houses, and everyone with a blue house was given 5 years to re-paint, that would probably fail because of the 14th amendment under the rational basis test.

Yeah, I see what you mean. There really is no need to consider them a protected class in that case.

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 03:21 PM
After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause made equal protection of people in states a basic right.

But that doesn't repeal the 10th amendment. To me, and I understsand the courts disagree, the 14th amednment must work within the framework of the 10th amendment unless the 14th amendment specifically repeals the 10 amendment.

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 03:23 PM
Apparently it is, or is becoming one.

I agree, but congress must pass a law to make it so.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 03:26 PM
But that doesn't repeal the 10th amendment. To me, and I understsand the courts disagree, the 14th amednment must work within the framework of the 10th amendment unless the 14th amendment specifically repeals the 10 amendment.

It does work within the framework of the 10th Amendment. Or, there's nothing that says they're incompatible.

The 10th Amend says in part, "The powers . . . not prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States . . ."

Various forms of discrimination, however, are prohibited by the Constitution under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Garcia Bronco
02-07-2012, 03:26 PM
Yeah, I see what you mean. There really is no need to consider them a protected class in that case.

i would like to see the Feds and the states to get out of the marriage game altogether and then the problem goes away.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 03:27 PM
But that doesn't repeal the 10th amendment. To me, and I understsand the courts disagree, the 14th amednment must work within the framework of the 10th amendment unless the 14th amendment specifically repeals the 10 amendment.

You understand incorrectly. Your view does not make sense at all.

Latter amendments ALWAYS supercede earlier amendments and the original text of the constitution. They simply have to. If they did not, then amendments would be meaningless. The supreme court determines what the original text and the original 10 amendments mean, and if you are trying to pass an amendment to do something that their interpretation did not allow, they would simply say "sorry, we already told you the original text and the bill of rights doesn't allow that. This amendment means nothing. Carry on as before"

We'd have to throw out the constitution and ratify a new one every time we wanted to change something.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 03:29 PM
But that doesn't repeal the 10th amendment. To me, and I understand the courts disagree, the 14th amendment must work within the framework of the 10th amendment unless the 14th amendment specifically repeals the 10 amendment.

Well the 10th does say, "...or to the people". Other than that the 14th clearly says that a state can not create laws under certain circumstances. The 14th is a clear limitation on the law making abilities of individual states.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 03:30 PM
It does work within the framework of the 10th Amendment. Or, there's nothing that says they're incompatible.

The 10th Amend says in part, "The powers . . . not prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States . . ."

Various forms of discrimination, however, are prohibited by the Constitution under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

That works too, but the "latter amendments do not have priority over the text or earlier amendments" argument is illogical and wrong.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 03:31 PM
Well the 10th does say, "...or to the people". Other than that the 14th clearly says that a state can not create laws under certain circumstances. The 14th is a clear limitation on the law making abilities of individual states.

You are essentially saying that the newly-passed 14th amendment was at least partially unconstitutional.

That is impossible

Well, unless you have the view that to change anything in the text or the bill of rights, we must throw out the constitution and start over.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 03:32 PM
i would like to see the Feds and the states to get out of the marriage game altogether and then the problem goes away.

I agree. As I see it the government (at all levels) should function only as a record keeping device as far as marriage is concerned. Adult citizens can then get married as they see fit, either at an abiding house of worship or county seat.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 03:33 PM
That works too, but the "latter amendments do not have priority over the text or earlier amendments" argument is illogical and wrong.

I don't even think that the question of which clause gets priority based on its chronological drafting even gets mentioned because the Constitution is viewed as one complete, uncontradicted document. There's no priority either forward or back because there's nothing to prioritize.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 03:37 PM
I don't even think that the question of which clause gets priority based on its chronological drafting even gets mentioned because the Constitution is viewed as one complete, uncontradicted document. There's no priority either forward or back because there's nothing to prioritize.

You are wrong.

There certainly has been contradictions between amendments and the original text, and where those conflicts arise, latter amendments always take precedence.

Amendments are essentially orders to change the original text. Latter amendments contemplate earlier amendments when deciding if we want to vote for a change to the revised text. We list the amendments seperately just to allow the court to disagree with an earlier court and correct their mistakes.

Its not hard to understand, the constitution, at its core, is just a law. A supreme law to be sure, but still just a law. When we pass a law that contradicts an existing law, the newer law (at the same or higher level, a new lower-level law cant supercede higher-level law) always supercedes. This works with all kinds of laws, local, state, federal, and constitutional.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 03:37 PM
You are essentially saying that the newly-passed 14th amendment was at least partially unconstitutional.

That is impossible

Well, unless you have the view that to change anything in the text or the bill of rights, we must throw out the constitution and start over.

No, I mean that the 14th clearly puts a limit on an individual state's ability to create or enforce law. My understanding is that the 10th holds true unless it contradicts the 14th.

So states are free to enact and/or enforce their own laws except when those laws "...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."

Cave Johnson
02-07-2012, 03:39 PM
I think they should be.

Next time, put on better experts that articulate a rational basis for your position.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 03:40 PM
Next time, put on better experts that articulate a rational basis for your position.

Why? What's the point?

vailpass
02-07-2012, 03:40 PM
Next time, put on better experts that articulate a rational basis for your position.

LMAO u got a purty mouth nancy boy

DaveNull
02-07-2012, 03:51 PM
I'm a little rusty on this issue, but from what I can remember:

- If a law affects a class of people who are not already deemed a "protected class" then it is judged under a rational basis standard.
- The rational basis standard is ridiculously low. So low, in fact, that no matter how wacky the supposed basis for the law was it will be upheld as long as pure discrimination wasn't the underlying goal.
- Laws like this are put in place for purely discriminatory purposes and are per se unconstitutional.

The irony is that a state is more likely (from a constitutional standpoint) to be able to keep gay folks from getting married by NOT passing laws like this than if they do.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 03:54 PM
I agree with Pittsie's point that he prop 8 proponents really put on a horrible case, but even with that, this is an absurd ruling. After nearly a century and a half, we're suddenly deciding that our traditional marriage requirement of one man and one woman has no rational basis (which, as DaveNull points out, is an extremely low bar)? That's beyond ridiculous.

BucEyedPea
02-07-2012, 04:25 PM
You missed the part in his question about "prior to the Civil War." Everything from Lincoln on is tyranny. /Ron Paul

The incorporation doctrine is bogus and progressive like you don't apply it to bearing arms now do ya'?

The Tenth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

BIG_DADDY
02-07-2012, 04:39 PM
Let me guess, votes came down partisan lines again.

BucEyedPea
02-07-2012, 04:39 PM
The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to erode the idea of the Framers that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on Fed Gov't powers.

More and more, in the modern era of big govt, the Bill of Rights is being interpreted against the states in a way which put them more under the thumb of the Fed Gov't...something the Framers were against and states were afraid of which was why the Bill of Rights were added in the first place.

Even at the time the 14th was passed, the claim that such erosion on the states would be the result was DENIED by those recommending it, as it was originally intended to protect freed blacks in the post-Civil War period. Further its "privileges or immunities" do not clearly claim all the rights in the Bill of Rights...if you actually read it and which was understood by most of the ratifiers in 1866.

Unfortunately, even libertarians (such as Pilon at Cato) fall on both sides of this amendment. But imo it's arguable--as in NOT perfectly clear. So, why should it give us fundamental change to the federalist system we were given 1789? I say it shouldn't.

The 14th was also ratified at the point of a gun. The southern and border states decisely rejected it but had to ratify in order to end military rule.

Once again, the left progressives want to centralize more power by federalizing marriage. Yes there are some on the right that would like to do the same. But such matters have always been left to the states...in fact most things were left to the states.

IMO the 14th Amendment should be repealed and rewritten with tighter language.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 05:02 PM
You are wrong.

There certainly has been contradictions between amendments and the original text, and where those conflicts arise, latter amendments always take precedence.

Amendments are essentially orders to change the original text. Latter amendments contemplate earlier amendments when deciding if we want to vote for a change to the revised text. We list the amendments seperately just to allow the court to disagree with an earlier court and correct their mistakes.

Its not hard to understand, the constitution, at its core, is just a law. A supreme law to be sure, but still just a law. When we pass a law that contradicts an existing law, the newer law (at the same or higher level, a new lower-level law cant supercede higher-level law) always supercedes. This works with all kinds of laws, local, state, federal, and constitutional.

I'm not convinced you're right. Do you have any examples?

mlyonsd
02-07-2012, 05:40 PM
Get it to the SC already.

BIG_DADDY
02-07-2012, 05:42 PM
Get it to the SC already.

There are too many people who need to make their $$$$$ first. What happened today meant nothing.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 05:55 PM
I agree with Pittsie's point that he prop 8 proponents really put on a horrible case, but even with that, this is an absurd ruling. After nearly a century and a half, we're suddenly deciding that our traditional marriage requirement of one man and one woman has no rational basis (which, as DaveNull points out, is an extremely low bar)? That's beyond ridiculous.

Its not ridiculous.

Mere "tradition" is not sufficient, you have to provide a real, tangible governmental interest for the discrimination, and you need to have a plausible non-easily-refuted argument that your discrimination advances that governmental interest.

Gay marriage bans are arbitrary, just like blue house bans.

It was once traditional that the races should not intermarry. Whites marry whites, blacks marry blacks, and we had anti-miscegenation laws to enforce this tradition.

I see no difference between gay marriage bans and anti-miscegenation laws.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 06:01 PM
I'm a little rusty on this issue, but from what I can remember:

- If a law affects a class of people who are not already deemed a "protected class" then it is judged under a rational basis standard.
- The rational basis standard is ridiculously low. So low, in fact, that no matter how wacky the supposed basis for the law was it will be upheld as long as pure discrimination wasn't the underlying goal.
- Laws like this are put in place for purely discriminatory purposes and are per se unconstitutional.

The irony is that a state is more likely (from a constitutional standpoint) to be able to keep gay folks from getting married by NOT passing laws like this than if they do.

Yes, the rational basis hurdle is low, but gay marriage bans are so clearly arbitrary and unjustifiable that they fail to even meet that standard.

There is no governmental interest whatsoever for a gay marriage ban that can stand up to the rational basis test.

DaveNull
02-07-2012, 06:14 PM
You say that like we have some kind of disagreement.

We don't.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 06:24 PM
Its not ridiculous.

Mere "tradition" is not sufficient, you have to provide a real, tangible governmental interest for the discrimination, and you need to have a plausible non-easily-refuted argument that your discrimination advances that governmental interest.

Gay marriage bans are arbitrary, just like blue house bans.

It was once traditional that the races should not intermarry. Whites marry whites, blacks marry blacks, and we had anti-miscegenation laws to enforce this tradition.

I see no difference between gay marriage bans and anti-miscegenation laws.

This isn't about tradition. It's about the ridiculous idea that an accepted rational basis can disappear overnight after nearly 150 years of non-controversy.

The rational basis for opposite sex only marriage can be as simple as the promotion of childbearing unions.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 06:25 PM
Yes, the rational basis hurdle is low, but gay marriage bans are so clearly arbitrary and unjustifiable that they fail to even meet that standard.

There is no governmental interest whatsoever for a gay marriage ban that can stand up to the rational basis test.

FYI, the rational basis test wasn't intended to be the alnorth endorsed reason test.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 06:29 PM
This isn't about tradition. It's about the ridiculous idea that an accepted rational basis can disappear overnight after nearly 150 years of non-controversy.

The rational basis for opposite sex only marriage can be as simple as the promotion of childbearing unions.

There was no rational basis that could ever disappear for the last 150 years. A rational basis never existed.

That rational basis you stated, which is utterly laughable on its face, was put up, and it failed. The reason why it failed is obvious. The gay marriage ban does absolutely nothing whatsoever, and no sane person could ever expect it to do absolutely anything whatsoever, to promote childbearing unions.

Your rational basis is akin to "we are banning blue houses to reduce crime".

alnorth
02-07-2012, 06:31 PM
FYI, the rational basis test wasn't intended to be the alnorth endorsed reason test.

Its not an opinion. It is cold, solid, proven, fact.

