PDA

View Full Version : Prop 8 banning gay marriage ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL



SoonerPride
2/7/2012, 01:15 PM
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/07/31158/prop-8-ruling/

25 years from now people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

badger
2/7/2012, 01:17 PM
25 years from now they'll be worried about outlawing marriage between two consenting people if one is a toddler... or between two consenting living beings if one is a goat :eek:

SoonerPride
2/7/2012, 01:20 PM
25 years from now they'll be worried about outlawing marriage between two consenting people if one is a toddler... or between two consenting living beings if one is a goat :eek:

uh, sure.

Mississippi Sooner
2/7/2012, 01:27 PM
25 years from now they'll be worried about outlawing marriage between two consenting people if one is a toddler... or between two consenting living beings if one is a goat :eek:

This is about California, not Payne County, Oklahoma.

badger
2/7/2012, 01:28 PM
uh, sure.

If those were the concerns 25 years from now, they really WOULD be wondering what all the fuss was about today.

This is the argument some people use against gay marriage, saying that it opens the floodgates for other types of "marriages," including those between children and adults, and people and animals.

I personally don't care.

Midtowner
2/7/2012, 01:34 PM
This is the argument some people use against gay marriage, saying that it opens the floodgates for other types of "marriages," including those between children and adults, and people and animals.

That's an incorrect argument then. Nothing about this case would make it legal to marry someone who doesn't or can't consent. Thus, no floodgates.

I could definitely make a case that this clears a path for polygamy though.

Mississippi Sooner
2/7/2012, 01:42 PM
That's an incorrect argument then. Nothing about this case would make it legal to marry someone who doesn't or can't consent. Thus, no floodgates.

I could definitely make a case that this clears a path for polygamy though.

Deer lowered (™STEP), I still don't know why any man would want to subject himself to that.

KantoSooner
2/7/2012, 01:43 PM
The whole anti- side still kind of mystifies me. What possible impact does someone else's marriage have on mine?

Midtowner
2/7/2012, 01:55 PM
I'm excited to see what this does at the SCOTUS level. Suppose it makes it that far and the SCOTUS upholds the 9th Circuit, as a family law attorney, I'll see my business grow by at least 10%.

Ton Loc
2/7/2012, 02:02 PM
One step closer to giving everyone the right to as miserable (or happy) as everyone else. I'm excited about some right winger trying to argue against this using the thinly disguised excuse that this will lead to people abusing the system.

badger
2/7/2012, 02:14 PM
One step closer to giving everyone the right to as miserable (or happy) as everyone else. I'm excited about some right winger trying to argue against this using the thinly disguised excuse that this will lead to people abusing the system.

For people that have lived their lives for so long together without being married, I wonder if they would actually get married if they had the opportunity to legally, without restriction, and possibly even in a traditional religious ceremony setting.

I would ask people that I know who are, but I'd hate to be part of an awkward silence that followed. :P

SoonerPride
2/7/2012, 02:26 PM
quau_OgXWVU&feature

KantoSooner
2/7/2012, 02:29 PM
It's a complicated issue. There's the legal stuff, like being able to go into the ER to see your 'partner' if you're not 'family'. And inheritance, retirement bennies, etc. All that, however, could be resolved with civil union. The other part of it is to be seen in the eyes of the community and in your own eyes and those of your partner as being part of a 'special' union. And that, 'civil union' can't provide.
i would guess that even long term couples will, in some cases, feel the need to make it official and get married.

TUSooner
2/7/2012, 02:33 PM
This will only lead to gay divorces.

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/1805/220pxthegaydivorceemovi.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/821/220pxthegaydivorceemovi.jpg/)

SoonerPride
2/7/2012, 02:34 PM
It's a complicated issue. There's the legal stuff, like being able to go into the ER to see your 'partner' if you're not 'family'. And inheritance, retirement bennies, etc. All that, however, could be resolved with civil union. The other part of it is to be seen in the eyes of the community and in your own eyes and those of your partner as being part of a 'special' union. And that, 'civil union' can't provide.
i would guess that even long term couples will, in some cases, feel the need to make it official and get married.

The problem with 'civil unions' is they aren't the same thing. Separate but equal is not equality.

The difference between civil marriage and religious marriage should be moot.

No one is forcing a church to marry anyone they don't want.

But civil marriage regulated by state governments should recognize all 'unions' equally. Either marriage for all or for none.

Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional and Oklahoma's amendment to our state constitution will one day fall away.

cleller
2/7/2012, 02:53 PM
The main problem I have with gay marriage is the image of two grown men marrying each other.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2012, 03:42 PM
This is the argument some people use against gay marriage, saying that it opens the floodgates for other types of "marriages," including those between children and adults, and people and animals.


A slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

I wish more people would realize that.

Also I wish they would realize that neither a minor nor a goat can give consent.

SoonerAtKU
2/7/2012, 04:03 PM
I'd be in support of legislature that removes the term "Marriage", "Married" or "Spouse" from any and all government documents and replaces it with the corresponding verbiage referring to Civil Unions. Call it whatever you want after the fact, but we're all getting CU'd as far as Uncle Sam and your state are concerned. I realize that this would be a non-starter with most of the country, but I fail to see how it's unfair or negatively affects any group on any level.

pphilfran
2/7/2012, 04:43 PM
That's an incorrect argument then. Nothing about this case would make it legal to marry someone who doesn't or can't consent. Thus, no floodgates.

I could definitely make a case that this clears a path for polygamy though.

Polygamy should be a slam dunk....

pphilfran
2/7/2012, 04:45 PM
A slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

I wish more people would realize that.

Also I wish they would realize that neither a minor nor a goat can give consent.

Why should a goat have the ability to give consent...do they give consent when they get slaughtered for meat?

47straight
2/7/2012, 05:16 PM
The problem with 'civil unions' is they aren't the same thing. Separate but equal is not equality.

The difference between civil marriage and religious marriage should be moot.

No one is forcing a church to marry anyone they don't want.

But civil marriage regulated by state governments should recognize all 'unions' equally. Either marriage for all or for none.

Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional and Oklahoma's amendment to our state constitution will one day fall away.

There are already cases in New York and other states wherein chapels and wedding photographers who don't want to do gay marriages are being forced to comply.

As others have pointed out, if you really think all unions should be treated equally, then the break-away mormons and the immigrants from certain Eastern Hemisphere locations get their polygamy --- AND benefits for each.

If someone wants gay marriages, fine. But I don't buy the "equality" or "not forcing" arguments.

okie52
2/7/2012, 05:33 PM
http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/gaykiss.jpg

.

ouwasp
2/7/2012, 06:36 PM
I'm violating my own rule about not clicking on homo threads to say I'm so glad my kids haven't turned out this way.

olevetonahill
2/7/2012, 07:03 PM
Why do we even want to inject ourselves in each others business?
I dont care who marries who . It does not concern me nor bother me ,
The ****in Govt. needs to just stay the hell out of everyone personal business and bed rooms
two dudes or chicks wanta get married Will not affect me in any way, I may find it distasteful But then Hell some of Yall Like Sushi and THATS more distasteful IMHO

soonerhubs
2/7/2012, 07:19 PM
As a Mormon with constitutionalist leanings, I found this proposition to be a violation of the liberties laid out by the Bill of Rights. If folks don't want the State to infringe on their version of marriage, fine, but if marriage is a legal contract, then all consenting adults should be eligible to the legal contract.

JMHO--Take it or leave it.

bigfatjerk
2/7/2012, 07:33 PM
If folks don't want the State to infringe on their version of marriage, fine, but if marriage is a legal contract, then all consenting adults should be eligible to the legal contract.

That's about the way I see it, the government really shouldn't be involved in a marriage unless there's something illegal or some objection about it in some way.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2012, 08:11 PM
Why should a goat have the ability to give consent...do they give consent when they get slaughtered for meat?

Because marriage requires consent by both parties. At least in this country.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2012, 08:14 PM
There are already cases in New York and other states wherein chapels and wedding photographers who don't want to do gay marriages are being forced to comply.

As others have pointed out, if you really think all unions should be treated equally, then the break-away mormons and the immigrants from certain Eastern Hemisphere locations get their polygamy --- AND benefits for each.

If someone wants gay marriages, fine. But I don't buy the "equality" or "not forcing" arguments.

47, I know there was a suit regarding a photographer (though as I recall that was based on a state nondiscrimination statute which included sexual preference). Can you like the suit regarding the chapel? Was the chapel a religiously-affiliated chapel or just some dude who had the authority to perform marriages?

I mean, as a general rule, Catholic priests won't marry non-Catholics, and I'm unaware of any successful suit to force them to do so.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2012, 08:18 PM
That's about the way I see it, the government really shouldn't be involved in a marriage unless there's something illegal or some objection about it in some way.

That's kind of a tautology. "Government shouldn't make marriages illegal unless they're illegal."

okie52
2/7/2012, 08:24 PM
Why should a goat have the ability to give consent...do they give consent when they get slaughtered for meat?

Or groped for milk?

jumperstop
2/7/2012, 08:25 PM
I'm violating my own rule about not clicking on homo threads to say I'm so glad my kids haven't turned out this way.

I really hope one of your kids turns out to be gay just so you will feel stupid for saying this someday....

People get too worked up over gay people and them getting married. Let them have at it and let the government move on to more important things...

Midtowner
2/7/2012, 08:26 PM
Because marriage requires consent by both parties. At least in this country.

I haven't read the entire 80-page mandate, but skimming, it seems the Court held that there was no rational basis for Prop 8. I'll bet we could come up with a rationale for goat-marrying to pass the 'ol rational basis test.

Whet
2/7/2012, 08:34 PM
The 9th is the most overturned of all Circuits, so their ruling is probably moot.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2012, 08:39 PM
I haven't read the entire 80-page mandate, but skimming, it seems the Court held that there was no rational basis for Prop 8. I'll bet we could come up with a rationale for goat-marrying to pass the 'ol rational basis test.

You don't have to even pass RB. No constitutional review. But sure, prevention of cruelty to animals is a legitimate state purpose.

And yeah, the argument was equal protection, so the standard was rational basis.

Midtowner
2/7/2012, 08:52 PM
The 9th is the most overturned of all Circuits, so their ruling is probably moot.

In terms of shear numbers, that's true. Of course, the 9th hears more cases than any other Circuit, so that's understandable. As far as the rate of it being overturned, it has one of the lowest rates for having its decisions overturned. That said, folks assuming the SCOTUS wants to hear this are assuming an awful lot.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2012, 09:07 PM
The Ninth is actually third-most reversed by percentage of cases granted cert. reversed, behind the Sixth and Fifth. By number of cases decided then reversed the Ninth is probably dead last.

Something that people sometimes don't realize is that just because a court got reversed doesn't mean they got the law wrong. The Supreme Court might reverse because they're announcing a new standard.

This opinion is so narrowly worded that I kind of doubt the Supreme Court will want to take it on cert. It only applies in the special case where a right, once declared, is taken away.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2012, 09:08 PM
Good article discussing the perception of the Ninth Circuit:
http://westreferenceattorneys.com/2011/07/should-the-ninth-circuit-be-judged-by-reversal-rates/

Theskipster
2/7/2012, 09:50 PM
Why should a goat have the ability to give consent...do they give consent when they get slaughtered for meat?

Of course not. But when is a goat's consent ever a problem? God commanded people to put all your sins on a goat without the goat's consent and then sacrifice it to get rid of your sins. Maybe it is just me, but having unnatural relations with a goat is more moral than pushing all your sins (including having unnatural relations with a goat) and then killing that goat to be sin free and morally pure.

AlboSooner
2/7/2012, 09:56 PM
The only thing gays are after is world-wide acceptance of their sexual proclivity. If they cared for norms and structure, they would not choose to be gay in the first place. Yes they choose. It's pure poppycock and Hollywoodian brainwashing to believe otherwise. Our run towards Godlessness is paved by the asphalt of moral relativism, and selective isolationism. When we feel like it we question the validity of an idea globally (should creationism be taught in schools), and when we feel like we ask stupid questions like: does the re-definition of the institution of marriage affect my marriage. Of course it does, but our hated for anything holy, traditional, and Christian has blinded us to the simple fact that homosexuality is unnatural. It is a sinful choice at best, and an evolutionary aberration at worst. An error by the genetic machinery, or a mess-up of the mindless, purposeless luck that combines the genes. Either way you look at it, it's not how it ought to be.


But, the biggest lie is that old wretched line: by the people for the people.... It was a lie then, and it is so now.

SoonerPride
2/7/2012, 10:05 PM
The only thing gays are after is world-wide acceptance of their sexual proclivity. If they cared for norms and structure, they would not choose to be gay in the first place. Yes they choose. It's pure poppycock and Hollywoodian brainwashing to believe otherwise. Our run towards Godlessness is paved by the asphalt of moral relativism, and selective isolationism. When we feel like it we question the validity of an idea globally (should creationism be taught in schools), and when we feel like we ask stupid questions like: does the re-definition of the institution of marriage affect my marriage. Of course it does, but our hated for anything holy, traditional, and Christian has blinded us to the simple fact that homosexuality is unnatural. It is a sinful choice at best, and an evolutionary aberration at worst. An error by the genetic machinery, or a mess-up of the mindless, purposeless luck that combines the genes. Either way you look at it, it's not how it ought to be.


But, the biggest lie is that old wretched line: by the people for the people.... It was a lie then, and it is so now.

You tell me the moment you chose to be straight.

When did you decide?

You thought, hmmm I am equally attracted to men and women, but I think I'll choose women.

Tell us.

This should be rich.

okie52
2/7/2012, 10:07 PM
Of course not. But when is a goat's consent ever a problem? God commanded people to put all your sins on a goat without the goat's consent and then sacrifice it to get rid of your sins. Maybe it is just me, but having unnatural relations with a goat is more moral than pushing all your sins (including having unnatural relations with a goat) and then killing that goat to be sin free and morally pure.

Scape goat?

AlboSooner
2/7/2012, 10:21 PM
You tell me the moment you choose to be straight.

When did you decide?

You thought, hmmm I am equally attracted to men and women, but I think I'll choose women.

Tell us.

This should be rich.

You're not asking a question. You're making a statement. Being heterosexual is the plan that God has ordained in nature. Not only has God ordained it, but also He has provided a suitable machinery that this ordinance makes perfect natural sense. Your path leads to genetic predeterminism. You can't say genes make gay people gay, but pedophiles choose to be that way. Many people turn from homosexuality and many resist its temptation for the sake of the Lord.

I do not expect my message to be received well, as I go against the politically correct norm. To all semi-religious, Christians on Christmas and Easter type of people: Revelation 3:16.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/7/2012, 10:26 PM
To me, it's a gender issue, not a gay issue. If Ellen wants to have a marital contract with a consenting Portia, but Prop 8 prohibits it, the reason is due to Ellen's gender. That is the only factor preventing her from marrying Portia. They don't have to be gay, just like an opposite sex marriage does not require both participants be straight. Gay men are permitted to marry women and lesbians are permitted to marry men.

Procreation is not requisite because we allow 80 year old women to marry.

okie52
2/7/2012, 10:30 PM
You're not asking a question. You're making a statement. Being a heterosexual is the plan that God has ordained in nature. Not only has God ordained it, but also He has provided a suitable machinery that this ordinance makes perfect natural sense. Your path leads to genetic predeterminism. You can't say genes make gay people gay, but pedophiles choose to be that way. Many people turn from homosexuality and many resists its temptation for the sake of the Lord.

I do not expect my message to be received well, as I go against politically correct norm. To all semi-religious, Christians on Christmas and Easter type of people: Revelation 3:16.

Going against PC would be a great religion.

AlboSooner
2/7/2012, 10:34 PM
Going against PC would be a great religion.

We need less religions/religious people, and more people will stand up for the Faith.

Theskipster
2/7/2012, 10:53 PM
Scape goat?

Glad you understand the very immoral concept of vicarious redemption. Almost every Christian doesn't and they still claim that you can't be moral without god. Amazing what people will believe. Most of them believe in personal responsibility and yet their religion says otherwise.


The only thing gays are after is world-wide acceptance of their sexual proclivity. If they cared for norms and structure, they would not choose to be gay in the first place. Yes they choose. It's pure poppycock and Hollywoodian brainwashing to believe otherwise. Our run towards Godlessness is paved by the asphalt of moral relativism, and selective isolationism. When we feel like it we question the validity of an idea globally (should creationism be taught in schools), and when we feel like we ask stupid questions like: does the re-definition of the institution of marriage affect my marriage. Of course it does, but our hated for anything holy, traditional, and Christian has blinded us to the simple fact that homosexuality is unnatural. It is a sinful choice at best, and an evolutionary aberration at worst. An error by the genetic machinery, or a mess-up of the mindless, purposeless luck that combines the genes. Either way you look at it, it's not how it ought to be.

So why is homosexuality actually unnatural and a big sin? And if you use Leviticus, explain why you eat bacon and shrimp. And also that you don't believe that you can rape a virgin and marry her for only 50 shekels?

okie52
2/7/2012, 10:53 PM
We need less religions/religious people, and more people will stand up for the Faith.

Probably true, albo, probably true. But I am more in the 3:16 state than you are. That, and I am episcopalian.

bigfatjerk
2/7/2012, 10:56 PM
That's kind of a tautology. "Government shouldn't make marriages illegal unless they're illegal."

Mostly I'm thinking of protecting minors, and in cases of rape or abuse of some sort. And as of now Bestiality and polygamy wouldn't be legal. But if 2 parties and both are sane and able to sign contracts they should be allowed to marry.

Turd_Ferguson
2/7/2012, 10:57 PM
So why is homosexuality actually unnaturalSo, you think it's natural to stick your dick in another mans ***?

sappstuf
2/7/2012, 11:23 PM
You don't have to even pass RB. No constitutional review. But sure, prevention of cruelty to animals is a legitimate state purpose.

And yeah, the argument was equal protection, so the standard was rational basis.

I thought gay couples in California already had all the same rights in California as married people with civil unions. If they do, then it isn't an equal protection argument.

It is more akin to softball players demanding to be called baseball players. The sports are about 97% the same, but it only takes one pitch to see the difference.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/7/2012, 11:37 PM
I thought gay couples in California already had all the same rights in California as married people with civil unions. If they do, then it isn't an equal protection argument.

It is more akin to softball players demanding to be called baseball players. The sports are about 97% the same, but it only takes one pitch to see the difference.

I don't have any objection to softball players playing baseball.

okie52
2/7/2012, 11:41 PM
I don't have any objection to softball players playing baseball.

So how did you vote on prop 8 San Joaquin?

SanJoaquinSooner
2/7/2012, 11:48 PM
I will fight to the death for your right not to marry someone of the same sex.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/7/2012, 11:49 PM
So how did you vote on prop 8 San Joaquin?

I voted No, as any good libertarian should.

sappstuf
2/7/2012, 11:58 PM
I don't have any objection to softball players playing baseball.

Neither do I. But that isn't what they want. They want to keep playing softball but have everyone call it baseball.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 12:16 AM
You tell me the moment you choose to be straight.

When did you decide?

You thought, hmmm I am equally attracted to men and women, but I think I'll choose women.

Tell us.

This should be rich.

You're not asking a question. You're making a statement. Being heterosexual is the plan that God has ordained in nature. Not only has God ordained it, but also He has provided a suitable machinery that this ordinance makes perfect natural sense. Your path leads to genetic predeterminism. You can't say genes make gay people gay, but pedophiles choose to be that way. Many people turn from homosexuality and many resist its temptation for the sake of the Lord.

I do not expect my message to be received well, as I go against the politically correct norm. To all semi-religious, Christians on Christmas and Easter type of people: Revelation 3:16.

Thank you for your reply.

I noticed you refused to answer the question. Why? Because you know the answer. And you can't defend it.

So instead you hide behind your "faith."

Well instead of spending all your time reading the "good book" perhaps you should read other books, especially on biology and science. Homosexuality is observed in all mammalian species without fail. It is indeed part of nature and not a choice.

Those are facts.

But I don't expect you to understand. Open your eyes and your mind. Your "faith" has made you blind. Good luck with that.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2012, 01:18 AM
I thought gay couples in California already had all the same rights in California as married people with civil unions. If they do, then it isn't an equal protection argument.

I don't know why you're arguing with me on this. I didn't make the equal protection argument. The plaintiffs did. And won on it, I might add.

To answer your question, Prop. 8 singled out a class and denied them the right to legal status as a married couple. Whether or not they still had all the other rights that go along with that, or whether or not you think that's a big deal, the court bought the argument. Even the dissenter recognized that Equal Protection was implicated. There's simply no argument on whether the Equal Protection Clause is involved.

Chuck Bao
2/8/2012, 02:04 AM
25 years from now they'll be worried about outlawing marriage between two consenting people if one is a toddler... or between two consenting living beings if one is a goat :eek:

Not to worry, nobody is going to argue for passing a law allowing marriage between a consenting adult human and the ill-tempered, mean mouth badger.


For people that have lived their lives for so long together without being married, I wonder if they would actually get married if they had the opportunity to legally, without restriction, and possibly even in a traditional religious ceremony setting.

I would ask people that I know who are, but I'd hate to be part of an awkward silence that followed.

You may wonder. I know. Several of my friends have married in the few states that recognize same-sex marriages. Many more want to and won’t because such a marriage wouldn’t be recognized in their home state.

Personally, I have always wanted to get married with all of the rights afforded to married couples. Maybe someday I will get that chance.

For the record, I would be overjoyed with the prospect of simply calling it a civil union, just so long as it is recognized nationwide and by the US State Department.

Chuck Bao
2/8/2012, 02:16 AM
So, you think it's natural to stick your dick in another mans ***?

Is it natural to use your fingers and opposable thumb to pleasure yourself? Is it natural to kiss? Is it natural to seek mutual pleasure with another consenting adult?

Chuck Bao
2/8/2012, 02:32 AM
It doesn't. To me the only argument against is the spouse will be on a business insurance and may cost a business more. One could argue the HIV rates and the risk for increasing the cost of insurance for a business.

Not saying I agree with the argument, but it is a concern.

Thank the Good Lord that our constitutional rights are not weighed by the perceived cost to businesses. But, I guess we could always bring back slavery.

Chuck Bao
2/8/2012, 02:35 AM
http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/gaykiss.jpg

.

Good thing that that pic is cropped so you can't see the sword fight.

ouflak
2/8/2012, 03:15 AM
You're not asking a question. You're making a statement. Being black or white is the plan that God has ordained in nature. Not only has God ordained it, but also He has provided a suitable machinery that this ordinance makes perfect natural sense. Your path leads to genetic pre-determinism. You can say genes make black people black or white people white, but deviants choose to ignore this sign from God. Many people turn from interracial relations and many resist its temptation for the sake of the Lord.

I do not expect my message to be received well, as I go against the politically correct norm. To all semi-religious, Christians on Christmas and Easter type of people: Revelation 3:16.

This was one of the exact same arguments used to support the laws that made it illegal for my parents to be married in Oklahoma in 1966! It's amazing the parallels.

Chuck Bao
2/8/2012, 03:29 AM
I'm excited to see what this does at the SCOTUS level. Suppose it makes it that far and the SCOTUS upholds the 9th Circuit, as a family law attorney, I'll see my business grow by at least 10%.

Many legal experts are saying that the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was intentionally narrowly written and most likely won't be taken up by the SCOTUS. The gay press is still hailing it as an historic, landmark case, citing that it is the first time that a federal appellate court has ever ruled that denying the right to marry to same-sex couples is irrational.

http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Oped_Disliking_Us_Is_No_Longer_a_Legal_Rationale/


“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’” — Majority Opinion, Perry v. Brown, February 7, 2012

And with that, on Tuesday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed district judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. There is much about this ruling to like, many great phrases and strong legal analysis that lays bare what we all know: There was no reason for voters to pass Prop. 8 other than dislike, discomfort, or distaste for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and our relationships.