There is zero compelling credible evidence that the gay marriage ban encourages gay people to become straight. There is a gigantic overwhelming pile of evidence to the contrary.

Your argument is basically "because I said so"

patteeu
02-07-2012, 06:37 PM
There was no rational basis that could ever disappear for the last 150 years. A rational basis never existed.

That rational basis you stated, which is utterly laughable on its face, was put up, and it failed. The reason why it failed is obvious. The gay marriage ban does absolutely nothing whatsoever, and no sane person could ever expect it to do absolutely anything whatsoever, to promote childbearing unions.

Your rational basis is akin to "we are banning blue houses to reduce crime".

As I said before, just because alnorth isn't capable of appreciating the rational basis doesn't make it irrational.

The reason why it failed is indeed obvious. It failed because, like yourself, a few judges are committed to finding a way to force gay marriage on society and are willing to ignore any rational basis advanced to do so.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 06:42 PM
Its not an opinion. It is cold, solid, proven, fact.

There is zero compelling credible evidence that the gay marriage ban encourages gay people to become straight. There is a gigantic overwhelming pile of evidence to the contrary.

Your argument is basically "because I said so"

The rational basis I advanced has nothing to do with turning gay people straight.

Furthermore, a rational basis doesn't need to be proven. It just needs to be plausible. Providing an incentive for couples comprised of one man and one woman to enter lifelong committed relationships will promote the type of activity that results in a child (i.e. sex between a man and a woman). Watering down that incentive by offering the very same thing to other groups of people will reduce that degree of promotion. It's how incentives work.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 06:59 PM
The rational basis I advanced has nothing to do with turning gay people straight.

Furthermore, a rational basis doesn't need to be proven. It just needs to be plausible. Providing an incentive for couples comprised of one man and one woman to enter lifelong committed relationships will promote the type of activity that results in a child (i.e. sex between a man and a woman). Watering down that incentive by offering the very same thing to other groups of people will reduce that degree of promotion. It's how incentives work.

Then why is it legal for opposite-sex couples to marry or stay married if they won't/can't have children?

alnorth
02-07-2012, 06:59 PM
As I said before, just because alnorth isn't capable of appreciating the rational basis doesn't make it irrational.

The reason why it failed is indeed obvious. It failed because, like yourself, a few judges are committed to finding a way to force gay marriage on society and are willing to ignore any rational basis advanced to do so.

"the rational-basis standard is not a toothless one." Matthew v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495,510(1976). "Even the standard of rationality ... must find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation." Heller, 509 U.S. at 321

You seem to believe the government could be doing the crossword puzzle while the hapless plaintiff speaks, then when its his turn, yawn, walk slowly to the bench, yell "my rational basis is (insert something silly here)". Smugly grin, walk back, finish his crossword puzzle, and wait for victory.

The rational basis argument you advanced is, in a word, idiotic.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 07:02 PM
The rational basis I advanced has nothing to do with turning gay people straight.

Furthermore, a rational basis doesn't need to be proven. It just needs to be plausible. Providing an incentive for couples comprised of one man and one woman to enter lifelong committed relationships will promote the type of activity that results in a child (i.e. sex between a man and a woman). Watering down that incentive by offering the very same thing to other groups of people will reduce that degree of promotion. It's how incentives work.

This is all old, sad, thoroughly discredited argument. Gay people (especially lesbians) have no problem bearing and rearing children. The state also has no problem letting them adopt, which contradicts their stated interest.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 07:16 PM
Then why is it legal for opposite-sex couples to marry or stay married if they won't/can't have children?

Because it's simpler to just have a one man plus one woman rule than it is to follow them around to make sure that they have kids. You don't need a perfectly effective policy to have a rational basis. You don't even need to have an effective policy. You just have to have a policy that can reasonably be believed to have some level of effectiveness. You've got a result in mind and you're committed to saying anything in order to achieve it, just like the judges who are substituting their own social policy for that of the legislative bodies of the states (including the proposition process in California).

patteeu
02-07-2012, 07:18 PM
"the rational-basis standard is not a toothless one." Matthew v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495,510(1976). "Even the standard of rationality ... must find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation." Heller, 509 U.S. at 321

You seem to believe the government could be doing the crossword puzzle while the hapless plaintiff speaks, then when its his turn, yawn, walk slowly to the bench, yell "my rational basis is (insert something silly here)". Smugly grin, walk back, finish his crossword puzzle, and wait for victory.

The rational basis argument you advanced is, in a word, idiotic.

This is an alnorth shortcoming, not a shortcoming with the rational basis argument I made. My argument is firmly rooted in reality, namely the reality that it takes a man and a woman to naturally produce a child.

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 07:18 PM
Just as long as they don't let ....oh wait I don't want to get banned again....

patteeu
02-07-2012, 07:21 PM
This is all old, sad, thoroughly discredited argument. Gay people (especially lesbians) have no problem bearing and rearing children. The state also has no problem letting them adopt, which contradicts their stated interest.

That doesn't have any bearing on my argument. The state can encourage childbearing through an opposite sex marriage incentive while at the same time enjoying the childbearing that people do outside of that incentive.

Letting gay people adopt doesn't contradict the stated interest. The more you post, the more clear it is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. You're apparently blinded by your ideology.

FD
02-07-2012, 07:35 PM
That doesn't have any bearing on my argument. The state can encourage childbearing through an opposite sex marriage incentive while at the same time enjoying the childbearing that people do outside of that incentive.

Letting gay people adopt doesn't contradict the stated interest. The more you post, the more clear it is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. You're apparently blinded by your ideology.

So, stripping the title of "marriage" from same sex civil unions is going to result in more children? You are going to need to walk me through that one.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 07:48 PM
So, stripping the title of "marriage" from same sex civil unions is going to result in more children? You are going to need to walk me through that one.

My argument isn't based on the title (although I suppose it could be). My argument is that it's rational to believe that providing an entire package of benefits (e.g. tax benefits, SS survivor benefits, etc.) to opposite sex couples but not to other lifestyle arrangements will encourage natural production of children (not to mention the potential extension of the rational basis to include providing a stable family with a male and a female role model for the rearing of the child).

If marrying someone of the opposite sex is worth $X (where X is a non-zero positive number) while partnering with someone of the same sex is worth $0, the marginal person who could go either way will have an incentive to marry someone of the other sex. This will increase the likelihood that that marginal person will have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex which in turn increases the likelihood that a child will be conceived.

FD
02-07-2012, 07:50 PM
My argument isn't based on the title (although I suppose it could be). My argument is that it's rational to believe that providing an entire package of benefits (e.g. tax benefits, SS survivor benefits, etc.) to opposite sex couples but not to other lifestyle arrangements will encourage natural production of children (not to mention the potential extension of the rational basis to include providing a stable family with a male and a female role model for the rearing of the child).

If marrying someone of the opposite sex is worth $X (where X is a non-zero positive number) while partnering with someone of the same sex is worth $0, the marginal person who could go either way will have an incentive to marry someone of the other sex. This will increase the likelihood that that marginal person will have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex which in turn increases the likelihood that a child will be conceived.

Thats all very nice, but not really relevant. California has a set of benefits for same sex civil unions which are untouched by Prop 8. All that law did was strip the title of "marriage" from those benefits. How does stripping the title for gay partnerships result in more children?

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 07:50 PM
Gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay there I feel better

patteeu
02-07-2012, 07:55 PM
Thats all very nice, but not really relevant. California has a set of benefits for same sex civil unions which are untouched by Prop 8. All that law did was strip the title of "marriage" from those benefits. How does stripping the title for gay partnerships result in more children?

Would California civil unions (as opposed to gay marriages) enable gay partners to claim "married" on federal tax forms or to claim survivor benefits from SS? I think the answer is no, but I don't know.

Even without these monetary benefits, there's an apparent attraction to the title of "marriage" (otherwise people like Andrew Sullivan wouldn't be arguing that anything short of actual gay "marriage" is unacceptable and people on the other side wouldn't be willing to accept unions but only if "marriage" remains man and woman only).

go bowe
02-07-2012, 08:02 PM
This isn't about tradition. It's about the ridiculous idea that an accepted rational basis can disappear overnight after nearly 150 years of non-controversy.

The rational basis for opposite sex only marriage can be as simple as the promotion of childbearing unions.

in what way does gay marriage un-promote childbearing unions?

would it take gay people out of the childbearing market?

would it somehow mean fewer childbearing-based marriages?

the basis has to be rational, simply setting out a basis which is neither supported by the facts or by logic does not a rational basis make...

FD
02-07-2012, 08:04 PM
Would California civil unions (as opposed to gay marriages) enable gay partners to claim "married" on federal tax forms or to claim survivor benefits from SS? I think the answer is no, but I don't know.

Even without these monetary benefits, there's an apparent attraction to the title of "marriage" (otherwise people like Andrew Sullivan wouldn't be arguing that anything short of actual gay "marriage" is unacceptable and people on the other side wouldn't be willing to accept unions but only if "marriage" remains man and woman only).

An "apparent attraction" is not a rational basis for stripping some relationships of equal status. Its not even close to a rational basis.

go bowe
02-07-2012, 08:10 PM
The rational basis I advanced has nothing to do with turning gay people straight.

Furthermore, a rational basis doesn't need to be proven. It just needs to be plausible. Providing an incentive for couples comprised of one man and one woman to enter lifelong committed relationships will promote the type of activity that results in a child (i.e. sex between a man and a woman). Watering down that incentive by offering the very same thing to other groups of people will reduce that degree of promotion. It's how incentives work.

the incentive, such as it may be, to traditional couples is not in any way impaired by also allowing gay marriages...

heterosexuals incentive to marry doesn't change somehow because other couples get married or not...

same argument with a different dressing...

i don't see any rational basis here either...

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 08:15 PM
Is getting fucked up the ass good for your rectum?

go bowe
02-07-2012, 08:15 PM
My argument isn't based on the title (although I suppose it could be). My argument is that it's rational to believe that providing an entire package of benefits (e.g. tax benefits, SS survivor benefits, etc.) to opposite sex couples but not to other lifestyle arrangements will encourage natural production of children (not to mention the potential extension of the rational basis to include providing a stable family with a male and a female role model for the rearing of the child).

If marrying someone of the opposite sex is worth $X (where X is a non-zero positive number) while partnering with someone of the same sex is worth $0, the marginal person who could go either way will have an incentive to marry someone of the other sex. This will increase the likelihood that that marginal person will have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex which in turn increases the likelihood that a child will be conceived.

marginal person?

what's that?

part gay?

deciding on what sex to marry has to do with incentives?

sorry, not rational...

in this case, not even plausible...

go bowe
02-07-2012, 08:18 PM
Is getting fucked up the ass good for your rectum?

as long as you don't date men with huge cocks...

remember, seek moderation in all things my son...

La literatura
02-07-2012, 08:23 PM
Is getting fucked up the ass good for your rectum?

It's good for your prostate. More action and blood flow = less free radicals = less prostate cancer.

DaveNull
02-07-2012, 08:28 PM
If marrying someone of the opposite sex is worth $X (where X is a non-zero positive number) while partnering with someone of the same sex is worth $0, the marginal person who could go either way will have an incentive to marry someone of the other sex. This will increase the likelihood that that marginal person will have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex which in turn increases the likelihood that a child will be conceived.

Quite the romantic, aren't you? Did you present this supporting documentation and analysis to your wife when you proposed?

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 08:37 PM
Just in time for Valentines. Say it up the butthole.

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 08:40 PM
They should call it "The Ramrod Decision"

patteeu
02-07-2012, 08:40 PM
in what way does gay marriage un-promote childbearing unions?

If you give a benefit to everyone, it's not an incentive.

For example, if they gave everyone who bought a car during the cash for clunkers program the cash regardless of whether they traded in a clunker or not, very few people would have traded in their clunkers.

would it take gay people out of the childbearing market?

would it somehow mean fewer childbearing-based marriages?

Yes, I think it would. Making gay marriage equally attractive as traditional marriage probably would take a few people out of the childbearing market. Those people would be the ones who could go either way with their lifestyle but who no longer have an incentive to break the tie in favor of traditional marriage. I doubt that it would be a huge impact, but that's not necessary.

the basis has to be rational, simply setting out a basis which is neither supported by the facts or by logic does not a rational basis make...