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans, not liking a group of people is not a sufficient justification for denying them rights and protections guaranteed by our Constitution. And in the case of Prop. 8, the court focused on the fact that Prop. 8 eliminated a right by popular vote. At some level, most of us know in our gut that allowing such tyranny of the majority would lead to some very ugly outcomes, and now we have a federal appellate court joining our chagrin at such a state of affairs.

And, I say AMEN at the end of that prayer.

sappstuf
2/8/2012, 07:32 AM
I don't know why you're arguing with me on this. I didn't make the equal protection argument. The plaintiffs did. And won on it, I might add.

To answer your question, Prop. 8 singled out a class and denied them the right to legal status as a married couple. Whether or not they still had all the other rights that go along with that, or whether or not you think that's a big deal, the court bought the argument. Even the dissenter recognized that Equal Protection was implicated. There's simply no argument on whether the Equal Protection Clause is involved.

The court didn't even review if they had the right or not.


Therefore we need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so. Further we express no view on those questions.

Theskipster
2/8/2012, 09:29 AM
So, you think it's natural to stick your dick in another mans ***?

The evidence points to yes.

Ton Loc
2/8/2012, 09:41 AM
So, you think it's natural to stick your dick in another mans ***?

I'd like to think you had the choice, but I'm thinking you were born a norrow minded dick.

Also, anyone ever notice that when it comes to gay marriage all anyone (ok, mostly just the men) point to is the man sex? The women seem to be left completly out of the argument. I know why...

badger
2/8/2012, 10:08 AM
I'd like to think you had the choice, but I'm thinking you were born a norrow minded dick.

Also, anyone ever notice that when it comes to gay marriage all anyone (ok, mostly just the men) point to is the man sex? The women seem to be left completly out of the argument. I know why...

How bout this: What is the purpose of marriage?

If its procreation, then why do old people get married?

If it's not procreation, then what?

Why did any of us married SF.com posters get married in the first place?

It's probably not the tax benefits, or the evil thoughts of stealing half his stuff and spousal support checks after divorce (or all of his stuff after his death).

It's likely also not the morbid thought that should anything awful happen to the spouse that we would be able to be in the ER giving doctor's instructions.

Is it just to be happy and to be with him for the long haul? To show that you're dedicated to the relationship and that you are promising to be faithful and committed?

If it's the last one and everything else is just a side effect, there probably isn't much argument for not allowing two consenting adults to be get married.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2012, 10:22 AM
The court didn't even review if they had the right or not.

You're reading more into that statement than is there.

There's a difference between a "right" to marry and a "fundamental right" to marry. The Ninth Circuit in that paragraph was saying they weren't reviewing whether California's actions violated substantive due process. If you read that opinion and don't understand that it was an equal protection case, then I can't help you. The court very clearly in several places characterizes the issue as California eliminating a previously-granted right to marry as against a particular class of citizen. When you target a class of citizen and eliminate their rights, that's an equal protection issue.

jkjsooner
2/8/2012, 10:45 AM
One step closer to giving everyone the right to as miserable (or happy) as everyone else. I'm excited about some right winger trying to argue against this using the thinly disguised excuse that this will lead to people abusing the system.

The opposite is one reason I'm for this. With some corporations sanctioning same sex unities without government approval, it really opens the floodgates for abuse. People can claim they're "married" to get access to healthcare with no consequences.

I'm for everyone playing by the same rules. If you want healthcare for your significant other then get married.


This is interesting because of the fundamental differences in how the two sides view this. One side views it as a discrimination issue. The other side argues that nobody is being discriminated against - a gay man has just as much a right to marry a women as a straight man. That argument seems totally rational to one side and absurd to the other.

In my opinion, I think it's a rational argument so I don't view the issue as a discrimination or equal protection issue at all. Comparing it to laws against interracial marriages there is one distinction. A black man doesn't have a right to marry a white women. A white man has a right to marry that same woman. There is a distinction between the black man and the white man. There is no analogy to this in the same sex case - unless you're arguing sex discimination instead of sexual preference discrimination.

However, I have no problem with same sex marriages and I think its existence can actually be a benefit to society.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2012, 10:56 AM
The other side argues that nobody is being discriminated against - a gay man has just as much a right to marry a women as a straight man.

This type of reasoning doesn't work in front of the Supreme Court. Examples: "Miscegenation statutes forbid white people from marrying black people just like they forbid black people from marrying white people." "Nobody can engage in sex with someone of their own sex, so it doesn't discriminate against gay people."

pphilfran
2/8/2012, 10:58 AM
Because marriage requires consent by both parties. At least in this country.

Makes sense...

Do you take this man....

Bleeeeeeeet!

sappstuf
2/8/2012, 11:05 AM
You're reading more into that statement than is there.

There's a difference between a "right" to marry and a "fundamental right" to marry. The Ninth Circuit in that paragraph was saying they weren't reviewing whether California's actions violated substantive due process. If you read that opinion and don't understand that it was an equal protection case, then I can't help you. The court very clearly in several places characterizes the issue as California eliminating a previously-granted right to marry as against a particular class of citizen. When you target a class of citizen and eliminate their rights, that's an equal protection issue.

So are you saying that since California "granted" them right that they can't take it back, but if they had never granted them the right then it would be different?

okie52
2/8/2012, 11:06 AM
Good thing that that pic is cropped so you can't see the sword fight.

heheh.

badger
2/8/2012, 11:07 AM
So are you saying that since California "granted" them right that they can't take it back, but if they had never granted them the right then it would be different?

Wait a sec... I thought it was just cities within California, not the state itself, that was granting marriage licenses till the state was like "Um... knock it off, please. You're just a city, San Francisco, not a state."

If this is the case, then what's stopping random little communities like here in Oklahoma from throwing up Ten Commandments monuments in front of court houses like they've been doing for awhile till the ACLU descended down on them with lawsuits? "BUT THEY ALLOWED IT BEFORE, SO HOW DARE THEY TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT NOW!"

pphilfran
2/8/2012, 11:18 AM
This is so simple to be such a f'd up mess...

When you go to get the license if you are tying the knot in a church you get a marriage license....jp you get a civil union....both get the same benefits....once you get out of the jp you can tell the world you are married....

jkjsooner
2/8/2012, 11:21 AM
This type of reasoning doesn't work in front of the Supreme Court. Examples: "Miscegenation statutes forbid white people from marrying black people just like they forbid black people from marrying white people." "Nobody can engage in sex with someone of their own sex, so it doesn't discriminate against gay people."

I kind of addressed the difference between gay marriage and miscegenation (learned a new word) laws.

If you are looking at it from a sexual preference perspective, a gay man can marry the exaxt same subset of humans as a straight man. In that respect they are treated exactly the same.

For the miscegenation case, this is not true. In fact, the two subsets are completely distinct and do not overlap. This means that the black and white man are treated differently. A black man does not have the same rights as a white man and vice versa.

Now, given if you argue from a sex discrimination perspective then you have a closer analogy. The subset of humans that a man can marry is completely distinct from the subset of humans that a woman can marry.


Anyway, I'm not saying that SCOTUS will place any weight on my distinction but I do think there is a slight distinction there.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2012, 11:28 AM
So are you saying that since California "granted" them right that they can't take it back, but if they had never granted them the right then it would be different?

That's the holding of the case. Or more precisely, the issue of what happens if they'd never granted the right in the first place was not properly before they court, so they refrained from ruling on it.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2012, 11:34 AM
Wait a sec... I thought it was just cities within California, not the state itself, that was granting marriage licenses till the state was like "Um... knock it off, please. You're just a city, San Francisco, not a state."

No. The California Supreme Court held that distinguishing between civil unions and marriages violated both equal protection and due process under the California Constitution. Prop 8 amended the California Constitution to take away the right recognized by the California Supreme Court.


If this is the case, then what's stopping random little communities like here in Oklahoma from throwing up Ten Commandments monuments in front of court houses like they've been doing for awhile till the ACLU descended down on them with lawsuits? "BUT THEY ALLOWED IT BEFORE, SO HOW DARE THEY TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT NOW!"

Badger, this makes so little sense I don't even know where to start answering it.

Suffice it to say that you don't have a right to violate the Constitution.

badger
2/8/2012, 11:40 AM
since I was curious, I looked it up and it turns out that California did at one point offer gay marriage, but prop 8 overturned it. However, California still offers domestic partnership...


California continues to allow domestic partnership. This grants same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage[18] but does not apply to "federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states."[19] UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy projected in June 2008 that about half of California’s more than 100,000 same-sex couples would wed during the next three years and 68,000 out-of-state couples would travel to California to exchange vows.[20]

Is the issue just whether to call it marriage or partnership? Because till there's a federal law allowing gay marriage, there's probably not anything else the state of California can do other than what they already offer (other than a name change to "marriage" rather than "domestic partnership")

Thoughts?

badger
2/8/2012, 11:42 AM
Badger, this makes so little sense I don't even know where to start answering it.

It was a hypothetical :)



Suffice it to say that you don't have a right to violate the Constitution.

Cue Simpsons quote "But if we change the constitution... THEN WE CAN MAKE ALL SORTS OF CRAZY LAWS!!!!"
:)

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 11:42 AM
This is so simple to be such a f'd up mess...

When you go to get the license if you are tying the knot in a church you get a marriage license....jp you get a civil union....both get the same benefits....once you get out of the jp you can tell the world you are married....

However, as Frozen points out


No. The California Supreme Court held that distinguishing between civil unions and marriages violated both equal protection and substantive due process.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 11:48 AM
since I was curious, I looked it up and it turns out that California did at one point offer gay marriage, but prop 8 overturned it. However, California still offers domestic partnership...



Is the issue just whether to call it marriage or partnership? Because till there's a federal law allowing gay marriage, there's probably not anything else the state of California can do other than what they already offer (other than a name change to "marriage" rather than "domestic partnership")

Thoughts?

That's precisely the ruling of the California Supreme Court which allowed gay marriages in the first place the Prop 8 then banned.

Namely separate isn't equal. Domestic partnerships aren't marriage.

sappstuf
2/8/2012, 11:53 AM
That's the holding of the case. Or more precisely, the issue of what happens if they'd never granted the right in the first place was not properly before they court, so they refrained from ruling on it.

The people of California never voted on that and a "right" to gay marriage was never in the state constitution. The "right" was created by the California Supreme Court for exactly 143 days before the people of California passed Proposition 8 to amend their constitution to correct what they saw as a mistaken ruling. In another words what you are saying is the people of California have no recourse and never did to reverse a decision that gay marriage is a right even though the federal government does not recognize them to this day and the sitting president has spoken out against gay marriage repeatedly..

I think it is silly for the Ninth circuit to say that Californians are trying to treat the gays poorly while at the same time admitting that California voters have passed civil unions that give gays all the same rights yet the federal government does not hold the same view.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2012, 12:11 PM
I guess you're more of an expert on the California Constitution than the California Supreme Court.

sappstuf
2/8/2012, 12:29 PM
I guess you're more of an expert on the California Constitution than the California Supreme Court.

The people voted to amend their constitution did they not? The voters were not happy so they voted to change it. Isn't that supposed to be how it works?

For the Ninth circuit to tell the people of California that they cannot change their constitution to something that more resembles federal law or other states seems more than a little hypocritical.

KantoSooner
2/8/2012, 12:31 PM
Sappstuf,
I am not particularly fond of our system of judicial review. I think it gives far too much power to judges and far too little attention to review of the history and process of making a law. In that respect, I'd prefer legal systems like the French. But that's an aside.
When the Supreme Court of Cali okayed gay marriage, they didn't 'create' a new right. They said that the right had been there all along, but that the courts and government had not recognized it.
When the ninth circuit overturned prop 8, they were not denying the people of Cali the right to change their constitution to specifically outlaw gay marriage; they were just saying that the way it was attempted in Prop 8 would not fly.
It's a very mushy, hair splitting and unsatisfying way to go about making, interpreting and challenging laws; but it's the way we do it.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2012, 12:36 PM
The people voted to amend their constitution did they not? The voters were not happy so they voted to change it. Isn't that supposed to be how it works?

For the Ninth circuit to tell the people of California that they cannot change their constitution to something that more resembles federal law or other states seems more than a little hypocritical.