Yes, of course. The basis I proposed is rational in compliance with your definition.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 08:44 PM
An "apparent attraction" is not a rational basis for stripping some relationships of equal status. Its not even close to a rational basis.

That's an absurd position to take. I used the term "apparent" because my argument is supported by real life examples even though I don't personally find the title very important. You see, that's the way a judge is supposed to assess rationality. He's not supposed to impose his own views or his own value judgments on the argument.

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 08:48 PM
So if Gay people who don't choose their orientation have incentive to bear children by entering into a heterosexual marriage and then have these kids wouldn't genetics dictate that their offspring will be, of no choice of their own, attracted to their own sex, thus, ironically, in the pursuit of making traditional marriage more attractive, making more Gay people?

FD
02-07-2012, 08:54 PM
That's an absurd position to take. I used the term "apparent" because my argument is supported by real life examples even though I don't personally find the title very important. You see, that's the way a judge is supposed to assess rationality. He's not supposed to impose his own views or his own value judgments on the argument.

It wasn't the word "apparent" I took issue with. You gave no basis for stripping certain relationships of equal status except that some people want to do it. Thats not a rational basis. Groups of people in a democracy are quite capable of being irrational.

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 08:56 PM
It wasn't the word "apparent" I took issue with. You gave no basis for stripping certain relationships of equal status except that some people want to do it. Thats not a rational basis. Groups of people in a democracy are quite capable of being irrational.

Teee-heee you said stripping

patteeu
02-07-2012, 08:57 PM
the incentive, such as it may be, to traditional couples is not in any way impaired by also allowing gay marriages...

heterosexuals incentive to marry doesn't change somehow because other couples get married or not...

same argument with a different dressing...

i don't see any rational basis here either...

Of course the incentive is impaired.

If McDonalds offers Big Macs for a penny, they're likely to sell a lot of Big Macs. If they offer any sandwich for a penny, a lot of people who would have ordered the Big Mac under the first promotion but who like one of their other sandwiches better, will now order their favorite sandwich instead.

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 09:00 PM
Of course the incentive is impaired.

If McDonalds offers Big Macs for a penny, they're likely to sell a lot of Big Macs. If they offer any sandwich for a penny, a lot of people who would have ordered the Big Mac under the first promotion but who like one of their other sandwiches better, will now order their favorite sandwich instead.

What kind of sandwich fucks another sandwich up the ass hole?

patteeu
02-07-2012, 09:02 PM
It wasn't the word "apparent" I took issue with. You gave no basis for stripping certain relationships of equal status except that some people want to do it. Thats not a rational basis. Groups of people in a democracy are quite capable of being irrational.

The rational basis is the idea that if you provide an incentive for opposite sex couples to commit to lifelong partnerships, it will encourage child bearing. Saying that I didn't provide a rational basis doesn't make it disappear. It really doesn't matter whether you think it's an effective policy or a fair policy.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 09:02 PM
Quite the romantic, aren't you? Did you present this supporting documentation and analysis to your wife when you proposed?

She wouldn't have married me if it weren't for the tax break.

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 09:06 PM
She wouldn't have married me if it weren't for the tax break.

Never explain love

patteeu
02-07-2012, 09:07 PM
Never explain love

That's probably good advice.

FD
02-07-2012, 09:08 PM
The rational basis is the idea that if you provide an incentive for opposite sex couples to commit to lifelong partnerships, it will encourage child bearing. Saying that I didn't provide a rational basis doesn't make it disappear. It really doesn't matter whether you think it's an effective policy or a fair policy.

I think you are kind of lost here. I actually agree that states probably have the right to provide certain benefits only to opposite sex partners to encourage children and them being raised in a good environment. Thats not the issue here though.

California previously allowed both same sex and opposite sex marriages, they just passed a law which changes nothing about the benefits they provide but strips the title of "marriage" from one group. There is clearly no rational basis to strip that title. It changes nothing about the incentives you care about and serves no purpose other than to lower the status of gay citizens. Thats unconstitutional.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 09:11 PM
I think you are kind of lost here. I actually agree that states probably have the right to provide certain benefits only to opposite sex partners to encourage children and them being raised in a good environment. Thats not the issue here though.

California previously allowed both same sex and opposite sex marriages, they just passed a law which changes nothing about the benefits they provide but strips the title of "marriage" from one group. There is clearly no rational basis to strip that title. It changes nothing about the incentives you care about and serves no purpose other than to lower the status of gay citizens. Thats unconstitutional.

As I mentioned before, the title itself is an incentive as evidenced by the number of people for whom it makes a deal-breaking difference.

It's certainly not a convincing incentive for me because I don't care about the title. But my personal viewpoint isn't the right test. BTW, I'm in favor of gay marriage. I just don't think we should contort our constitution to make it happen.

FD
02-07-2012, 09:13 PM
As I mentioned before, the title itself is an incentive as evidenced by the number of people for whom it makes a deal-breaking difference.

How many people do you think are out there currently trying to decide whether to marry a man or a woman, and will have their opinion changed by whether or not one of them gets to be described as a "marriage"? Ballpark figure.

Pioli Zombie
02-07-2012, 09:16 PM
I want to call the Hersheys 800 number and ask them if they need any fudgepackers

patteeu
02-07-2012, 09:20 PM
How many people do you think are out there currently trying to decide whether to marry a man or a woman, and will have their opinion changed by whether or not one of them gets to be described as a "marriage"? Ballpark figure.

I don't know. I wouldn't think the number would be very large.

I checked up on California's domestic partnership law and found that while it provides equal access to state benefits compared to marriage, it doesn't provide the same access to federal benefits. So there is actually a monetary benefit in addition to the benefit of the title.

FD
02-07-2012, 09:23 PM
So there you have it, the argument to take to the judges to demonstrate a rational basis for this law is "I don't know and I dont think the number is very large." Sounds like a winning argument

patteeu
02-07-2012, 09:27 PM
So there you have it, the argument to take to the judges to defend this law is "I don't know and I dont think the number is very large." Sounds like a winning argument

The number doesn't have to be large. The theory just has to be rational. At least you've abandoned the argument that it's not.

And, of course, you're completely ignoring the fact that there is a significant monetary incentive difference.

listopencil
02-07-2012, 09:30 PM
Because it's simpler to just have a one man plus one woman rule than it is to follow them around to make sure that they have kids.

It's simpler not to have any laws regarding marriage at all, if simplicity really is your goal.


You don't need a perfectly effective policy to have a rational basis.Yes, you do. Or the law is invalid in this case.

You don't even need to have an effective policy.Yes, you do. Human rights really are that important in America.

You just have to have a policy that can reasonably be believed to have some level of effectiveness.That's just not good enough.

You've got a result in mind and you're committed to saying anything in order to achieve it, just like the judges who are substituting their own social policy for that of the legislative bodies of the states (including the proposition process in California).No, I just held up a mirror to your earlier statement. My post was ridiculous because it perfectly reflected yours.

FD
02-07-2012, 09:37 PM
The number doesn't have to be large. The theory just has to be rational. At least you've abandoned the argument that it's not.

And, of course, you're completely ignoring the fact that there is a significant monetary incentive difference.

Just so its clear, you think the rational basis for the law stripping gay partnerships of equal status is:

1) There exist people trying to decide whether to marry someone of their own gender or of the opposite gender.

2) These people are going to make their decision on the basis of whether their partnership is recognized as a "marriage" as opposed to a "civil union."

3) Some of the people who choose opposite gender partnerships are consequently more likely to raise a child then if they had chosen a same gender partnership.

4) The extra child benefits the state in some undefined manner.

Pretty much each link in your logic is flimsy at best. I'm not sure any single one of these steps holds up, let alone all of them. You can't just throw a theory out there, you know, it has to be something that withstands some measure of scrutiny. Yours clearly fails and I think you know it at this point.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 09:41 PM
It's simpler not to have any laws regarding marriage at all, if simplicity really is your goal.

Simplicity wasn't the goal, childbearing was. Simplicity is a secondary consideration. The policy doesn't have to be perfect and it certainly doesn't have to be perfect in the opinion of listopencil. The job of the legislature is to debate these various considerations and come up with a consensus. Concensus is often not optimal.

IYes, you do. Or the law is invalid in this case.

Yes, you do. Human rights really are that important in America.

That's just not good enough.

You clearly don't understand the "rational basis" concept.

How do you account for all the other laws that are based on imperfect models? For example, we have a simple bright line rule for DUI despite the fact that some people can perform better at higher levels of blood alcohol content than others. We also have simple bright line rules for the age at which people can start voting and start entering into contracts despite the fact that people mature at different rates and some 16 year olds might be more responsible and thoughtful than some 25 year olds.

No, I just held up a mirror to your earlier statement. My post was ridiculous because it perfectly reflected yours.

Uh, no, you didn't. Your post was only ridiculous because it was so tangential to the conversation and because it betrays your lack of understanding.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 09:50 PM
Just so its clear, you think the rational basis for the law stripping gay partnerships of equal status is:

1) There exist people trying to decide whether to marry someone of their own gender or of the opposite gender.

2) These people are going to make their decision on the basis of whether their partnership is recognized as a "marriage" as opposed to a "civil union."

3) Some of the people who choose opposite gender partnerships are consequently more likely to raise a child then if they had chosen a same gender partnership.

4) The extra child benefits the state in some undefined manner.

Pretty much each link in your logic is flimsy at best. I'm not sure any single one of these steps holds up, let alone all of them. You can't just throw a theory out there, you know, it has to be something that withstands some measure of scrutiny. Yours clearly fails and I think you know it at this point.

If the logic of each step were flimsy, you'd have attempted to prove it false by now. Your assertion that they're flimsy is worthless. And again, your number (2) ignores the fact that the incentive is significantly greater than just the name of the partnership.

Edit: Oh, and one other correction. I'm not saying that the rational basis I offered is THE rational basis behind prop 8. Nor am I saying it's the only rational basis that could be offered.

FD
02-07-2012, 09:55 PM
If the logic of each step were flimsy, you'd have attempted to prove it false by now. Your assertion that they're flimsy is worthless. And again, your number (2) ignores the fact that the incentive is significantly greater than just the name of the partnership.


You've got the burden of proof backwards here. Its on you to prove each logical step as true.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 09:55 PM
Yes, I think it would. Making gay marriage equally attractive as traditional marriage probably would take a few people out of the childbearing market. Those people would be the ones who could go either way with their lifestyle but who no longer have an incentive to break the tie in favor of traditional marriage. I doubt that it would be a huge impact, but that's not necessary.

This is the classic argument of (borrowing from the late Sam Kinison), "oh man, I was born with this strong overwhelming urge where when I see another man's hairy ass I find love, but.... no, I can't do it, because of the taxes! Oh, God the taxes, I must pay less money! Oh well. Bare boobs mean nothing to me, but I want to save a little money, so, I gotta get a wife and enter into a loveless marriage!"

People do make that argument (in more polite language) in court, but the usual reaction is outright disbelief.

go bowe
02-07-2012, 09:58 PM
i can relate to a lack of understanding...

alnorth
02-07-2012, 09:58 PM
I don't know. I wouldn't think the number would be very large.

I checked up on California's domestic partnership law and found that while it provides equal access to state benefits compared to marriage, it doesn't provide the same access to federal benefits. So there is actually a monetary benefit in addition to the benefit of the title.

irrelevant. Gay people can get married in Iowa, but the feds still don't recognize it.

CA has no control over federal benefits. Both parties actually stipulated to the fact that there was no economic difference between marriage and domestic partnerships, because federal benefits could not be evaluated.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 10:00 PM
You've got the burden of proof backwards here. Its on you to prove each logical step as true.

No it isn't. My steps just need to be rational.

Is it rational to believe that incentives can influence human behavior? Yes

Is it rational to believe that a man/woman lifelong partnership is more likely to result in a child than a man/man lifelong partnership or a woman/woman lifelong partnership? Yes

Is it rational to believe that childbearing is a benefit to the state? Yes

There, I've carried my burden. Your turn.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 10:03 PM
Yes, you do. Or the law is invalid in this case.

I have to turn around and agree with patteu here. It does not have to be "perfectly effective" unless we're talking about a protected group, and at this point we are not.

However, it does have to be reasonably effective, and gay marriage bans do virtually nothing, nor can they be sanely expected to do anything, for the stated governmental interests. That is why it fails the rational basis standard.

The government can impose an imperfect discriminatory solution instead of a perfect solution, as long as the imperfect solution is not crazily inferior or more expensive, etc, and does a fairly decent job of advancing their goals.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 10:03 PM
This is the classic argument of (borrowing from the late Sam Kinison), "oh man, I was born with this strong overwhelming urge where when I see another man's hairy ass I find love, but.... no, I can't do it, because of the taxes! Oh, God the taxes, I must pay less money! Oh well. Bare boobs mean nothing to me, but I want to save a little money, so, I gotta get a wife and enter into a loveless marriage!"

People do make that argument (in more polite language) in court, but the usual reaction is outright disbelief.

You need to make a point if you want to participate. This post just makes it look like you stereotype people into neat and completely distinct little categories.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 10:05 PM
No it isn't. My steps just need to be rational.

Is it rational to believe that incentives can influence human behavior? Yes

Is it rational to believe that a man/woman lifelong partnership is more likely to result in a child than a man/man lifelong partnership or a woman/woman lifelong partnership? Yes

Is it rational to believe that childbearing is a benefit to the state? Yes

There, I've carried my burden. Your turn.

You have only stated the governmental interest. You must show a rational reason why your solution advances it, and it does not.

Specifically, it is not rational for you to argue that you can encourage someone who would otherwise be gay, to instead choose to be straight via the word marriage.

alnorth
02-07-2012, 10:08 PM
You need to make a point if you want to participate. This post just makes it look like you stereotype people into neat and completely distinct little categories.

:spock:

You are not that thick. My point was clear. Let me spell it out more simply, just in case it was not.

Tax benefits will not encourage someone to enter into a heterosexual marriage if they were previously inclined to enter into a homosexual relationship.

Given that, your solution does nothing to advance the governmental interest.

Given that, you fail the 14th amendment.

ClevelandBronco
02-07-2012, 10:19 PM
You liberal shitheads seem to have a pathological incapability of understanding proper procedure. You're our maladjusted children that see shiny toys and must have them immediately.

Unfortunately, your childishness is completely unsurprising to me. We owe you all an apology for allowing you to become what you are.

go bowe
02-07-2012, 10:32 PM
You liberal shitheads seem to have a pathological incapability of understanding proper procedure. You're our maladjusted children that see shiny toys and must have them immediately.

Unfortunately, your childishness is completely unsurprising to me. We owe you all an apology for allowing you to become what you are.

that's all well and good, but in this case the shiny toys that we must have are our constitutional rights...

ClevelandBronco
02-07-2012, 10:35 PM
that's all well and good, but in this case the shiny toys that we must have are our constitutional rights...

Yeah. Bullshit they are.

Allow me to apologize to you personally.

Pioli Zombie
02-08-2012, 04:23 AM
that's all well and good, but in this case the shiny toys that we must have are our constitutional rights...

And dildos

patteeu
02-08-2012, 07:36 AM
You have only stated the governmental interest. You must show a rational reason why your solution advances it, and it does not.

Specifically, it is not rational for you to argue that you can encourage someone who would otherwise be gay, to instead choose to be straight via the word marriage.

I didn't say that I'd encourage someone who was gay to be straight. I said I'd encourage someone who might opt for a same sex marriage to opt for a traditional marriage instead. That's completely rational. There are plenty of cases of gay people getting married and having families (see Gov. James McGreevey as a prominent example) and that leaves aside the fact that gay/straight isn't a binary situation.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 07:39 AM
:spock:

You are not that thick. My point was clear. Let me spell it out more simply, just in case it was not.

Tax benefits will not encourage someone to enter into a heterosexual marriage if they were previously inclined to enter into a homosexual relationship.

Given that, your solution does nothing to advance the governmental interest.

Given that, you fail the 14th amendment.

Of course they will, in some cases. The greater the incentive, the more effective it will be at influencing behavior. We really can't have this discussion if you throw out all rationality in order to cling to your preferred position. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Mr. Kotter
02-08-2012, 08:48 AM
Well, most of us should wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in before either side get too excited either way. Guess time will tell. If the current SC is willing to conflate and blur the line between corporations and individuals, and between campaign contributions and speech....maybe they'll refuse to acknowledge the distrinction between civil unions and marriage as well.

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 09:20 AM
No it isn't. My steps just need to be rational.

Is it rational to believe that incentives can influence human behavior? Yes

Is it rational to believe that a man/woman lifelong partnership is more likely to result in a child than a man/man lifelong partnership or a woman/woman lifelong partnership? Yes

Is it rational to believe that childbearing is a benefit to the state? Yes

There, I've carried my burden. Your turn.

We allow 90 year olds or the sterile to marry, without the slightest chance of that relationship resulting in childbearing. And gays can adopt just like straights.

You're citing some idealized form of marriage, not the current form where heteros can get married as many times as possible. It's comparing apples to aids trees.

Pioli Zombie
02-08-2012, 09:24 AM
I like when people say "those Gay people are taking their lifestyle and shoving it down my throat" the irony in that is hilarious

patteeu
02-08-2012, 09:46 AM
We allow 90 year olds or the sterile to marry, without the slightest chance of that relationship resulting in childbearing. And gays can adopt just like straights.

You're citing some idealized form of marriage, not the current form where heteros can get married as many times as possible. It's comparing apples to aids trees.

We allow morons to vote when they reach age 18 too (and democrats are forever thankful). Like I said before, the policy doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be rational. A simple man/woman rule rather than a more complicated rule requiring a medical exam to determine fertility is a choice best left to and evaluated by the legislature. We could talk about an endless series of laws that are imperfectly formed to achieve the desired result.

DenverChief
02-08-2012, 10:59 AM
The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to erode the idea of the Framers that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on Fed Gov't powers.

More and more, in the modern era of big govt, the Bill of Rights is being interpreted against the states in a way which put them more under the thumb of the Fed Gov't...something the Framers were against and states were afraid of which was why the Bill of Rights were added in the first place.

Even at the time the 14th was passed, the claim that such erosion on the states would be the result was DENIED by those recommending it, as it was originally intended to protect freed blacks in the post-Civil War period. Further its "privileges or immunities" do not clearly claim all the rights in the Bill of Rights...if you actually read it and which was understood by most of the ratifiers in 1866.

Unfortunately, even libertarians (such as Pilon at Cato) fall on both sides of this amendment. But imo it's arguable--as in NOT perfectly clear. So, why should it give us fundamental change to the federalist system we were given 1789? I say it shouldn't.

The 14th was also ratified at the point of a gun. The southern and border states decisely rejected it but had to ratify in order to end military rule.

Once again, the left progressives want to centralize more power by federalizing marriage. Yes there are some on the right that would like to do the same. But such matters have always been left to the states...in fact most things were left to the states.

IMO the 14th Amendment should be repealed and rewritten with tighter language.

Without the 14th the state wouldn't have to abide by your 4th amendment right because that only applies to the federal government. (Mapp v Ohio)

DenverChief
02-08-2012, 11:06 AM
No it isn't. My steps just need to be rational.

Is it rational to believe that incentives can influence human behavior? Yes

Is it rational to believe that a man/woman lifelong partnership is more likely to result in a child than a man/man lifelong partnership or a woman/woman lifelong partnership? Yes

Is it rational to believe that childbearing is a benefit to the state? Yes

There, I've carried my burden. Your turn.

Your argument is invalid because prop 8 proposed no change to any other California law that already addresses adoption/procreation. Therefore any argument claim this as a rational basis fails.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 11:10 AM
Your argument is invalid because prop 8 proposed no change to any other California law that already addresses adoption/procreation. Therefore any argument claim this as a rational basis fails.

I don't understand what you're saying here. No other law needs to be changed for my rational basis to apply. The state can have more than one law intended to support a particular policy goal.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 12:02 PM
The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to erode the idea of the Framers that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on Fed Gov't powers.

More and more, in the modern era of big govt, the Bill of Rights is being interpreted against the states in a way which put them more under the thumb of the Fed Gov't...something the Framers were against and states were afraid of which was why the Bill of Rights were added in the first place.

Even at the time the 14th was passed, the claim that such erosion on the states would be the result was DENIED by those recommending it, as it was originally intended to protect freed blacks in the post-Civil War period. Further its "privileges or immunities" do not clearly claim all the rights in the Bill of Rights...if you actually read it and which was understood by most of the ratifiers in 1866.

Unfortunately, even libertarians (such as Pilon at Cato) fall on both sides of this amendment. But imo it's arguable--as in NOT perfectly clear. So, why should it give us fundamental change to the federalist system we were given 1789? I say it shouldn't.

The 14th was also ratified at the point of a gun. The southern and border states decisely rejected it but had to ratify in order to end military rule.

Once again, the left progressives want to centralize more power by federalizing marriage. Yes there are some on the right that would like to do the same. But such matters have always been left to the states...in fact most things were left to the states.

IMO the 14th Amendment should be repealed and rewritten with tighter language.

This deserves to be addressed, which I want to do so later.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 01:42 PM
The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to erode the idea of the Framers that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on Fed Gov't powers.

It's true. The Civil War, Reformation and the Post-War Amendments are the fundamental change in American history. The Constitution was originally dedicated to federal government constraints, and states were free to violate rights all they wanted. Even rights that we today consider fundamental to human liberty.

More and more, in the modern era of big govt, the Bill of Rights is being interpreted against the states in a way which put them more under the thumb of the Fed Gov't...something the Framers were against and states were afraid of which was why the Bill of Rights were added in the first place.

Sure. The Bill of Rights have nearly all been incorporated to the states. The Founders would be quite surprised at this. At the same time, aren't our Bill of Rights pretty strong statements of freedoms we hold dear, anyway? And do they not still constrain the federal government? Yes, they certainly do. They do not enlarge the scope of federal government police power.

Even at the time the 14th was passed, the claim that such erosion on the states would be the result was DENIED by those recommending it, as it was originally intended to protect freed blacks in the post-Civil War period. Further its "privileges or immunities" do not clearly claim all the rights in the Bill of Rights...if you actually read it and which was understood by most of the ratifiers in 1866.

It's a great historical debate and a great legal debate. If anyone wants to do seriously important primary research, have at it: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor39

Unfortunately, even libertarians (such as Pilon at Cato) fall on both sides of this amendment. But imo it's arguable--as in NOT perfectly clear. So, why should it give us fundamental change to the federalist system we were given 1789? I say it shouldn't.

Good question. I say it should, however. Why? Because of the fundamental human rights involved, which included slavery, institutional racism, and the denial of liberty imposed in the early Republic. I say that the present should not be gripped down by the dead hand of the past, especially if injustice results, which it did.



IMO the 14th Amendment should be repealed and rewritten with tighter language.

Such as?

La literatura
02-08-2012, 01:45 PM
We allow morons to vote when they reach age 18 too (and democrats are forever thankful). Like I said before, the policy doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be rational. A simple man/woman rule rather than a more complicated rule requiring a medical exam to determine fertility is a choice best left to and evaluated by the legislature. We could talk about an endless series of laws that are imperfectly formed to achieve the desired result.

Are we certain the court applied rational review, and not intermediate scrutiny? I haven't read the opinion and I'd rather not.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 01:49 PM
Are we certain the court applied rational review, and not intermediate scrutiny? I haven't read the opinion and I'd rather not.

Someone earlier in the thread said that the rational basis test was applicable. I assume they are right, but I haven't read the decision either.

whoman69
02-08-2012, 02:10 PM
Someone earlier in the thread said that the rational basis test was applicable. I assume they are right, but I haven't read the decision either.