They did vote to amend their state Constitution. They did so to take away a right previously contained in their Constitution on the basis of someone's sexual preference. The Ninth Circuit found that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. They did so because they found that there was no rational relation between a legitimate government purpose and the amendment.

An amendment to the California Constitution cannot deny federally protected rights.

badger
2/8/2012, 12:56 PM
I think we can all agree that it's time for the federal government and the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and end this debate once and for all.

Either declare gay marriage an equal right or don't. Either establish an alternative with equal protection for two consenting adults or don't.

Do something, feds, or the states are gonna continue to try to establish their own laws on the matter.

Same goes for illegal immigration, really.

sappstuf
2/8/2012, 01:01 PM
Sappstuf,
I am not particularly fond of our system of judicial review. I think it gives far too much power to judges and far too little attention to review of the history and process of making a law. In that respect, I'd prefer legal systems like the French. But that's an aside.
When the Supreme Court of Cali okayed gay marriage, they didn't 'create' a new right. They said that the right had been there all along, but that the courts and government had not recognized it.
When the ninth circuit overturned prop 8, they were not denying the people of Cali the right to change their constitution to specifically outlaw gay marriage; they were just saying that the way it was attempted in Prop 8 would not fly.
It's a very mushy, hair splitting and unsatisfying way to go about making, interpreting and challenging laws; but it's the way we do it.

What way would fly? That is an honest question.

I find much irony that a court of the federal government that does not recognize gay marriage can tell a state that it must recognize gay marriage even though a majority of its citizens do not support it.

Gay marriage failed on several ballots in California before the supreme court judgement which is in line with most other states, the current president and the federal government. Failing repeated votes, gay activists took it to state court and won when a new "right" was suddenly discovered.

What recourse do the citizens of California have to bring their laws closer to that of the federal government?

SanJoaquinSooner
2/8/2012, 01:05 PM
As a California resident, I should know this, but I don't understand how you can amend a constitution with just 52% of the vote.

I'm glad the U.S. Constitution is not so easily amended.

sappstuf
2/8/2012, 01:10 PM
As a California resident, I should know this, but I don't understand how you can amend a constitution with just 52% of the vote.

I'm glad the U.S. Constitution is not so easily amended.

Because it is in the constitution and now it can't be changed... ;)

pphilfran
2/8/2012, 01:18 PM
However, as Frozen points out

I don't understand....if everything is equal other than the name and where you do the ceremony, where is the problem?

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 01:25 PM
However, as Frozen points out

I don't understand....if everything is equal other than the name and where you do the ceremony, where is the problem?

Then what is the problem with calling it marriage?

If you say "because it isn't marriage" then there's your answer.

Why make a distinction except to emphasize that one group is different from the other?

SanJoaquinSooner
2/8/2012, 01:37 PM
I don't understand....if everything is equal other than the name and where you do the ceremony, where is the problem?

Because albosooner may want to call interracial marriage something other than marriage.

pphilfran
2/8/2012, 01:37 PM
Then what is the problem with calling it marriage?

If you say "because it isn't marriage" then there's your answer.

Why make a distinction except to emphasize that one group is different from the other?

I will tell you why....

There is a significant percentage of the population that believes the term marriage is something meant for man and woman....they believe is discredits the name of the marriage...

I am not saying that group is correct only that there is a large group of the population that thinks it is distasteful and it would help the cause to accept the simple name change....

In my suggestion a gay couple could get a marriage certificate if they have a church that will marry them

It is a very minor point....something I would toss in a heartbeat if I thought I could get all the benefits that I have dreamed about for decades....

But hell no...let's buck up against the name and delay getting those rights even further into the future...

I don't give a chit one way or the other...just looking at the fastest way to give everyone equal rights while stepping on as few toes as possible...

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 01:47 PM
I will tell you why....

There is a significant percentage of the population that believes the term marriage is something meant for man and woman....they believe is discredits the name of the marriage...

I am not saying that group is correct only that there is a large group of the population that thinks it is distasteful and it would help the cause to accept the simple name change....

In my suggestion a gay couple could get a marriage certificate if they have a church that will marry them

It is a very minor point....something I would toss in a heartbeat if I thought I could get all the benefits that I have dreamed about for decades....

But hell no...let's buck up against the name and delay getting those rights even further into the future...

I don't give a chit one way or the other...just looking at the fastest way to give everyone equal rights while stepping on as few toes as possible...

So in your answer you define the two as different.

That's not equality.

Sorry.

pphilfran
2/8/2012, 02:10 PM
So in your answer you define the two as different.

That's not equality.

Sorry.

I am not trying to define....unlike you, I am trying to find a way to get benefits to all with out stepping on as many toes as possible....

You wish to step on toes and cause undue delay...

Sorry,,,,

pphilfran
2/8/2012, 02:13 PM
I think we can all agree that it's time for the federal government and the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and end this debate once and for all.

Either declare gay marriage an equal right or don't. Either establish an alternative with equal protection for two consenting adults or don't.

Do something, feds, or the states are gonna continue to try to establish their own laws on the matter.

Same goes for illegal immigration, really.

Yep...

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 02:17 PM
I am not trying to define....unlike you, I am trying to find a way to get benefits to all with out stepping on as many toes as possible....

You wish to step on toes and cause undue delay...

Sorry,,,,

It's not my wish, as I am not a plaintiff in the case.

I am just telling you the ruling of the prior courts.

They said separate is not equal. There is no justifiable reason under law to discriminate between one group and call it "marriage" and another group "civil unions."

I understand that some would like to have to two separate tracks to make it easier for them to, um, swallow, but the courts say that's no good.

badger
2/8/2012, 02:20 PM
So in your answer you define the two as different.

That's not equality.

Sorry.

As much as I would love to think it wouldn't be the case, "separate but equal" was found to once actually be "separate is never equal."

Ton Loc
2/8/2012, 03:35 PM
I think we can all agree that it's time for the federal government and the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and end this debate once and for all.

Either declare gay marriage an equal right or don't. Either establish an alternative with equal protection for two consenting adults or don't.

Do something, feds, or the states are gonna continue to try to establish their own laws on the matter.

Same goes for illegal immigration, really.

Yeah

And throw in the marijuana too.

pphilfran
2/8/2012, 03:42 PM
It's not my wish, as I am not a plaintiff in the case.

I am just telling you the ruling of the prior courts.

They said separate is not equal. There is no justifiable reason under law to discriminate between one group and call it "marriage" and another group "civil unions."

I understand that some would like to have to two separate tracks to make it easier for them to, um, swallow, but the courts say that's no good.

How am I seperating?

If you want to get married, gay or not, you get a license and go to a church...anyone with any sexual whim should be able to get a marriage cert...find a church and get after it...

If you, gay or not, do not wish to get married in a church you can then go to the jp...get a civil union license and get after it...

I am not discriminating against any group....just a choice....

This would take some of the pressure off and get the benefits sooner....

I applaud you stance and believe that you are correct...just that you risk delaying getting what you want....

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 04:12 PM
How am I seperating?

If you want to get married, gay or not, you get a license and go to a church...anyone with any sexual whim should be able to get a marriage cert...find a church and get after it...

If you, gay or not, do not wish to get married in a church you can then go to the jp...get a civil union license and get after it...

I am not discriminating against any group....just a choice....

This would take some of the pressure off and get the benefits sooner....

I applaud you stance and believe that you are correct...just that you risk delaying getting what you want....

Oh I see.

Well, sure, that would be great. There are plenty of Unitarian Churches (and others I'm sure as well) that will perform gay marriage ceremonies. If you could get the state to issue marriage licenses for those gay couples who would get married in that setting, I bet no one would complain.

Except the "save marriage from the gays" crowd.

They'd still be upset about the state issuing a "marriage" license to a gay couple, which they currently are forbidden from doing due to Prop 8.

But your compromise sounds workable.

badger
2/8/2012, 04:40 PM
Yeah

And throw in the marijuana too.

It amazes me how little Obama and the Dem majorities did in 2008-2010 when they had a golden opportunity to. They could have pushed through so much more than Obamacare. They could have restarted the debate on marijuana. They could have given a verdict on same-sex marriage. They could have taken a firm stance on illegal immigration.

So many issues handled at the state level could have gotten taken care of at the federal level... or at least they could have worked on the unemployment thing. Lost opportunity. And now they're probably gonna lose their Senate majority.

KantoSooner
2/8/2012, 04:45 PM
What way would fly? That is an honest question.

I find much irony that a court of the federal government that does not recognize gay marriage can tell a state that it must recognize gay marriage even though a majority of its citizens do not support it.

Gay marriage failed on several ballots in California before the supreme court judgement which is in line with most other states, the current president and the federal government. Failing repeated votes, gay activists took it to state court and won when a new "right" was suddenly discovered.

What recourse do the citizens of California have to bring their laws closer to that of the federal government?

I'm sure I don't know what way would pass muster. If I did, I could probably hire myself out to the anti- forces and make some heavy shekel.

The fed has never recognized such marriages....so the presumption is that THAT status quo will go on until successfully challenged. In California, there had been a successful challenge that changed the status quo. At that point, the shoe was on the other foot and the anti's had to challenge the new 'law of the land'. At all times keeping the federal constitution in mind.

It's batty and a big reason why law students drink like fish, but there you go. The process makes sausage grinding look appetizing and generates a certain degree of distrust and dislike of lawyers, but, given time and the willingness to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of people during the interim, the system works.

Think of all the challenges to legal racism. Yes, we finally set things straight, more or less, and only at the cost of seven generations of people who had to 'be patient' whilst the system ground inexorably along.

By the way, I'm starting a dictatorship soon. I will make all laws and govern by fiat (still up in the air about claiming divine right, I'll get back to you). Anyone wishing to joiin my country as a chattel, please use the private message function. Things will be done RIGHTand promptly I promise.

TitoMorelli
2/8/2012, 04:51 PM
It amazes me how little Obama and the Dem majorities did in 2008-2010 when they had a golden opportunity to. They could have pushed through so much more than Obamacare. They could have restarted the debate on marijuana. They could have given a verdict on same-sex marriage. They could have taken a firm stance on illegal immigration.

So many issues handled at the state level could have gotten taken care of at the federal level... or at least they could have worked on the unemployment thing. Lost opportunity. And now they're probably gonna lose their Senate majority.

The administration could also have taken concrete measures to stimulate business instead of using the crisis merely as a way to fatten the wallets of its supporters.

Why do you assume that the fed is automatically wiser than the states? Or that it should automatically trump states rights, which was considered to be of utmost importance by those who wrote the constitution?

Soonerjeepman
2/8/2012, 05:32 PM
The people voted to amend their constitution did they not? The voters were not happy so they voted to change it. Isn't that supposed to be how it works?

For the Ninth circuit to tell the people of California that they cannot change their constitution to something that more resembles federal law or other states seems more than a little hypocritical.

amen...I thought this country ruled by majority...which the majority of Californians voted AGAINST gay marriage...but the court said...up yours citizens of Calf...

as far as gay issue...several family members are...don't necessarily believe it's a total choice like what kind dinner...BUT there is no scientific evidence that it is biological...except the argument that "it's been in mammalian class for ever.."

The BIOLOGICAL reason for sex is procreation....last I check gays cannot procreate with other members of the same sex....in the mammalian class.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 05:58 PM
The people voted to amend their constitution did they not? The voters were not happy so they voted to change it. Isn't that supposed to be how it works?

For the Ninth circuit to tell the people of California that they cannot change their constitution to something that more resembles federal law or other states seems more than a little hypocritical.

amen...I thought this country ruled by majority...which the majority of Californians voted AGAINST gay marriage...but the court said...up yours citizens of Calf...

as far as gay issue...several family members are...don't necessarily believe it's a total choice like what kind dinner...BUT there is no scientific evidence that it is biological...except the argument that "it's been in mammalian class for ever.."

The BIOLOGICAL reason for sex is procreation....last I check gays cannot procreate with other members of the same sex....in the mammalian class.

And the BIOLOGICAL reason for marriage is?

badger
2/8/2012, 11:42 PM
Why do you assume that the fed is automatically wiser than the states? Or that it should automatically trump states rights, which was considered to be of utmost importance by those who wrote the constitution?