You can rationalize anything. The question should become is it fair. Are you making different laws for different segments of society? I think that is exactly what the 14th amendment was trying to fight even if at the time it was put forth with the ideas of blacks. Separate but equal has long been seen as an unviable state. Its not possible. The fact is that hetero couples have more rights than gay couples.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 02:11 PM
From Volokh:

2. The Ninth Circuit did not decide that all opposite-sex-only marriage recognition rules are unconstitutional. Rather, it concluded that when a state has already recognized same-sex civil unions that are functionally equivalent or nearly equivalent to marriage, denying the symbolic recognition provided by the label “marriage” is no longer rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court did not decide whether the general constitutional right to marry that applies to same-sex couples, or whether opposite-sex-only recognition rules are generally unconstitutional on the grounds that discrimination based on sexual orientation requires “strict scrutiny” or “intermediate scrutiny” and fails that scrutiny. It only applied the rational basis test, and held that the regime of civil unions but not same-sex marriage lacks a rational basis.

http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/thoughts-on-the-ninth-circuits-same-sex-marriage-decision/

patteeu
02-08-2012, 02:12 PM
You can rationalize anything. The question should become is it fair. Are you making different laws for different segments of society? I think that is exactly what the 14th amendment was trying to fight even if at the time it was put forth with the ideas of blacks. Separate but equal has long been seen as an unviable state. Its not possible. The fact is that hetero couples have more rights than gay couples.

If you don't think the constitution is fair, you should propose a new amendment rather than distorting an old one. We have all kinds of different laws for different segments of society. Take the tax code and it's different treatment of single and married taxpayers, for example. Does your distorted view of the 14th amendment invalidate that too?

La literatura
02-08-2012, 02:14 PM
You can rationalize anything. The question should become is it fair. Are you making different laws for different segments of society? I think that is exactly what the 14th amendment was trying to fight even if at the time it was put forth with the ideas of blacks. Separate but equal has long been seen as an unviable state. Its not possible. The fact is that hetero couples have more rights than gay couples.

The question cannot just be 'is it fair?' because you are left with no real standard. Life's not fair, yet we want fairness in law. Well, laws are inherently fair to some, unfair to others in a way. Imagine a 17 year old who is smarter than your average 18 year old at the voting booth. He's turned away. Not fair? No, but it doesn't matter.

BIG_DADDY
02-08-2012, 02:54 PM
The California issue is rooted in language. Before and after Proposition 8, gay couples in California had the same rights as heterosexual couples when it came to adoption, benefits, hospital access and all other legal aspects of marriage. Yet opponents and proponents alike are convinced that the word “marriage” means everything.

This isn't about rights or discrimination. Prop 8 is about sodomizing christianity.

Pioli Zombie
02-08-2012, 03:01 PM
Gay

orange
02-08-2012, 03:21 PM
From Volokh:

2. The Ninth Circuit did not decide that all opposite-sex-only marriage recognition rules are unconstitutional. Rather, it concluded that when a state has already recognized same-sex civil unions that are functionally equivalent or nearly equivalent to marriage, denying the symbolic recognition provided by the label “marriage” is no longer rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court did not decide whether the general constitutional right to marry that applies to same-sex couples, or whether opposite-sex-only recognition rules are generally unconstitutional on the grounds that discrimination based on sexual orientation requires “strict scrutiny” or “intermediate scrutiny” and fails that scrutiny. It only applied the rational basis test, and held that the regime of civil unions but not same-sex marriage lacks a rational basis.

http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/thoughts-on-the-ninth-circuits-same-sex-marriage-decision/

Unfortunately, volokh articles weren't up yet early this morning so I read the forty page dissent - next time I'll just apply a hammer directly to my forehead.

It was really kind of bizarre. He barely touched on his actual objection, perhaps one page or so. The rest was detailing various precedents then indicating that this case is different. The whole thing read not so much as a dissent as a model for future courts to not apply this as precedent.

He concluded that only two of the possible "rational bases" deserved to be considered because they had been accepted by other courts (although he only provided one example from Nebraska, unless I missed something while lapsing in and out of catatonia). They are (1) providing an incentive for stable child-raising relationships, and (2) an incentive for mother and father families. He then mentions how the majority tossed those rationales because nothing in California law gives any preference to married hetero couples as parents; he counters this by quoting some decision that says essentially that "rational basis" doesn't actually have to be rational. He quickly drops this and goes on to argue other matters for ten more pages.

As I said, it is more of a brief than a dissent. But a powerful brief. There is an abundance of precedence that says this ruling will never apply anywhere but California.

orange
02-08-2012, 03:29 PM
The California issue is rooted in language. Before and after Proposition 8, gay couples in California had the same rights as heterosexual couples when it came to adoption, benefits, hospital access and all other legal aspects of marriage. Yet opponents and proponents alike are convinced that the word “marriage” means everything.

This isn't about rights or discrimination. Prop 8 is about sodomizing christianity.

... Because, as is universally known, Christianity has a monopoly on "marriage." They're the ONLY PEOPLE EVER to have "marriage."

DaveNull
02-08-2012, 07:31 PM
It was really kind of bizarre. He barely touched on his actual objection, perhaps one page or so. The rest was detailing various precedents then indicating that this case is different. The whole thing read not so much as a dissent as a model for future courts to not apply this as precedent.

It's almost like he's a judge on an appeals court or something.

orange
02-08-2012, 07:38 PM
It's almost like he's a judge on an appeals court or something.

It's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you can give an example from your extensive knowledge of a dissent that spends 39 pages detailing why the decision is correct because this case is so different than any other, and a one page throwaway on why the decision could be wrong.

Or perhaps you would like to address the actual subject matter. Oh, no, not that.

DaveNull
02-08-2012, 07:43 PM
Clearly you missed my commentary a few pages back.

There are plenty of dissents that are like that, but no I'm not going to paw through a bunch of case law to give you citations. I've read dissents that essentially agreed with the outcome, but dissented from the majority because they chose to get there a different way.

orange
02-08-2012, 07:58 PM
Clearly you missed my commentary a few pages back.

:hmmm:

I'm a little rusty on this issue, but from what I can remember:

- If a law affects a class of people who are not already deemed a "protected class" then it is judged under a rational basis standard.
- The rational basis standard is ridiculously low. So low, in fact, that no matter how wacky the supposed basis for the law was it will be upheld as long as pure discrimination wasn't the underlying goal.
- Laws like this are put in place for purely discriminatory purposes and are per se unconstitutional.

The irony is that a state is more likely (from a constitutional standpoint) to be able to keep gay folks from getting married by NOT passing laws like this than if they do.

You say that like we have some kind of disagreement.

We don't.

Quite the romantic, aren't you? Did you present this supporting documentation and analysis to your wife when you proposed?

BRILLIANT!!~! A Veritable Monument To Jurisprudence! :clap::clap::clap:

There are plenty of dissents that are like that, but no I'm not going to paw through a bunch of case law to give you citations.

iow You don't know of any.

I've read dissents that essentially agreed with the outcome, but dissented from the majority because they chose to get there a different way.

Pardon me, counselor, but wouldn't those be concurrences, not dissents?

orange
02-08-2012, 08:16 PM
Judge N. Randy Smith's Dissent in Today's Prop 8 Ruling: A Preview of Vacuous Arguments to Come?

David Groshoff
Law professor and Business Law Center Director, Western State University College of Law
Posted: 02/ 7/2012 7:10 pm

While many people are celebrating the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the Prop 8 case, I'll take this opportunity to use my platform for the usual buzzkill for a while, since a stay of this decision is in place until at least the end of this month, meaning justice delayed is justice denied.

No surprise should exist that despite the well-written and narrowly approached opinion by the majority in today's Prop 8 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith wrote a weak and ridiculous dissent that provides some preview of what may happen should this case reach the United States Supreme Court.

Smith is an appointee of George W. Bush and a 1977 graduate of Brigham Young University's (BYU's) J. Reuben Clark Law School. And Smith seemed to be following the lead of a current BYU law professor, Lynn Wardle, who not only teaches at Smith's alma mater but whose name also appears in the "Counsel Listing" on the Prop 8 case in his capacity with the anti-gay Marriage Law Project at BYU's law school. Professor Wardle is notorious for anti-gay rhetoric that includes comparing gay people with rapists, child molesters, and drunk drivers. Meanwhile, earlier this week, the CEO of the largest affiliated controlling shareholder of my law school made a video supporting equal marriage rights.

Following Professor Wardle's lead at his alma mater, Judge Smith gratuitously quoted Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (in other words, Scalia's losing position in that case), the case that struck down all sodomy laws among consenting adults in the U.S., in Smith's Prop 8 dissent. Why? So Smith could copy Wardle's and Scalia's invective by comparing same-sex couples seeking to be married in California with people who engage in "adult incest ... [and] bestiality" as apparently similar "moral choices." But Smith's dissent transparently represents the same tired argument trotted out by social conservatives time and again for little more than the effect of sadly getting those canards into the dissenting opinion.

In addition, despite the Supreme Court's result in Lawrence, and despite the Court's holding in Romer v. Evans (the case that served as the underpinning for today's Ninth Circuit's Prop 8 decision), Judge Smith instead wanted to discuss a 1971 case, Baker v. Nelson, in his Prop 8 dissent. Why? Because in Baker, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a marriage license for a Minnesota gay couple. (While the 1970s may have been a great decade for some people, times have changed . And, more importantly, so has the law.) When the Court wrote the Baker opinion, and until 2001, sodomy laws were valid in Minnesota. Thus, a legitimate government reason arguably may have existed to deny marriage licenses for a committed gay couple, because that couple likely engaged in what was then-illegal sexual conduct. But Baker's relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults. Adult lesbians and gay men are not criminals because they engage sexual conduct that was criminalized in the 1970s. Yet Smith's reliance on a 1970s case to buttress his analysis is grasping at straws (although probably unsurprising from a judge appointed by a president who believed that Harriet Miers was the more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than Samuel Alito).

But beyond weakly attempting to distinguish Romer from the Ninth Circuit's well-written majority opinion (more on that in a minute), beyond attempting to inject language regarding incest and bestiality into a case involving marriage rights being taken away from lesbians and gay men, and beyond attempting to create an argument based on cases that simply have no bearing on the law and facts applicable to Prop 8 in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, what did Judge Smith's dissent accomplish today?

Judge Smith's dissent showed us the degree of vacuous reasoning employed by those people and groups opposed to restoring the equal application of marriage rights to same-sex couples in California, should this case continue, either in an en banc hearing or at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today's majority, however, stated that no legitimate state interest existed as a rational basis for Prop 8's constitutionality based on Romer. In Romer, no legitimate reason existed to take away previously held rights in Colorado from one group of people but not others.

The anti-gay-marriage faction offered four main potentially legitimate reasons (arguments) as to why Prop 8 may have existed in a constitutional manner:


Furthering childrearing (a false proposition unaffected by Prop 8)

Proceeding with caution before changing the definition of marriage (an insincere assertion, as 18,000 valid marriages already occurred in California)


Protecting religious freedom (an argument unaffected by Prop 8 but begging the question -- and don't take it the wrong way -- "What about my religious freedom to have my ketubah mirror my civil legal rights under California law?")


Preventing children from being taught about same-sex marriage in schools ("Schools teach about the world as it is; when the world changes, lessons change")

Smartly, in its discussion of what arguably objectionable material schools teach kids, the majority nicely inserted the dagger of "no-fault divorce" into the discussion. Why? Because even social and religious conservatives understand that the advent of no-fault divorce did far more to weaken the institution of marriage than recognizing marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

The majority wisely stated:

Prop 8 worked a singular and limited change to the California Constitution: it stripped same-sex couples of the right to have their committed relationships recognized by the State with the designation of "marriage," which the state constitution had previously guaranteed them ... The name "marriage" signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships.

And the Ninth Circuit majority underscored this point by stating, "We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries." That is, unless that couple is gay or lesbian and unless you're Judge N. Randy Smith or Professor Lynn Wardle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-groshoff/n-randy-smith-prop-8_b_1261125.html

DaveNull
02-08-2012, 09:23 PM
Pardon me, counselor, but wouldn't those be concurrences, not dissents?

Many times yes, but not always. Sometimes concurrences can read a lot more like dissents. Both dissenting opinions and concurrences are pure dicta either way.

If a judge at this level wanted to present an alternative approach or theory for other courts to use and actually have someone read it, better to vote against and call their opinion a dissent than a mere concurrence.

Pioli Zombie
02-08-2012, 09:24 PM
Gay

La literatura
02-08-2012, 09:30 PM
Many times yes, but not always. Sometimes concurrences can read a lot more like dissents. Both dissenting opinions and concurrences are pure dicta either way.

If a judge at this level wanted to present an alternative approach or theory for other courts to use and actually have someone read it, better to vote against and call their opinion a dissent than a mere concurrence.

What you described: "dissents that essentially agreed with the outcome, but dissented from the majority because they chose to get there a different way" is called a concurrence in the judgment. Concurrences are not necessarily dicta, especially if the court opinion is a plurality.

Pioli Zombie
02-09-2012, 04:29 AM
What's hilarious is most of the people wailing against Gay marriage are on their third marriage.

go bowe
02-09-2012, 05:52 PM
What's hilarious is most of the people wailing against Gay marriage are on their third marriage.

i have a gay friend who says he's been married five times...

three times with a man and twice with a cow named rosie...

he could never get over rosie...

BIG_DADDY
02-09-2012, 09:17 PM
i have a gay friend who says he's been married five times...

three times with a man and twice with a cow named rosie...

he could never get over rosie...

LMAO

Pioli Zombie
02-10-2012, 06:09 AM
Here's my simpleton take. There are two levels of marriage. Civil and religious. It is against most forms of religion for homosexuals to marry, correct? So churches should not be forced to recognize or perform the ceremonies. On the other hand, if homosexuals want to marry and civil law accepts it people of faith should concentrate on higher purposes and the kingdom of God than getting distracted in earthly battles over getting their own way. So my take is let Gays marry, but Gays, don't expect to have your ceremony at Olathe Bible Church.

alnorth
02-10-2012, 08:09 AM
So my take is let Gays marry, but Gays, don't expect to have your ceremony at Olathe Bible Church.

And that wont really be an issue, either.

If an atheist couple walks up to a Catholic priest or a Jewish rabbi and asks them to perform their marriage, they can and will say no.

FishingRod
02-10-2012, 08:43 AM
Here's my simpleton take. There are two levels of marriage. Civil and religious. It is against most forms of religion for homosexuals to marry, correct? So churches should not be forced to recognize or perform the ceremonies. On the other hand, if homosexuals want to marry and civil law accepts it people of faith should concentrate on higher purposes and the kingdom of God than getting distracted in earthly battles over getting their own way. So my take is let Gays marry, but Gays, don't expect to have your ceremony at Olathe Bible Church.

This

BIG_DADDY
02-10-2012, 08:47 AM
Here's my simpleton take. There are two levels of marriage. Civil and religious. It is against most forms of religion for homosexuals to marry, correct? So churches should not be forced to recognize or perform the ceremonies. On the other hand, if homosexuals want to marry and civil law accepts it people of faith should concentrate on higher purposes and the kingdom of God than getting distracted in earthly battles over getting their own way. So my take is let Gays marry, but Gays, don't expect to have your ceremony at Olathe Bible Church.

In California they already have full rights under civil unions. They don't need to control the word marriage. This has never been about rights or being treated equally.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 08:48 AM
Here's my simpleton take. There are two levels of marriage. Civil and religious. It is against most forms of religion for homosexuals to marry, correct? So churches should not be forced to recognize or perform the ceremonies. On the other hand, if homosexuals want to marry and civil law accepts it people of faith should concentrate on higher purposes and the kingdom of God than getting distracted in earthly battles over getting their own way. So my take is let Gays marry, but Gays, don't expect to have your ceremony at Olathe Bible Church.

That seems reasonable to me, but it's not a constitutional requirement and therefore it shouldn't be imposed by a court.

FishingRod
02-10-2012, 09:09 AM
That seems reasonable to me, but it's not a constitutional requirement and therefore it shouldn't be imposed by a court.

In my opinion, the government should be in the marriage business in the first place.

Pioli Zombie
02-10-2012, 09:44 AM
And that wont really be an issue, either.

If an atheist couple walks up to a Catholic priest or a Jewish rabbi and asks them to perform their marriage, they can and will say no.
It is an issue because the activist Gay community presses this issue by sending people to churches to ask this then make a big deal about it when they get turned down. What is common sense to you and me isn't clear to a lot of Gay people who not only want the right to marry but want everyone to just embrace them in every walk of life. That's why I say the christians need to focus on their own marriages and not civil law and the Gays need to respect the christian community and not expect it to fling its doors open to its lifestyle. Yes, you're welcome to church, to glorify God, not to force your agenda.

Brock
02-10-2012, 09:51 AM
It is an issue because the activist Gay community presses this issue by sending people to churches to ask this then make a big deal about it when they get turned down. What is common sense to you and me isn't clear to a lot of Gay people who not only want the right to marry but want everyone to just embrace them in every walk of life. That's why I say the christians need to focus on their own marriages and not civil law and the Gays need to respect the christian community and not expect it to fling its doors open to its lifestyle. Yes, you're welcome to church, to glorify God, not to force your agenda.

There are churches that are willing to marry gay couples. You're making a straw man argument.

Pioli Zombie
02-10-2012, 09:56 AM
There are churches that are willing to marry gay couples. You're making a straw man argument.

That's not enough for these people. They want every man, woman, and child to validate them and every church to accept them. Like I said, fine, get married, don't expect everyone to give you access to everything you want. To deny this agenda exists is ignorance.

Brock
02-10-2012, 10:20 AM
That's not enough for these people. They want every man, woman, and child to validate them and every church to accept them. Like I said, fine, get married, don't expect everyone to give you access to everything you want. To deny this agenda exists is ignorance.

How do you know what is or isn't enough for "these people"? Churches aren't required to marry anyone, gay or straight. They can't be made to do it. You're ascribing your own paranoid fears to people you don't know anything about.

alnorth
02-10-2012, 10:23 AM
It is an issue because the activist Gay community presses this issue by sending people to churches to ask this then make a big deal about it when they get turned down. What is common sense to you and me isn't clear to a lot of Gay people who not only want the right to marry but want everyone to just embrace them in every walk of life. That's why I say the christians need to focus on their own marriages and not civil law and the Gays need to respect the christian community and not expect it to fling its doors open to its lifestyle. Yes, you're welcome to church, to glorify God, not to force your agenda.

It is only an issue to a few nuts who make a scene, the nuts who televise/youtube it, and the nuts who pay attention to it, therefore giving them the attention they crave, and blowing it up beyond proportion.

Its not an issue.

alnorth
02-10-2012, 10:26 AM
In California they already have full rights under civil unions. They don't need to control the word marriage. This has never been about rights or being treated equally.

These arguments have been already been made in Plessy v. Ferguson and and tossed aside in Brown v. Board of Education. Separate but Equal is never equal.

Its not a perfect comparison (before someone makes the obvious retort) because there we were talking about protected classes and here we aren't (yet, anyway. Being gay is not a choice, so discrimination probably ought to be subjected to heightened or strict scrutiny), but you aren't going there. You are basically saying "if there's no difference, whats the big deal with the word" Obviously the word is a big deal, and its not equal, at all.

The act of setting up civil unions that attempt to give all the legal rights as marriage is basically the same as the "whites/coloreds only" water fountains.

vailpass
02-10-2012, 01:36 PM
These arguments have been already been made in Plessy v. Ferguson and and tossed aside in Brown v. Board of Education. Separate but Equal is never equal.

Its not a perfect comparison (before someone makes the obvious retort) because there we were talking about protected classes and here we aren't (yet, anyway. Being gay is not a choice, so discrimination probably ought to be subjected to heightened or strict scrutiny), but you aren't going there. You are basically saying "if there's no difference, whats the big deal with the word" Obviously the word is a big deal, and its not equal, at all.

The act of setting up civil unions that attempt to give all the legal rights as marriage is basically the same as the "whites/coloreds only" water fountains.

It is exactly this stupidity that turns people further away from the gay agenda.

whoman69
02-10-2012, 01:37 PM
In California they already have full rights under civil unions. They don't need to control the word marriage. This has never been about rights or being treated equally.

Separate but equal is not equal.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 01:40 PM
Separate but equal is not equal.

It's not separate but equal. Will it help you accept it if civil unions have to be renewed every 5 years instead of being life-long like marriages?

whoman69
02-10-2012, 04:59 PM
It's not separate but equal. Will it help you accept it if civil unions have to be renewed every 5 years instead of being life-long like marriages?

Of course not, then it would be separate and unequal.

alnorth
02-10-2012, 05:03 PM
It is exactly this stupidity that turns people further away from the gay agenda.

Thank you for your well-reasoned argument.

Marriage/Civil Unions in California both have the same rights in that state in all ways. The only difference is a word.

White/Colored water fountains can easily be set up so they are identical in all ways, have the same water source, same quality, etc. The only difference is you stand over here, or over there.

In both cases, the only reason why an artificial unnecessary separate but equal situation was created at all, was animus towards gays/minorities. We want to stigmatize those icky gay people with a weird legal term (ie "domestic partner" = "oh, you are one of THOSE people, I see"), and we don't want those dirty minorities drinking our water.

If that makes you uncomfortable to the point of rage, fine, but you would make yourself look better by arguing why we should go back to separate but equal.

Pioli Zombie
02-10-2012, 05:03 PM
I should be able to use the ladies room because to give me a mens room to use would be "seperate but equal" and make me feel bad.

alnorth
02-10-2012, 05:09 PM
I should be able to use the ladies room because to give me a mens room to use would be "seperate but equal" and make me feel bad.

this is a stupid argument that does nothing to refute Brown v. Board of Education.

There is no good reason whatsoever to have colored fountains or to stick gay people with a weird legal term, other than animus/disgust towards them and a desire to stigmatize the disfavored group.

The reasons for separate bathrooms are obvious.

go bowe
02-10-2012, 05:12 PM
I should be able to use the ladies room because to give me a mens room to use would be "seperate but equal" and make me feel bad.

some colleges have had unisex bathrooms...

don't quite know how that relates, but there it is...

Pioli Zombie
02-10-2012, 05:14 PM
this is a stupid argument that does nothing to refute Brown v. Board of Education.

There is no good reason whatsoever to have colored fountains or to stick gay people with a weird legal term, other than animus/disgust towards them and a desire to stigmatize the disfavored group.

The reasons for separate bathrooms are obvious.

Its obvious because men and women are different, the same way heterosexual marriage is different than two Gay people getting married. But as I said earlier, what the crap, let them go down to city hall and get married for all I care.

And please don't equate Gays being tipped toed around as to never offend with Blacks being openly treated as sub humans during the struggle for civil rights in the south. To compare Mississippi in 1964 to Bill and Toms struggles today is insane

go bowe
02-10-2012, 05:18 PM
Its obvious because men and women are different, the same way heterosexual marriage is different than two Gay people getting married. But as I said earlier, what the crap, let them go down to city hall and get married for all I care.

And please don't equate Gays being tipped toed around as to never offend with Blacks being openly treated as sub humans during the struggle for civil rights in the south. To compare Mississippi in 1964 to Bill and Toms struggles today is insane

aha, i knew you were in the closet...

watch out for that kotter guy, he likes to out people just to watch them die...

patteeu
02-10-2012, 05:58 PM
Thank you for your well-reasoned argument.

Marriage/Civil Unions in California both have the same rights in that state in all ways. The only difference is a word.

White/Colored water fountains can easily be set up so they are identical in all ways, have the same water source, same quality, etc. The only difference is you stand over here, or over there.

In both cases, the only reason why an artificial unnecessary separate but equal situation was created at all, was animus towards gays/minorities. We want to stigmatize those icky gay people with a weird legal term (ie "domestic partner" = "oh, you are one of THOSE people, I see"), and we don't want those dirty minorities drinking our water.

If that makes you uncomfortable to the point of rage, fine, but you would make yourself look better by arguing why we should go back to separate but equal.

Let's leave aside the protected class issue for a moment (even though the 14th amendment was specifically intended to address racial issues and it's unimaginable that it was intended to address sexual preference issues). What is the rational basis for separate water fountains?