It's not about wise and wiser, it's about power and more powerful. The feds have the final say in pretty much everything. It's why state drinking laws magically got raised to 21 (or they faced losing some highway funding), for example.

That's why I wish that the feds at least got the debate started on some of these issues states are trying to take on by themselves.

TitoMorelli
2/8/2012, 11:59 PM
Great point, badger.

AlboSooner
2/9/2012, 12:20 AM
This was one of the exact same arguments used to support the laws that made it illegal for my parents to be married in Oklahoma in 1966! It's amazing the parallels.

No matter how much Hollywood has tried, sexual proclivity is not a race. If I were black I'd be appalled that the suffering black people have suffered, is marginalized so carelessly just so we can accept homosexuality as normal. One loses any ounce of credibility when equaling race with sexual proclivity.


Even if I were to dive into the irrational equalization of a sexual proclivity with race, even in that folly one cannot compare what black people have endured with the toleration and legal accommodation of gay people.

AlboSooner
2/9/2012, 12:33 AM
Thank you for your reply.

I noticed you refused to answer the question. Why? Because you know the answer. And you can't defend it.

So instead you hide behind your "faith."

Well instead of spending all your time reading the "good book" perhaps you should read other books, especially on biology and science. Homosexuality is observed in all mammalian species without fail. It is indeed part of nature and not a choice.

Those are facts.

But I don't expect you to understand. Open your eyes and your mind. Your "faith" has made you blind. Good luck with that.

The question was answered plainly. I am ready to go toe to toe with you when in comes to biological sciences with an emphasis on chemistry.

I am providing you the leading sites we use in biochemistry to find info about genes, proteins and enzymes. Link to me any info about the gay gene you are so sure about.
http://biocyc.org/
http://www.expasy.org/

yermom
2/9/2012, 01:13 AM
No matter how much Hollywood has tried, sexual proclivity is not a race. If I were black I'd be appalled that the suffering black people have suffered, is marginalized so carelessly just so we can accept homosexuality as normal. One loses any ounce of credibility when equaling race with sexual proclivity.


Even if I were to dive into the irrational equalization of a sexual proclivity with race, even in that folly one cannot compare what black people have endured with the toleration and legal accommodation of gay people.

are they the same? no

can they be compared? yes

SCOUT
2/9/2012, 01:51 AM
I have a question for Froz, Midtowner or any other legal type. How does the ruling of the 9th affect the balance of power? It has always been my understanding that the check and balance was that courts interpreted constitutions rather than judging what is "right." If a constitution is changed (maybe state is different than federal) doesn't that change how the courts should rule? Am I misunderstanding that relationship?

SanJoaquinSooner
2/9/2012, 02:24 AM
I have a question for Froz, Midtowner or any other legal type. How does the ruling of the 9th affect the balance of power? It has always been my understanding that the check and balance was that courts interpreted constitutions rather than judging what is "right." If a constitution is changed (maybe state is different than federal) doesn't that change how the courts should rule? Am I misunderstanding that relationship?

I'm a non-legal type, but I believe they're saying a state constitution can't violate the U.S. constitution.

Chuck Bao
2/9/2012, 04:40 AM
I don’t fully understand the legal aspects of this case. I read just what I come across on the internet. And, I don’t speak for anyone except for myself.

I do remember just five years ago when some of my legal savvy friends seemed quite satisfied with the idea of a compromise as individual states could grant civil unions for same-sex couples and leave the term “marriage” to religious organizations.

At the time, I very much liked that idea and solution. But that changed at some point and it could be because civil unions were never recognized outside of the handful of states that issued them. The US State Department never recognized them either if the civil union was between an American and a foreign national.

Essentially, we weren’t ready for the civil union concept, especially with some states passing laws/ state constitutional amendments that explicitly forbade recognizing civil unions or marriages of same sex couples of other states.

The obvious alternative is to make the issue about marriage equality and challenge the states based on the US Constitution.

Personally, I think that many of the equality of marriage supporters want to push the envelope, but not to a degree that it creates a backlash. I suppose that is why they’re glad that the Appellate Court’s very narrow ruling on this case will not push the SCOTUS to possibly delivering a premature verdict and set the advances made back a decade or more. If we are not quite ready for civil unions, we are not ready for marriage equality.

I am very happy with the advances made and steadily growing support for gay and lesbian couples. I still fear a backlash with campaign rhetoric making this more of an issue than much more important topics such as the economy.

For those of you decrying the fact that a fed court overturned a state constitutional referendum which passed with a very marginal simple majority, all I have to say is good. The issue of marriage licenses is clearly under the individual state’s rights. But, a majority within one state should not be allowed to discriminate against a minority and take away their rights. State rights people have to recognize the fact that some states will most definitely try to take away more of our individual rights if it temporarily proves popular. As it currently stands, we are going to need the prudence and wisdom of the judiciary to hold these state politicians in check.

For those who are saying that President Obama has not used his initial popularity to enact some much needed overhaul of US government policy. I have to agree to some extent. In my opinion, these are a few of the most important issues for the gay and lesbian community and some progress has been made.

1.) DOMA. It should have already been repealed. At least the Attorney General of the Obama administration is not enforcing it.
2.) End of DADT. Thankfully, the Obama administration has ended this misguided policy and gays and lesbians can now openly serve their country with honor and distinction.
3.) State Department recognizing individual states’ civil unions / marriages. Also thankfully the Obama administration has temporarily halted the deportation of foreign nationals who have marriage/civil union with American citizens.

sappstuf
2/9/2012, 07:37 AM
They did vote to amend their state Constitution. They did so to take away a right previously contained in their Constitution on the basis of someone's sexual preference. The Ninth Circuit found that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. They did so because they found that there was no rational relation between a legitimate government purpose and the amendment.

An amendment to the California Constitution cannot deny federally protected rights.

So could the California Supreme Court reverse their decision and admit they were wrong or would the Ninth Circuit shoot that down as well?

Ton Loc
2/9/2012, 09:24 AM
No matter how much Hollywood has tried, sexual proclivity is not a race.

Hollywood only pushes things they think will make them more money. That's why they throw millions of dollars behind SOPA and PIPA. It's why they make copy after copy of Comic book movies and sequeal upon sequeal of crappy action movies (think Nic Cage). Hollywood is dumb. I doubt that the mythical agenda for their monthly meetings includes anything about gays. Unless you're watching E, We, Own, MTV or Bravo you're probably safe now that Will and Grace are off the air.

BTW, what are you so afraid of? All those gangbangers, drug dealers, murders, child molesters, on-welfare no job having gays got you scared?

Lets stimulate the economy and let the people get married. The money we'd save by stopping this retarted agrument and the amount of weddings would be a nice small bump. Plus, we could move onto other vastly more important things.

Whet
2/9/2012, 09:37 AM
Does it really matter what someone "weds" or what it is called? people should be concerned about the single mommas with multiple bastard children and continuing to get government money (our money). We should require baby daddies be identified and reduce government money to those that can't keep their legs crossed. The baby daddies should be required to get a job to provide some support. Heck, even prisoners get some type of pay...

Sooner_Bob
2/9/2012, 09:39 AM
Doesn't this ruling just apply to those folks who were married during the time when California allowed/sanctioned gay marriage?

KantoSooner
2/9/2012, 09:43 AM
amen...I thought this country ruled by majority...which the majority of Californians voted AGAINST gay marriage...but the court said...up yours citizens of Calf...

as far as gay issue...several family members are...don't necessarily believe it's a total choice like what kind dinner...BUT there is no scientific evidence that it is biological...except the argument that "it's been in mammalian class for ever.."

The BIOLOGICAL reason for sex is procreation....last I check gays cannot procreate with other members of the same sex....in the mammalian class.

Interestingly, the children of the siblings of gay people tend to have greater numbers of children. Thus, in a coldly mathematical sense, there is genetic gain to be had by being gay. Equally interesting, this held true across a variety of cultures and as far back in history as reliable records go (which is not far, admittedly, but still, it's indicative).

It kind of makes sense when you think about it. One example would be that gay men found refuge in priesthoods in a number of societies. And it certainly does not hurt one's social standing, chances of a good job and a desireable mate if your uncle is a big wheel in the church.

Frozen Sooner
2/9/2012, 12:26 PM
I have a question for Froz, Midtowner or any other legal type. How does the ruling of the 9th affect the balance of power? It has always been my understanding that the check and balance was that courts interpreted constitutions rather than judging what is "right." If a constitution is changed (maybe state is different than federal) doesn't that change how the courts should rule? Am I misunderstanding that relationship?


I'm a non-legal type, but I believe they're saying a state constitution can't violate the U.S. constitution.

Yep. Supremacy Clause.

Frozen Sooner
2/9/2012, 12:32 PM
So could the California Supreme Court reverse their decision and admit they were wrong or would the Ninth Circuit shoot that down as well?

That's an interesting question. The California Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of California law, including the California Constitution. Even the Supreme Court has to defer to the California Supreme Court on questions of interpretation of California law.

That being said, the holding of the Ninth Circuit was that once a state recognizes a right, they cannot remove it from a class of citizens without implicating the Equal Protection clause. That wouldn't necessarily be a removal, though: it would be the CASC saying "No, there never was such a right."

My gut feeling is that they'd reverse the CASC, but I'm going to have to admit ignorance on how they'd actually handle it.

sappstuf
2/9/2012, 02:27 PM
That's an interesting question. The California Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of California law, including the California Constitution. Even the Supreme Court has to defer to the California Supreme Court on questions of interpretation of California law.

That being said, the holding of the Ninth Circuit was that once a state recognizes a right, they cannot remove it from a class of citizens without implicating the Equal Protection clause. That wouldn't necessarily be a removal, though: it would be the CASC saying "No, there never was such a right."

My gut feeling is that they'd reverse the CASC, but I'm going to have to admit ignorance on how they'd actually handle it.

So you think that the decision could not be reversed by the California Supreme Court, obviously not by legislation and we know not by the people who voted directly to change their constitution.

Goodbye tenth amendment..

KantoSooner
2/9/2012, 02:50 PM
The CASC can not overturn the ninth circuit because the ninth circuit did not rule on an issue of Cal Law (of which the state constitution is the pinnacle). Rather, it ruled that a change to the Cal constitution violated the US Federal Constitution, which does, indeed trump any state law when there is conflict between the two.
In addition, the CASC has no jurisdiction over the ninth circuit.

Neither of these points means that the people of California, acting either directly or through their legislature could not pass another amendment to their constitution or a law which would have the effect of outlawing gay marriage. I don't know what such an amendment or law would look like, but they are free to try and draft up something that would work.

all the ninth did was to say that the Prop 8 attempt was a violation of the Federal Constitution and thus impermissible and void.

No one has taken anything from the people of California.

A lot of things that were and are popular are unconstitutional. Mere popularity is not enough, as the Prop 8 supporters learned here. This is one of the functions of the Constitution: to act as a sea anchor against the momentary passions of the mob.

sappstuf
2/9/2012, 02:57 PM
The CASC can not overturn the ninth circuit because the ninth circuit did not rule on an issue of Cal Law (of which the state constitution is the pinnacle). Rather, it ruled that a change to the Cal constitution violated the US Federal Constitution, which does, indeed trump any state law when there is conflict between the two.
In addition, the CASC has no jurisdiction over the ninth circuit.

Neither of these points means that the people of California, acting either directly or through their legislature could not pass another amendment to their constitution or a law which would have the effect of outlawing gay marriage. I don't know what such an amendment or law would look like, but they are free to try and draft up something that would work.

all the ninth did was to say that the Prop 8 attempt was a violation of the Federal Constitution and thus impermissible and void.

No one has taken anything from the people of California.

A lot of things that were and are popular are unconstitutional. Mere popularity is not enough, as the Prop 8 supporters learned here. This is one of the functions of the Constitution: to act as a sea anchor against the momentary passions of the mob.

I didn't mean the CASC overturning the ninth circuit.. I meant the CASC reversing its own decision on gay marriage that the ninth circuit decision was based on and how the ninth circuit would react.

pphilfran
2/9/2012, 03:02 PM
How ya doing Sapp?

sappstuf
2/9/2012, 03:09 PM
How ya doing Sapp?