There are considerable differences between civil unions and marriages in California given that the two partnership forms are not treated the same by federal law. There is no good reason for the rational basis test to consider state law out of that context. Beyond that, the obvious value of the word "marriage", as evidenced by the strong sentiments about it on both sides of the issue, should be enough to support the rational basis for treating the two types of unions differently. Whether you agree with it or not, Californians want to make marriage between a man and a woman more attractive than other lifestyles for purposes of encouraging a childbearing environment that they deem preferable. That's their decision to make.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 05:59 PM
this is a stupid argument that does nothing to refute Brown v. Board of Education.

There is no good reason whatsoever to have colored fountains or to stick gay people with a weird legal term, other than animus/disgust towards them and a desire to stigmatize the disfavored group.

The reasons for separate bathrooms are obvious.

There, you've answered my question. I can't think of one either.

Pioli Zombie
02-10-2012, 06:31 PM
aha, i knew you were in the closet...

watch out for that kotter guy, he likes to out people just to watch them die...

Wtf are you babbling about?

whoman69
02-10-2012, 06:40 PM
Let's leave aside the protected class issue for a moment (even though the 14th amendment was specifically intended to address racial issues and it's unimaginable that it was intended to address sexual preference issues). What is the rational basis for separate water fountains?

There are considerable differences between civil unions and marriages in California given that the two partnership forms are not treated the same by federal law. There is no good reason for the rational basis test to consider state law out of that context. Beyond that, the obvious value of the word "marriage", as evidenced by the strong sentiments about it on both sides of the issue, should be enough to support the rational basis for treating the two types of unions differently. Whether you agree with it or not, Californians want to make marriage between a man and a woman more attractive than other lifestyles for purposes of encouraging a childbearing environment that they deem preferable. That's their decision to make.

Fraid its not. Depite the intentions of the 14th amendment, the answer is clear. If they make that decision they are descriminating against gay couples.

BIG_DADDY
02-10-2012, 08:31 PM
These arguments have been already been made in Plessy v. Ferguson and and tossed aside in Brown v. Board of Education. Separate but Equal is never equal.

Its not a perfect comparison (before someone makes the obvious retort) because there we were talking about protected classes and here we aren't (yet, anyway. Being gay is not a choice, so discrimination probably ought to be subjected to heightened or strict scrutiny), but you aren't going there. You are basically saying "if there's no difference, whats the big deal with the word" Obviously the word is a big deal, and its not equal, at all.

The act of setting up civil unions that attempt to give all the legal rights as marriage is basically the same as the "whites/coloreds only" water fountains.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 08:50 PM
Fraid its not. Depite the intentions of the 14th amendment, the answer is clear. If they make that decision they are descriminating against gay couples.

Speeding laws discriminate against fast drivers. Laws against child rape discriminate against audiophiles. Laws that require males to register for a potential draft but not females discriminate on the basis of sex. So what? Discrimination is not unconstitutional. And when it's not a constitutional issue, the legislative body (in this case, the population of California) gets to decide.

stevieray
02-10-2012, 08:53 PM
gay couples.

earlier you compared them to hetero couples...pretty evident why you use the term gay...because if we call them homosexuals, then the fact that it is based on sex can't be avoided...just like they use the term 'straight'..what's the opposite of that term?

the major banners for the left are;

evolution
"gay marriage"
abortion

the common factor for all three is easy to discern.

anti-creation..or anti creator...because all three also point to God as the hurdle to overcome.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 09:15 PM
Speeding laws discriminate against fast drivers. Laws against child rape discriminate against audiophiles. Laws that require males to register for a potential draft but not females discriminate on the basis of sex. So what? Discrimination is not unconstitutional. And when it's not a constitutional issue, the legislative body (in this case, the population of California) gets to decide.

Do you support what Washington (the state) legislature did recently?

patteeu
02-10-2012, 09:46 PM
Do you support what Washington (the state) legislature did recently?

I don't know all the specifics, but as far as I can tell, yes I do. I'm a gay marriage supporter.

alnorth
02-11-2012, 01:46 AM
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

You are on the wrong side of history.

10-20 years from now, your position will be an embarrassment that you'll have to distance yourself from, apologize for, or risk being one of those "I'm sorry, he's just set in his ways, you understand, right? Forgive him, that's just how it was back in the day" people who cant see obviously plain unfair discrimination staring them in the face.

patteeu
02-11-2012, 08:31 AM
You are on the wrong side of history.

10-20 years from now, your position will be an embarrassment that you'll have to distance yourself from, apologize for, or risk being one of those "I'm sorry, he's just set in his ways, you understand, right? Forgive him, that's just how it was back in the day" people who cant see obviously plain unfair discrimination staring them in the face.

Be that as it may, it's not a judge's role to impose his sense of morality on our legal system.

Cave Johnson
02-11-2012, 08:47 AM
Speeding laws discriminate against fast drivers. Laws against child rape discriminate against audiophiles. Laws that require males to register for a potential draft but not females discriminate on the basis of sex. So what? Discrimination is not unconstitutional. And when it's not a constitutional issue, the legislative body (in this case, the population of California) gets to decide.

There's a rational basis for all of those restrictions. Not for the gay mariage ban as argued, in court, by the Prop 8 supporters. Go get some solid studies supporting the supposed destabilizing effects of Adam & Steve marrying, and then you might have a point.

patteeu
02-11-2012, 08:59 AM
There's a rational basis for all of those restrictions. Not for the gay mariage ban as argued, in court, by the Prop 8 supporters. Go get some solid studies supporting the supposed destabilizing effects of Adam & Steve marrying, and then you might have a point.

Scientific proof is not required to support a rational basis. But aside from that mistake, you make the same point that I do. Discrimination is acceptable as long as it has a rational basis (except in special cases such as racial discrimination where heightened skepticism is warranted because of the clear purpose of the 14th Amendment).

Pioli Zombie
02-11-2012, 08:59 AM
There's a rational basis for all of those restrictions. Not for the gay mariage ban as argued, in court, by the Prop 8 supporters. Go get some solid studies supporting the supposed destabilizing effects of Adam & Steve marrying, and then you might have a point.

And this is why, although im personally against it, my feeling are irrelevant when it comes to Civil law. There is only religious grounds against, there is nothing legal. Therefore my position is that Gay marriage should be legal, and that religions have a right not to honor it.

BIG_DADDY
02-11-2012, 11:23 AM
You are on the wrong side of history.

10-20 years from now, your position will be an embarrassment that you'll have to distance yourself from, apologize for, or risk being one of those "I'm sorry, he's just set in his ways, you understand, right? Forgive him, that's just how it was back in the day" people who cant see obviously plain unfair discrimination staring them in the face.

I don't care about any of that. The bottom line is there is not discrimination, they have all the same rights in California. The whole different water fountain thing is preposterous. This is a group that has consistently wanted two sets of rules, one for everyone else and rules for them because they are special. Who else can have a parade where they can show their genitals to the little kids watching? Have you ever fired one? No matter how deserving you better have documented everything big time as you will constantly be threatened with discrimination. How about just getting punched in the face? They have a whole special set of rules that make them better than the rest of us. Now in this case they want a one size fits all? That's horseshit. The only reason they want to control the word is to lay the wood to religion in general. In the end you are probably right they will get everything they ask for and more. Special when it requires that and one size fits all when they want hand it to somebody. That still has nothing to do with being right or just, it's just what we have become.

Pioli Zombie
02-11-2012, 12:30 PM
I don't care about any of that. The bottom line is there is not discrimination, they have all the same rights in California. The whole different water fountain thing is preposterous. This is a group that has consistently wanted two sets of rules, one for everyone else and rules for them because they are special. Who else can have a parade where they can show their genitals to the little kids watching? Have you ever fired one? No matter how deserving you better have documented everything big time as you will constantly be threatened with discrimination. How about just getting punched in the face? They have a whole special set of rules that make them better than the rest of us. Now in this case they want a one size fits all? That's horseshit. The only reason they want to control the word is to lay the wood to religion in general. In the end you are probably right they will get everything they ask for and more. Special when it requires that and one size fits all when they want hand it to somebody. That still has nothing to do with being right or just, it's just what we have become.

I want to have a parade and show my genitals to adult women.

whoman69
02-11-2012, 03:43 PM
Be that as it may, it's not a judge's role to impose his sense of morality on our legal system.

Unless its for conservative causes of course.

It also has nothing to do with this judgement either. If you follow the Constitution, this is the only choice.

patteeu
02-11-2012, 05:22 PM
Unless its for conservative causes of course.

I'd love to hear your examples, but I won't hold my breath.

It also has nothing to do with this judgement either. If you follow the Constitution, this is the only choice.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Baby Lee
02-11-2012, 05:43 PM
These arguments have been already been made in Plessy v. Ferguson and and tossed aside in Brown v. Board of Education. Separate but Equal is never equal.

Its not a perfect comparison (before someone makes the obvious retort) because there we were talking about protected classes and here we aren't (yet, anyway. Being gay is not a choice, so discrimination probably ought to be subjected to heightened or strict scrutiny), but you aren't going there. You are basically saying "if there's no difference, whats the big deal with the word" Obviously the word is a big deal, and its not equal, at all.

The act of setting up civil unions that attempt to give all the legal rights as marriage is basically the same as the "whites/coloreds only" water fountains.

The obvious retort is that it's stupid to compare to 'separate but equal' of the mid-20th because that doctrine was rejected because separation actually resulted in material inequality.

It wasn't about water fountains or what people called each other, it was about accommodations and schools. And they eventually proved that separation resulted in inferior accommodations, restaurants, schools, etc.

There's no evidence that calling homosexual unions civil unions will result in a languishing system for their unions. If it comes to pass that calling them unions results in them having less of the rights and privileges than married people, the issue could be revisited. But if not it's a semantic difference acknowledging that their relationship is distinct from marriage, but not in a manner that results in different rights.
By way of analogy, we use the terms white, black, asian, etc., to acknowledge observable distinctions, but it's OK under the law because we work to make sure those distinctions don't affect their rights.

whoman69
02-11-2012, 05:59 PM
I'd love to hear your examples, but I won't hold my breath.



Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Terry Schiavo just off the top of my head.

I'm only wrong in your little Bizarroworld where everything is backwards.

whoman69
02-11-2012, 06:01 PM
The obvious retort is that it's stupid to compare to 'separate but equal' of the mid-20th because that doctrine was rejected because separation actually resulted in material inequality.

It wasn't about water fountains or what people called each other, it was about accommodations and schools. And they eventually proved that separation resulted in inferior accommodations, restaurants, schools, etc.

There's no evidence that calling homosexual unions civil unions will result in a languishing system for their unions. If it comes to pass that calling them unions results in them having less of the rights and privileges than married people, the issue could be revisited. But if not it's a semantic difference acknowledging that their relationship is distinct from marriage, but not in a manner that results in different rights.
By way of analogy, we use the terms white, black, asian, etc., to acknowledge observable distinctions, but it's OK under the law because we work to make sure those distinctions don't affect their rights.

There's a hell of a lot of difference when other states and the Federal government don't accept them. They aren't even truly equal within the same state. Most arguing against this ruling would argue that even civil unions shouldn't be allowed. You may call it semantics, but they are being labelled simply because they are not the typical leave it to beaver household.

patteeu
02-11-2012, 07:54 PM
Terry Schiavo just off the top of my head.

In what way? I doubt that you even know what my position on the Schiavo case was although it is documented here somewhere.

patteeu
02-11-2012, 07:57 PM
There's a hell of a lot of difference when other states and the Federal government don't accept them. They aren't even truly equal within the same state. Most arguing against this ruling would argue that even civil unions shouldn't be allowed. You may call it semantics, but they are being labelled simply because they are not the typical leave it to beaver household.

None of this is about whether or not they should be allowed. This whole controversy is over whether or not the courts are acting appropriately by imposing a result.

BIG_DADDY
02-11-2012, 08:36 PM
The obvious retort is that it's stupid to compare to 'separate but equal' of the mid-20th because that doctrine was rejected because separation actually resulted in material inequality.

It wasn't about water fountains or what people called each other, it was about accommodations and schools. And they eventually proved that separation resulted in inferior accommodations, restaurants, schools, etc.

There's no evidence that calling homosexual unions civil unions will result in a languishing system for their unions. If it comes to pass that calling them unions results in them having less of the rights and privileges than married people, the issue could be revisited. But if not it's a semantic difference acknowledging that their relationship is distinct from marriage, but not in a manner that results in different rights.
By way of analogy, we use the terms white, black, asian, etc., to acknowledge observable distinctions, but it's OK under the law because we work to make sure those distinctions don't affect their rights.

Excellent point.

whoman69
02-12-2012, 11:12 AM
None of this is about whether or not they should be allowed. This whole controversy is over whether or not the courts are acting appropriately by imposing a result.

Its the court's mandate to decide the constitutional issues of legal procedures. Marriage is a legal ceremony with the power of law. If a group is being descriminated against by how those laws are being applied, its the court's job to step in and make a decision.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 11:28 AM
Its the court's mandate to decide the constitutional issues of legal procedures. Marriage is a legal ceremony with the power of law. If a group is being descriminated against by how those laws are being applied, its the court's job to step in and make a decision.

Nonresponsive.

whoman69
02-12-2012, 11:42 AM
Nonresponsive.

Only in bizarroworld.

go bowe
02-12-2012, 11:47 AM
bizarroworld?

and here i thought it was just my hangover...

whoman69
02-12-2012, 03:23 PM
bizarroworld?

and here i thought it was just my hangover...

Pretty much.

"Me no understand alien answer, so me pretend answer not given."

patteeu
02-12-2012, 03:45 PM
Pretty much.

"Me no understand alien answer, so me pretend answer not given."

Oh, I understood your answer. You just reiterated your mistaken belief that there is some legal basis for imposing same sex marriage. That isn't related to your previous assertion that most of the decision's critics here don't think civil unions should even be allowed. No one has made that argument here and it's hard for me to imagine any of the conservatives making such a stupid argument given that there is a law supporting them and no constitutional basis for invalidating that law. That's the kind of imaginary constitutionalism that you liberals employ (see your position on this court decision for example).

go bowe
02-12-2012, 03:55 PM
Oh, I understood your answer. You just reiterated your mistaken belief that there is some legal basis for imposing same sex marriage. That isn't related to your previous assertion that most of the decision's critics here don't think civil unions should even be allowed. No one has made that argument here and it's hard for me to imagine any of the conservatives making such a stupid argument given that there is a law supporting them and no constitutional basis for invalidating that law. That's the kind of imaginary constitutionalism that you liberals employ (see your position on this court decision for example).

imaginary constitutionalism...

rolls right off the tongue...

i don't think i've heard that one before, but i've had a sheltered life...

sounds about right though...

Dave Lane
02-12-2012, 04:22 PM
It is exactly this stupidity that turns people further away from the gay agenda.

And its your stupidity that makes people say this is ok.

Dave Lane
02-12-2012, 04:24 PM
How is this even an issue? Seriously, how can anyone argue that allowing people that love and care for each other to marry is a problem?

I mean in my mind homosexuality and religion are the same thing anyway.

Don't tell me what you are doing and don't try to convert me and we will be totally fine.

Dave Lane
02-12-2012, 04:27 PM
In California they already have full rights under civil unions. They don't need to control the word marriage. This has never been about rights or being treated equally.

Its not about control, its about inclusion.

Dave Lane
02-12-2012, 04:32 PM
Consider the opposite view...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1pwwvBygoFA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

alnorth
02-12-2012, 04:38 PM
The obvious retort is that it's stupid to compare to 'separate but equal' of the mid-20th because that doctrine was rejected because separation actually resulted in material inequality.

It wasn't about water fountains or what people called each other, it was about accommodations and schools. And they eventually proved that separation resulted in inferior accommodations, restaurants, schools, etc.

That is true, but the courts did not rule in those two cases only on the basis of whether or not the nation could or could not make the accommodations equal. The fact that they weren't was a point in favor of Brown, but it was not simply just a matter of "woops, you guys screwed up, we don't trust you anymore, so no more separate but equal". If the courts theoretically objected only because the accommodations were bad, they would have just sanctioned the entities responsible, appointed a receiver, etc.

They didn't do that. They said that even if you could, theoretically, make everything equal, it wasn't equal, because the act of segregation itself, even if the segregation was equal, served to ostracize the disfavored class. As in, "oh you aren't good enough to mingle with the white folk"

Patteeu's argument is stronger and better. I disagree with it, but it is sound, if you ignore the facts established in the Walker trial, assume the pro-8 people were incompetent, and that other alternative facts could have been proven to be more likely. (eg, gay marriage would lead to fewer hetero marriages, fewer children born, etc) If those facts were established, suddenly, you have a rational basis for banning gay marriage that can only be defeated if gays are a protected class. (Which I think they should be, so they should still win based just on heightened or strict scrutiny, but if I go there, I know we'd run into an unproductive useless brick wall of disagreement there, so for the sake of argument, I've been avoiding that issue and exploring the more interesting issue of whether there's even a rational basis) Under the facts established in the Walker trial, which I agree with, there is not.

BIG_DADDY
02-12-2012, 04:55 PM
Its not about control, its about inclusion.

BS. They have all the rights of marriage in their union and have been included. In this country it is alright to have the right to some exclusivness. It's not OK for a boy to go into the girl scouts as an example but he can have his own scout group of dudes. There are tons of examples of this from sexes to ethnicity to religion and so on and so forth and you know what I am talking about. No, this is about nothing more than vindictively sodomising religion because they are condemed by it. I understand that they are pissed at religion because it doesn't accept what they are doing but that doesn't give them the right to control that sacred religious ritual by using the very word that signifies the uniting of a man and a woman. This isn't about rights or being treated equally or inclusion as you put it or any of the things things being promoted as the victimization of the gay community and the only point we get to see on TV. No, it is 100% about the vindictive hatred that community has towards religion in general.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 05:20 PM
Consider the opposite view...

I don't think either side should be overly belligerent toward the other, but these things should be decided in the community by the court of public opinion rather than in our legal courts. The problem for militant atheists is that they're such a tiny minority that they can't claim an equal presence to that of mainstream religion. Boo hoo. The Westboro Baptists are appropriately marginalized too.

Brock
02-12-2012, 06:29 PM
BS. They have all the rights of marriage in their union and have been included. In this country it is alright to have the right to some exclusivness. It's not OK for a boy to go into the girl scouts as an example but he can have his own scout group of dudes. There are tons of examples of this from sexes to ethnicity to religion and so on and so forth and you know what I am talking about. No, this is about nothing more than vindictively sodomising religion because they are condemed by it. I understand that they are pissed at religion because it doesn't accept what they are doing but that doesn't give them the right to control that sacred religious ritual by using the very word that signifies the uniting of a man and a woman. This isn't about rights or being treated equally or inclusion as you put it or any of the things things being promoted as the victimization of the gay community and the only point we get to see on TV. No, it is 100% about the vindictive hatred that community has towards religion in general.

You've turned into quite the prude. I remember when the local religious nuts used to criticize your skanky lifestyle and you used to get quite upset at them for it.

BIG_DADDY
02-12-2012, 07:34 PM
You've turned into quite the prude. I remember when the local religious nuts used to criticize your skanky lifestyle and you used to get quite upset at them for it.

Nobody wants to talk about the real issue regarding the legislation. Everyone only wants to talk about the feel good rah rah I'm on the right side of history PC BS. Kind of reminds me of somebody who wanted trannies to be mommies and daddies and won't even address the reality of the huge mental problems with that group to broach the subject. Usually that group ends up deflecting or resorting to personal attacks. My favorite one though the whole mental superiority charade.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 07:50 PM
BS. They have all the rights of marriage in their union and have been included. In this country it is alright to have the right to some exclusivness. It's not OK for a boy to go into the girl scouts as an example but he can have his own scout group of dudes. There are tons of examples of this from sexes to ethnicity to religion and so on and so forth and you know what I am talking about. No, this is about nothing more than vindictively sodomising religion because they are condemed by it. I understand that they are pissed at religion because it doesn't accept what they are doing but that doesn't give them the right to control that sacred religious ritual by using the very word that signifies the uniting of a man and a woman. This isn't about rights or being treated equally or inclusion as you put it or any of the things things being promoted as the victimization of the gay community and the only point we get to see on TV. No, it is 100% about the vindictive hatred that community has towards religion in general.

What about if a Church is willing to marry a homosexual couple? Is it ok then?

Brock
02-12-2012, 07:57 PM
Nobody wants to talk about the real issue regarding the legislation. Everyone only wants to talk about the feel good rah rah I'm on the right side of history PC BS. Kind of reminds me of somebody who wanted trannies to be mommies and daddies and won't even address the reality of the huge mental problems with that group to broach the subject. Usually that group ends up deflecting or resorting to personal attacks. My favorite one though the whole mental superiority charade.

No, seriously, remember when you used to talk about how you liked to see your wife licking some woman's pussy and how the religious prudes used to get all over you for it? Now you've basically turned into the same thing. Oh noes, these poor religious people being forced to see something they don't like, those poor souls.

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 07:58 PM
What about if a Church is willing to marry a homosexual couple? Is it ok then?

I see nothing wrong with it, but the state doesn't have to recognize it.

Dave Lane
02-12-2012, 07:59 PM
I don't think either side should be overly belligerent toward the other, but these things should be decided in the community by the court of public opinion rather than in our legal courts. The problem for militant atheists is that they're such a tiny minority that they can't claim an equal presence to that of mainstream religion. Boo hoo. The Westboro Baptists are appropriately marginalized too.

Atheists are the largest minority group in the country, FYI.

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 08:01 PM
Atheists are the largest minority group in the country, FYI.

Fuck you. If everything that isn't majority is minority, then men are the largest minority group in the country.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 08:04 PM
I see nothing wrong with it, but the state doesn't have to recognize it.


So the state should give legal benefits to one religious group's marriages over another?

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 08:06 PM
So the state should give legal benefits to one religious group's marriages over another?

No, the state gets to define what a marriage is in the legal sense. What you've described is a spiritual marriage, perhaps, but not a legal one.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 08:51 PM
No, the state gets to define what a marriage is in the legal sense. What you've described is a spiritual marriage, perhaps, but not a legal one.

Then the state is going to discriminate against homosexuals. There is no way to legislate marriage without disciminating, nor is there a reason to.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 09:11 PM
Then the state is going to discriminate against homosexuals. There is no way to legislate marriage without disciminating, nor is there a reason to.

Huh? Any marriage law is going to discriminate.

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 09:29 PM
Then the state is going to discriminate against homosexuals. There is no way to legislate marriage without disciminating, nor is there a reason to.

What you mean to say is that you don't agree with the reasons for discrimination. Neither do I, but I at least acknowledge that the reasons are real.

Besides, my objection is only to the process that is being employed, not to the eventual and inevitable outcome.

Dave Lane
02-12-2012, 10:40 PM
**** you. If everything that isn't majority is minority, then men are the largest minority group in the country.

Well then Atheists are the largest unrepresented minority in the US. That work for you?

There are more Atheists than gays, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and yet no one caters to their votes. Kinda odd. Don't ya think?

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 11:04 PM
Well then Atheists are the largest unrepresented minority in the US. That work for you?

There are more Atheists than gays, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and yet no one caters to their votes. Kinda odd. Don't ya think?

I was unaware that you aren't allowed to vote. Thank God someone thought to prohibit it.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 07:25 AM
Well then Atheists are the largest unrepresented minority in the US. That work for you?

There are more Atheists than gays, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and yet no one caters to their votes. Kinda odd. Don't ya think?

You should try to organize atheists into a monolithic voting block if you want politicians pandering to you.

But I don't really think there are as many atheists as you believe there are. According to this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States) on US demographics, 16.1% of Americans are not affiliated with any religion (which is less than the 16.3% of Americans that are hispanic, btw). Of that 16.1%, many are agnostics who don't really care one way or the other. The number of dedicated atheists, like yourself, is surely much lower.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-13-2012, 07:28 AM
Well then Atheists are the largest unrepresented minority in the US. That work for you?

There are more Atheists than gays, Jews, Asians, Hispanics and yet no one caters to their votes. Kinda odd. Don't ya think?

I call bs on this, I would venture to say their are more undocumented aliens than those of your God hating ilk.