Good phil. It is after midnight here, but tomorrow is my one day a week to sleep in... Until about 0730. ;) So I was getting some work done.

How have you been?

KantoSooner
2/9/2012, 03:17 PM
I didn't mean the CASC overturning the ninth circuit.. I meant the CASC reversing its own decision on gay marriage that the ninth circuit decision was based on and how the ninth circuit would react.

To be frank, I don't know. But remember, that the ninth's opinion was rendered on Prop 8, not the original interpretation, by the CASC, of Cal Law.

To get the CASC to reconsider points of law either identical to those they decided in the past or so close as to count as a reversal, however, would require an immensely strong case that the court had been blindly wrong the first time around. And this is basically the same court since it wasn't so long ago. I would think chances of that happening would be vanishingly small.

Married men may have to reverse themselves on command, abjectly and with utter condemnation of their former opinions....but SC justices do not.

sappstuf
2/9/2012, 03:32 PM
To be frank, I don't know. But remember, that the ninth's opinion was rendered on Prop 8, not the original interpretation, by the CASC, of Cal Law.

To get the CASC to reconsider points of law either identical to those they decided in the past or so close as to count as a reversal, however, would require an immensely strong case that the court had been blindly wrong the first time around. And this is basically the same court since it wasn't so long ago. I would think chances of that happening would be vanishingly small.

Married men may have to reverse themselves on command, abjectly and with utter condemnation of their former opinions....but SC justices do not.

But in the ninth's opinion they referred to the CASC decision that there was a right to gay marriage and said that right couldn't be taken away by Prop 8. They didn't point towards federal law because they couldn't... A right to gay marriage does not exist there. If it did, this would be academic.

It doesn't have to be now.. If the SCOTUS declined to hear the case and 10-15 years from now the CASC revisted and reversed the decision that a right ever existed..

I think if you are a supporter of gay rights this ruling could actually have a cooling effect on rights in other states. California was more than willing to support civil unions and give them equal rights to marriage, but they clearly were not willing to call it marriage. This ruling proves there is absolutely a slippery slope that exists if you even open the door for civil unions.

Some state might decided it is better to offer nothing to gay couples.

pphilfran
2/9/2012, 04:11 PM
Good phil. It is after midnight here, but tomorrow is my one day a week to sleep in... Until about 0730. ;) So I was getting some work done.

How have you been?

Doing well....stay safe and keep your head down....

Frozen Sooner
2/9/2012, 05:04 PM
So you think that the decision could not be reversed by the California Supreme Court, obviously not by legislation and we know not by the people who voted directly to change their constitution.

Goodbye tenth amendment..

The Tenth Amendment doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The Federal Constitution is still supreme over the state constitutions. Says so right in the document.

Even if it did, rights under the Fourteenth Amendment trump those under the Tenth. Fourteenth is later in time.

sappstuf
2/9/2012, 10:53 PM
The Tenth Amendment doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The Federal Constitution is still supreme over the state constitutions. Says so right in the document.

Even if it did, rights under the Fourteenth Amendment trump those under the Tenth. Fourteenth is later in time.

I guess I am not making myself clear... Here is a lawyer that appears to support gay marriage, but is very unhappy with the decision because he thinks it is poorly thought out and will be overturned.


Reinhardt's interpretation of Romer cannot be correct in a constitutional democracy. For it would mean that if a court construes a constitution to require the state to give a right to some class of people, it is necessarily unconstitutional to amend the constitution to overturn that ruling. Judges could, in other words, render their own interpretations of constitutional provisions immune to correction. No plausible reading of Romer contemplates that.

Here, then, is why the the panel's decision today is so foolish. The panel could have written a powerful opinion setting out why a ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That was why this litigation was brought and despite Reinhardt's invocations of judicial modesty nothing prevented the panel from ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional on that basis. We would then have had a circuit court opinion with that issue teed up for review by the Supreme Court.

There is, in my judgment, a reasonable chance that five justices would affirm such a ruling. For if that issue of marriage discrimination and equal protection were presented squarely to the Court, I find it unlikely that Justice Kennedy--author of Romer and Lawrence and deeply concerned about his place in history--would join a decision holding a ban on same-sex marriage constitutional. The risk now is that Kennedy will disagree (quite rightly) with the Ninth Circuit's panel use of Romer, reverse on that basis, and, like Reinhardt, avoid the plain equal protection issue.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/02/marriage-and-ninth-circuit-thumbs-down.html

30 states have bans against gay marriage written in their constitution. Only one has been overturned and it was reversed. Many go even further and ban civil unions. There was an appeal to the 8th circuit that in Nebraska it violated equal rights. The 8th circuit ruled: "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States." Ninth circuit didn't mention this or rule against it.. In fact, they seemed to go out of the way to say they weren't going against that ruling.

So this isn't about the 14th amendment or the ruling wouldn't just effect California, it would be all states in the ninth circuit's jurisdiction. They didn't do that. The ruling is only for, and specifically for California. Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii are in the 9th circuit's realm and they all have bans of gay marriage in their state's constitutions. If the 9th circuit would have ruled straight up that bans of gay marriage was unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment, I could understand the ruling whether I agreed with it or not. They simply didn't do that. They seem perfectly happy to let the other states within their jurisdiction maintain bans on gay marriage.

If California cannot change their constitution to match other states within the ninth circuit own realm that the ninth circuit is apparently ok with, then it becomes a 10th amendment issue.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/9/2012, 11:14 PM
I guess I am not making myself clear... Here is a lawyer that appears to support gay marriage, but is very unhappy with the decision because he thinks it is poorly thought out and will be overturned.



30 states have bans against gay marriage written in their constitution. Only one has been overturned and it was reversed. Many go even further and ban civil unions. There was an appeal to the 8th circuit that in Nebraska it violated equal rights. The 8th circuit ruled: "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States." Ninth circuit didn't mention this or rule against it.. In fact, they seemed to go out of the way to say they weren't going against that ruling.

So this isn't about the 14th amendment or the ruling wouldn't just effect California, it would be all states in the ninth circuit's jurisdiction. They didn't do that. The ruling is only for, and specifically for California. Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii are in the 9th circuit's realm and they all have bans of gay marriage in their state's constitutions. If the 9th circuit would have ruled straight up that bans of gay marriage was unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment, I could understand the ruling whether I agreed with it or not. They simply didn't do that. They seem perfectly happy to let the other states within their jurisdiction maintain bans on gay marriage.

If California cannot change their constitution to match other states within the ninth circuit own realm that the ninth circuit is apparently ok with, then it becomes a 10th amendment issue.

Did Nebraskans previously have a constitutional right to same-sex marriage that was taken away by a vote?

olevetonahill
2/9/2012, 11:16 PM
Get the **** out our Bedrooms , Secure the border and leave us alone
Nuff said

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 12:33 AM
I guess I am not making myself clear... Here is a lawyer that appears to support gay marriage, but is very unhappy with the decision because he thinks it is poorly thought out and will be overturned.



30 states have bans against gay marriage written in their constitution. Only one has been overturned and it was reversed. Many go even further and ban civil unions. There was an appeal to the 8th circuit that in Nebraska it violated equal rights. The 8th circuit ruled: "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States." Ninth circuit didn't mention this or rule against it.. In fact, they seemed to go out of the way to say they weren't going against that ruling.

So this isn't about the 14th amendment or the ruling wouldn't just effect California, it would be all states in the ninth circuit's jurisdiction. They didn't do that. The ruling is only for, and specifically for California. Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii are in the 9th circuit's realm and they all have bans of gay marriage in their state's constitutions. If the 9th circuit would have ruled straight up that bans of gay marriage was unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment, I could understand the ruling whether I agreed with it or not. They simply didn't do that. They seem perfectly happy to let the other states within their jurisdiction maintain bans on gay marriage.

If California cannot change their constitution to match other states within the ninth circuit own realm that the ninth circuit is apparently ok with, then it becomes a 10th amendment issue.

Did Nebraskans previously have a constitutional right to same-sex marriage that was taken away by a vote?

No, and that distinction is the crux of the case as far as I can tell.

Frozen Sooner
2/10/2012, 12:49 AM
I guess I am not making myself clear... Here is a lawyer that appears to support gay marriage, but is very unhappy with the decision because he thinks it is poorly thought out and will be overturned.



30 states have bans against gay marriage written in their constitution. Only one has been overturned and it was reversed. Many go even further and ban civil unions. There was an appeal to the 8th circuit that in Nebraska it violated equal rights. The 8th circuit ruled: "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States." Ninth circuit didn't mention this or rule against it.. In fact, they seemed to go out of the way to say they weren't going against that ruling.

So this isn't about the 14th amendment or the ruling wouldn't just effect California, it would be all states in the ninth circuit's jurisdiction. They didn't do that. The ruling is only for, and specifically for California. Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii are in the 9th circuit's realm and they all have bans of gay marriage in their state's constitutions. If the 9th circuit would have ruled straight up that bans of gay marriage was unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment, I could understand the ruling whether I agreed with it or not. They simply didn't do that. They seem perfectly happy to let the other states within their jurisdiction maintain bans on gay marriage.

If California cannot change their constitution to match other states within the ninth circuit own realm that the ninth circuit is apparently ok with, then it becomes a 10th amendment issue.

It doesn't become a 10th Amendment issue because the 10th Amendment does not allow you to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Not every decision by a state is protected by the 10th Amendment, nor was it intended to be. There is also nothing that implicates the 10th Amendment in enjoining the enforcement of a particular state law based on the circumstances in which it was enacted when other states have similar laws. The reason for legislative action is always important in Equal Protection jurisprudence.

I'm aware that the opinion only applies to the specific factual situation of California (though as I read it, if Washington were to amend their Constitution to ban gay marriages now they might bump up against it.) The court wasn't dealing with the fact situations of Alaska, Guam, American Samoa, Arizona, Oregon, etc. They were dealing with a specific situation where a state recognized a right, then stripped from a class of people based on nothing more than animus.

I understand the author's argument about how it immunizes a judicial interpretation of a state constitution. In fact, I think it's a strong argument against the 9th Circuit's reasoning. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court has to reverse, though: they could certainly apply a different standard that would apply more broadly. I would be surprised if Boies and Olsen don't argue for a broader standard on appeal.

ouflak
2/10/2012, 08:08 AM
I think we can all agree that it's time for the federal government and the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and end this debate once and for all.

Either declare gay marriage an equal right or don't. Either establish an alternative with equal protection for two consenting adults or don't.


Nope. It won't work. They already tried this with anti-miscegenation laws. It was illegal federally. Then they decided to leave it to the states. It got batted around. Some states banned, others specifically made it ok. States refused to recognize interracial marriages solemnized in other states where it was legal, and in no state was there a majority of voters who were going to legalize it at the polls. The issue was just too contentious, and the only way the matter was finally settled was via the Supreme Court. I don't this see this particular version of the debate going a different route, in fact it seems to be going the exact same route.

bigfatjerk
2/10/2012, 08:31 AM
If it goes to the supreme court they will rule it's a religious issue so it should stay out of the federal level and it'll be a state matter. Which will cause the same issues. Really it needs to be argued as a contractual deal and put at the individual level or the church level. There need to be some protections with marriage such as polygamy, bestiality, and under age issues. But that can be settled at the state level. But there shouldn't be anything federal about marriage at all.

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 08:35 AM
But that can be settled at the state level. But there shouldn't be anything federal about marriage at all.

The opinion really isn't about marriage, it's about discrimination.

bigfatjerk
2/10/2012, 08:55 AM
And leaving things up to governments leads to discrimination of some sort. It always has because it's about a groups beliefs instead of an individuals beliefs. That's why democracies are always wrong I do think there as to be some state laws on marriage just like there is on driving, drinking, or anything else you do in life that's exciting. But do you really think it's okay to just have people marrying inanimate objects or underage kids? Most of these are taken care of legally anyway. I agree with you there shouldn't be any law against gay marriage. But as long as we try and go about it a democratic way and make this about a federal law or state law change there will be laws against it.

What you should do with marriage is basically change either a contractual thing or a church thing. Be able to prove both parties are in a somewhat sane mindset, but don't have any disease or mental disorder where one party is taken advantage of. And make sure both parties are of right age. Those should be the limits. I'm sure some states like our backwards state would make homosexuality illegal but then again it's illegal in this state to have sex in anyway but missionary

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 09:15 AM
But do you really think it's okay to just have people marrying inanimate objects or underage kids?

Love that this is the go-to argument of the anti-gay crowd. This is a dumb argument which doesn't understand what marriage is. It's a contract between two consenting parties. That word consent is pretty important. Dogs nor goats nor children nor inanimate objects are legally capable of consent. State laws do spell out who can consent and when and since that does serve as a reasonable means to a legitimate governmental goal, i.e., protecting minors, it gets the Nobel Prize. The point here is that you don't get to discriminate just 'cuz. The government has to have a rational reason for it. The Court found that here, no such reason exists.


Most of these are taken care of legally anyway. I agree with you there shouldn't be any law against gay marriage. But as long as we try and go about it a democratic way and make this about a federal law or state law change there will be laws against it.

Just because the majority wants to do something doesn't make it constitutional. It doesn't work that way. Never will.


What you should do with marriage is basically change either a contractual thing or a church thing. Be able to prove both parties are in a somewhat sane mindset, but don't have any disease or mental disorder where one party is taken advantage of. And make sure both parties are of right age. Those should be the limits. I'm sure some states like our backwards state would make homosexuality illegal but then again it's illegal in this state to have sex in anyway but missionary

The Supreme Court has already ruled that states can't legislate as to what goes on in the bedroom. It's a completely different line of precedent though.

sappstuf
2/10/2012, 09:30 AM
The opinion really isn't about marriage, it's about discrimination.

I still don't get how defining something can be considered discrimination. Defining something will always leave people or things outside of the definition... It doesn't mean it is discrimination.. It means they don't fit the criteria.

Gay couples have every right in California that married people do. Nothing was taken from them. They just don't meet the definition marriage.

Frozen Sooner
2/10/2012, 10:18 AM
If California passes a constitutional amendment defining "person" as "Christian", does that make it OK? They're just defining a word.

Frozen Sooner
2/10/2012, 10:22 AM
If it goes to the supreme court they will rule it's a religious issue so it should stay out of the federal level and it'll be a state matter.

Um, no. If it's a "religious issue" then there was no proper purpose to the law at all. You may be confused by the doctrine that the courts won't decide matters of faith--that is, they won't decide doctrinal issues or decide what constitutes a legitimate belief. That doesn't mean they won't rule on equal protection issues caused by a law passed for solely religious reasons. In fact, they're incredibly likely to strike a law down if the supporters only defend it based on it being a "religious issue."


Which will cause the same issues. Really it needs to be argued as a contractual deal and put at the individual level or the church level. There need to be some protections with marriage such as polygamy, bestiality, and under age issues. But that can be settled at the state level. But there shouldn't be anything federal about marriage at all.

There is something federal about equal protection, and denying the right to a group of people to contract in the same way as another group of people must serve some legitimate purpose rationally related to the denial or it violates equal protection.

KantoSooner
2/10/2012, 10:26 AM
While the argument may be made that objects, children or animals can't give legal consent, it strikes me that far too much is made of the issue.
Are there people clamoring to marry goats? Frying pans? I just don't see flood gates straining to hold back the deluge of man/chicken unions about to overwhelm Western Society. (Payne County excepted).
Am I wrong? Is this board, in fact, composed of 50% or better of people who drool in lascivious anticipation when they spy a seagull?
I'll go off line and see who responds. It might be instructive.

sappstuf
2/10/2012, 10:36 AM
If California passes a constitutional amendment defining "person" as "Christian", does that make it OK? They're just defining a word.

It might be dumb and possibly offensive, but I see no discrimination. Do you?

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 10:51 AM
It might be dumb and possibly offensive, but I see no discrimination. Do you?

Yes.

Frozen Sooner
2/10/2012, 11:49 AM
It might be dumb and possibly offensive, but I see no discrimination. Do you?

In saying that people who aren't Christian aren't people? Yes.

sappstuf
2/10/2012, 12:35 PM
In saying that people who aren't Christian aren't people? Yes.

So you are defining two words, not one.. You didn't say that.

Besides.. Exactly who is trying to define, or rather, redefine marriage?

What percentage of the world would say marriage is between a husband and wife right now? 10 years ago.. 100 years ago.. 500 years ago..

We all know what marriage is.

If gays want all the rights of marriage, then I am happy to give them those rights under civil unions. But it isn't marriage.

KantoSooner
2/10/2012, 12:59 PM
How about if we define marriage as 'an exclusive social and sexual union between two consenting adults'?
Tradition (again, that hoary old bitch raises her hate-filled head) might say otherwise, but we've never really legally defined marriage, so why not start at the simplest definition?

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 01:07 PM
If gays want all the rights of marriage, then I am happy to give them those rights under civil unions. But it isn't marriage.

Which the California Supreme court said was separate, which isn't equal. We've been over this ground before.

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 01:57 PM
I still don't get how defining something can be considered discrimination. Defining something will always leave people or things outside of the definition... It doesn't mean it is discrimination.. It means they don't fit the criteria.

Gay couples have every right in California that married people do. Nothing was taken from them. They just don't meet the definition marriage.

Ah... semantics... the last refuge of someone with nothing useful to argue. Discrimination is shorthand for the government coming up with a classification of a certain group of people. They treat one group one way and the other group another way. We have suspect classes which are afforded extra protections against such classifications, but for EVERY classification, there has to be a rational reason behind it to accomplish a legitimate government goal.

I don't know how many times we have to repeat that for it to sink in. It's the rational basis test, Constitutional Law 101 stuff. If you can't grasp the basics of that test, then you have no business arguing any sort of American Constitutional Law, at least where equal protection and substantial due process claims are concerned. You fail at a simple definitional level and by trying to make these ridiculous points, you're asking the educated to educate you. Then you're mistaking our statements of fact for counterargument. What you're seeing here isn't argument or advocacy, it's just telling you how the law works. Period.

For further education, I suggest this:

https://www.google.com/

(it's a place where you can actually search for definitions of words without having to mistake education for argument)

LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 04:16 PM
It's the rational basis test, Constitutional Law 101 stuff.

I'm not a lawyer, and would say that lawyers are big big part of the problem with modern day America. So I don't know what your Constitutional Law 101 class says about it. I know that Barry Obama was a supposed Constitutional scholar so I am suspect as to the slant classes such as those would have put on them.

I decided to do a funny thing and look at what the guys that actually wrote the Constitution thought of this new right to marriage by homosexuals.

Much to my non surprise they were against it. Jefferson thought the punishment for "buggery" should be castration. Most of the colonies had death as the penalty. Sounds like a far cry from saying there is a "right" built in there, but I could be wrong.

Of course, we aren't really interested in what those white europian slave owners think about the document that they wrote. We only use it as cover to get what we currently want.

And just fyi, I am not a pro-death penalty conservative. I believe Jesus would never give up on anyone and pull that switch, so neither will I. I don't want homosexuality punished at all in fact. Just tired of it being forced on my children as normal.

The end game here is to normalize, then make it a hate crime to speak out against it. ie, Pastors will eventually be fined or jailed for preaching what the Bible actually says.

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 05:11 PM
I decided to do a funny thing and look at what the guys that actually wrote the Constitution thought of this new right to marriage by homosexuals.

Why should we care about that? When do you think the relevant part of the Constitution was written?


Much to my non surprise they were against it. Jefferson thought the punishment for "buggery" should be castration. Most of the colonies had death as the penalty. Sounds like a far cry from saying there is a "right" built in there, but I could be wrong.

And as long as we're playing the moral equivalency game, Jefferson thought that the punishment for owning other human beings and forcing them to do harsh manual labor while living in substandard conditions was earning lots of money.


The end game here is to normalize, then make it a hate crime to speak out against it. ie, Pastors will eventually be fined or jailed for preaching what the Bible actually says.

How do you figure that is possible? The Constitution clearly protects hate speech. You'd better count your lucky stars that it does :)

Frozen Sooner
2/10/2012, 05:21 PM
You realize TJ was proposing a law that would reduce the penalty for adultery and sodomy from death, right?

The actual bill he proposed didn't say buggery, by the way, it said sodomy. Which to Colonial Americans meant anything but genital intercourse. I'm sure he wasn't cool with male on male or female on female sex, but it looks like he wasn't really cool with handy-js or hummers.



Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html

(Of course, Barack Obama taught at the University of Chicago, so you should probably suspect them of bias.)

LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 05:31 PM
Why should we care about that? When do you think the relevant part of the Constitution was written?

And as long as we're playing the moral equivalency game, Jefferson thought that the punishment for owning other human beings and forcing them to do harsh manual labor while living in substandard conditions was earning lots of money.
How do you figure that is possible? The Constitution clearly protects hate speech. You'd better count your lucky stars that it does :)

That's fine. You hold no regard for the Constitution because of who wrote it. Good to know.

Just not sure why you would pretend to care by ascribing things to Constitutional Law 101. Just come out and say "screw it. I don't like the Constitution so I don't care for my leaders to follow it."

Instead, you try to manipulate it to say what it doesn't say and do what it doesn't do under the guise of this great education that you have that seemingly no conservative has.

Oh and you prove my point about hate speech. Anyone that disagrees with your ilk will be labeled as hate speech-er's. Typical.

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 05:44 PM
That's fine. You hold no regard for the Constitution because of who wrote it. Good to know.

Thomas Jefferson was not alive when the relevant part of the Constitution was written. But you're an expert, I'm sure you knew that.


Just not sure why you would pretend to care by ascribing things to Constitutional Law 101. Just come out and say "screw it. I don't like the Constitution so I don't care for my leaders to follow it."

Well, the 9th Circuit, who knows a bit more Constitutional Law than you or I, I'd wager, disagrees with you. Now, if the SCOTUS grants cert, do they find a rational basis? Maybe/maybe not. You're not even getting to the point where you ask the proper question though. You and yours are still detecting our proper framing of the issues as being debate. It's not debate. It's like me saying that the sky is blue.


Instead, you try to manipulate it to say what it doesn't say and do what it doesn't do under the guise of this great education that you have that seemingly no conservative has.

The difference is that a lot of conservatives think that they can find a rational reason to pass laws against "sodomy" or contraception or items such as that. I disagree. I'm in favor of freedom, you are apparently in favor of servitude to the whims of the masses.


Oh and you prove my point about hate speech. Anyone that disagrees with your ilk will be labeled as hate speech-er's. Typical.

What point did you have? Ignorant and hateful speech is absolutely protected under the Constitution. This should make you happy.

LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 05:56 PM
Thomas Jefferson was not alive when the relevant part of the Constitution was written. But you're an expert, I'm sure you knew that.



Well, the 9th Circuit, who knows a bit more Constitutional Law than you or I, I'd wager, disagrees with you. Now, if the SCOTUS grants cert, do they find a rational basis? Maybe/maybe not. You're not even getting to the point where you ask the proper question though. You and yours are still detecting our proper framing of the issues as being debate. It's not debate. It's like me saying that the sky is blue.



The difference is that a lot of conservatives think that they can find a rational reason to pass laws against "sodomy" or contraception or items such as that. I disagree. I'm in favor of freedom, you are apparently in favor of servitude to the whims of the masses.



What point did you have? Ignorant and hateful speech is absolutely protected under the Constitution. This should make you happy.

I think the 9th Circuits knowledge of the Constitution begins and ends with "which is the liberal position? So we know which way to rule." I think liberals know this, and that's why so many of these "cases" end up there.

I am in no way for any laws about contraception, sodomy, or any other law regarding sex, except for abortion (which is murdering a human being, there by denying them the basic right to life). I could not care less what adults do behind closed doors. So I am for as much freedom as possible. You know, freedom from a tyrannical dictating government.

Since I haven't spoken any hate speech by any normal standard, I guess I really don't care if it is legal or not. My point is, the end game is to make the Bible itself "hate speech". I stand by that.

Frozen Sooner
2/10/2012, 06:02 PM
I think the 9th Circuits knowledge of the Constitution begins and ends with "which is the liberal position? So we know which way to rule." I think liberals know this, and that's why so many of these "cases" end up there.

California is in the Ninth Circuit. There was literally no other Circuit Court of Appeals that could have heard the case. None. Other states' anti-marriage-equality statutes are being challenged in their respective District Courts and Circuit Courts as well.

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 08:44 PM
I think the 9th Circuits knowledge of the Constitution begins and ends with "which is the liberal position? So we know which way to rule." I think liberals know this, and that's why so many of these "cases" end up there.

Again, what you think tends to be what I'd envision as being the most ignorant thing anyone could possibly say about the subject. The 9th Circuit is the most reversed court only because it hears a lot more cases than any other circuit. Go look at a map of the circuits. If you want to look at reversal rates, they tend to be below average, although YMMV.


I am in no way for any laws about contraception, sodomy, or any other law regarding sex, except for abortion (which is murdering a human being, there by denying them the basic right to life). I could not care less what adults do behind closed doors. So I am for as much freedom as possible. You know, freedom from a tyrannical dictating government.

Except when two consenting adults want to marry... well buttsecks is fine, but marriage between two consenting adults of the same gender? An abomination! (this is where you lack a legally sufficient rational basis for the law under the 9th Circuit's view).


My point is, the end game is to make the Bible itself "hate speech". I stand by that.

Well that's complete and utter bull**** which could only arise from the sort of tinfoil hat wearing rape fantasies envisioned by the far Christian right to get them and theirs frothing at the mouth to do war against the evil liberals. Even if the Bible was hate speech, which is a stupid idea and a stupid thing to say, it'd still be protected speech, so in the end, even if your inbred rape fantasies came to life, your Bible would still be constitutionally protected.

--this is awesome, we've had the same post/reply three times now. You're still failing on even grasping basic definitions. Google some stuff before your next reply.

LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 09:57 PM
Again, what you think tends to be what I'd envision as being the most ignorant thing anyone could possibly say about the subject. The 9th Circuit is the most reversed court only because it hears a lot more cases than any other circuit. Go look at a map of the circuits. If you want to look at reversal rates, they tend to be below average, although YMMV.



Except when two consenting adults want to marry... well buttsecks is fine, but marriage between two consenting adults of the same gender? An abomination! (this is where you lack a legally sufficient rational basis for the law under the 9th Circuit's view).



Well that's complete and utter bull**** which could only arise from the sort of tinfoil hat wearing rape fantasies envisioned by the far Christian right to get them and theirs frothing at the mouth to do war against the evil liberals. Even if the Bible was hate speech, which is a stupid idea and a stupid thing to say, it'd still be protected speech, so in the end, even if your inbred rape fantasies came to life, your Bible would still be constitutionally protected.

--this is awesome, we've had the same post/reply three times now. You're still failing on even grasping basic definitions. Google some stuff before your next reply.

I googled some stuff.

the ninth circuit has the highest percentage (64%) of Democrat appointees. I'm sure that means nothing.

The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.
As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest string of rulings is unusual even for the 9th, which often is at odds with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line. I know, I know, it came from Fox News so it's just propaganda as opposed to the MSM. Whatever.

Christian students and parents cannot sue a school district where some seventh-graders pretended to be Muslims for three weeks during a course in world history, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the role-playing game was not a religious exercise that violated anybody’s constitutional rights.
The decision was issued one day after the U.S. House of Representatives chastised the 9th Circuit for ruling earlier this month that parents can’t sue public schools for providing information about sex. That decision “deplorably infringed on parental rights,” said the House resolution. I'm sure they would make the same exemption for Christian role playing. Not.

If you want to look at the idiocy rates, they tend to be well above average, although YMMV (whatever that means).

I didn't say buttsecks is fine. I said I don't care to the extent that I have any say over it outside of praying for those that do it. When it comes out in to the open air of marriage than we as a society are saying we condone it. This will lead to more people trying it. I posted in another thread that my senior daughter at Mustang HS said the "fad" for quite awhile now has been to "try" homosexuality. I know her to be an honest person. It's not by accident that this is a fad now, when it hasn't been in, well, forever. So I may lack legally sufficient rational, but hey, I'll just go with what's been the norm for, well once again, forever. Silly me.

Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America, faces up to 15 months in jail and a $2,800 fine for reading from the Bible at his local borough council meeting. He is a resident of Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, which is the first community in Delaware County to have an open homosexual in public office. Michael attended the July 21st borough council meeting to share from the Bible his opposition to the council's agenda of attracting more homosexuals to Lansdowne. During the public comment/question period, Michael was ordered not to read from the Bible by the president of the council, who stated that God's Word is "hate speech." Sounds like your community organizer types disagree with you.

The list of Christian hate ministries under SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) watch includes the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, Traditional Values Coalition, and the National Organization for Marriage. I've got my tinfoil hat on square.

This memorandum addresses the impact of various attempts to add “sexual orientation” or
“gender identity” to Hate Crimes legislation. Hate Crimes bills have been attempted as amendments
to Defense Spending bills, Habeas Corpus procedure bills and even Child Safety legislation.
Whatever the form of the Hate Crimes bill, the addition of “sexual orientation,” “gender identity”
or similar provisions to hate crimes would have a detrimental effect on religious organizations and
clergy. I don't know, sounds like it's being tried by our elected officials, but what do I know, I fail to grasp even basic definitions.

I do grasp the concept of someone pissing on my back and telling me it's raining, however.

Try to be less snarky and arrogant in the future. Smile while you type, it might help. Think of that happy place.

AlboSooner
2/10/2012, 09:59 PM
In the long run, the gay marriage battle is not very important to Christianity. In the long run Christians will lose every social battle, as it is outlined in the Bible, until we are fed to lions again.

However, it is infuriating to see people borrow from Christianity in order to oppose it. It is the height of imbecility especially when seeing people do this with intellectual pride, and a certain aura of enlightenment, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

As Plantinga would say, evolution is blind to metaphysical truths. As soon as you invoke morality, values, justice, equality, and truth, you have invoked a whole vocabulary and philosophical framework that stems from Christianity. Without God, the phrase "we should all have equal rights" makes absolutely no sense according to Nietzsche.

Unlike many who have posted here questioning God and Christianity, Nieztche was honest:

Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation - but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped?
Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter 9 Friedrich Nietzsche

sappstuf
2/10/2012, 10:20 PM
Ah... semantics... the last refuge of someone with nothing useful to argue. Discrimination is shorthand for the government coming up with a classification of a certain group of people. They treat one group one way and the other group another way. We have suspect classes which are afforded extra protections against such classifications, but for EVERY classification, there has to be a rational reason behind it to accomplish a legitimate government goal.

I don't know how many times we have to repeat that for it to sink in. It's the rational basis test, Constitutional Law 101 stuff. If you can't grasp the basics of that test, then you have no business arguing any sort of American Constitutional Law, at least where equal protection and substantial due process claims are concerned. You fail at a simple definitional level and by trying to make these ridiculous points, you're asking the educated to educate you. Then you're mistaking our statements of fact for counterargument. What you're seeing here isn't argument or advocacy, it's just telling you how the law works. Period.

For further education, I suggest this:

https://www.google.com/

(it's a place where you can actually search for definitions of words without having to mistake education for argument)


Ah yes, constitutional law. You do realize that the highest court so far that has ruled directly on gay marriage said there was no constitutional right. The plantiffs tried to appeal to the 8th circuit en banc, but was denied. They could have appealed directly to the Supreme Court. They refused to do so. So the law of the land is no gay marraige.

The 9th circuit could have been all ballsy and said there was a constitutional right, but they didn't. In fact they were careful not to.

If you are a gay rights advocate and you don't want "separate but equal", there is a much worse alternative. Nothing. That is what will now happen. The practical effect of this ruling is that in states that may have been on the fence about granting the right to civil unions, won't now because they know it will eventually lead to gay marriage. And they have the right to do so, it is Constitutional Law 101 stuff...

Midtowner
2/11/2012, 12:19 PM
Ah yes, constitutional law. You do realize that the highest court so far that has ruled directly on gay marriage said there was no constitutional right. The plantiffs tried to appeal to the 8th circuit en banc, but was denied. They could have appealed directly to the Supreme Court. They refused to do so. So the law of the land is no gay marraige.

Not within the 9th Circuit. The 8th Circuit's precedent is only binding within that particular Circuit. A Circuit's refusal to hear something en banc is not persuasive authority, or really any authority at all.


The 9th circuit could have been all ballsy and said there was a constitutional right, but they didn't. In fact they were careful not to.

What's the difference between saying that there is a right to do something and saying that the government lacks the power to proscribe the behavior in question? The entire Constitutional framework is presented in terms of powers the government has and protections the people have against uses of certain types of powers. Here, the right is presented as more of a lack of power than an affirmative right, but the same thing is accomplished.


If you are a gay rights advocate and you don't want "separate but equal", there is a much worse alternative. Nothing. That is what will now happen. The practical effect of this ruling is that in states that may have been on the fence about granting the right to civil unions, won't now because they know it will eventually lead to gay marriage. And they have the right to do so, it is Constitutional Law 101 stuff...

Absent SCOTUS intervention, folks under the 9th Circuit's authority will be obligated to perform marriages to homosexual couples if they're going to provide the same service to heterosexual couples.

sappstuf
2/11/2012, 12:27 PM
Not within the 9th Circuit. The 8th Circuit's precedent is only binding within that particular Circuit. A Circuit's refusal to hear something en banc is not persuasive authority, or really any authority at all.



What's the difference between saying that there is a right to do something and saying that the government lacks the power to proscribe the behavior in question? The entire Constitutional framework is presented in terms of powers the government has and protections the people have against uses of certain types of powers. Here, the right is presented as more of a lack of power than an affirmative right, but the same thing is accomplished.



Absent SCOTUS intervention, folks under the 9th Circuit's authority will be obligated to perform marriages to homosexual couples if they're going to provide the same service to heterosexual couples.

Not true. Several states other than California under the 9th circuit's authority have bans on gay marriage and civil unions. Those will stay in place.

Midtowner
2/11/2012, 01:40 PM
I googled some stuff.

the ninth circuit has the highest percentage (64%) of Democrat appointees. I'm sure that means nothing.

You're right. Courts are not partisan creatures. Judges are lifetime appointees who often have distinct philosophies, but those philosophies are subject to change on a whim or by whatever else.


[quote]The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.

That's actually kind of laughable. The SCOTUS doesn't need to send messages to the circuit courts.


As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest string of rulings is unusual even for the 9th, which often is at odds with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line. I know, I know, it came from Fox News so it's just propaganda as opposed to the MSM. Whatever.

You need to learn to discern the difference between analysis and commentary.


Christian students and parents cannot sue a school district where some seventh-graders pretended to be Muslims for three weeks during a course in world history, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the role-playing game was not a religious exercise that violated anybody’s constitutional rights.
The decision was issued one day after the U.S. House of Representatives chastised the 9th Circuit for ruling earlier this month that parents can’t sue public schools for providing information about sex. That decision “deplorably infringed on parental rights,” said the House resolution. I'm sure they would make the same exemption for Christian role playing. Not.

I haven't read that case, so I'm not going to comment on it. Could it be possible though that your opinion piece is taking things wildly out of context and then with its observation regarding Christians, making a wild-*** assumption with no basis whatsoever in reality? I mean.. every time students in a public school recite the lines from a Shakespeare play, they're arguably role playing Christians. Has anyone ever sued over that? If they did, what would be the basis?


If you want to look at the idiocy rates, they tend to be well above average, although YMMV (whatever that means).

Don't know? Google it.


I didn't say buttsecks is fine. I said I don't care to the extent that I have any say over it outside of praying for those that do it. When it comes out in to the open air of marriage than we as a society are saying we condone it. This will lead to more people trying it. I posted in another thread that my senior daughter at Mustang HS said the "fad" for quite awhile now has been to "try" homosexuality. I know her to be an honest person. It's not by accident that this is a fad now, when it hasn't been in, well, forever. So I may lack legally sufficient rational, but hey, I'll just go with what's been the norm for, well once again, forever. Silly me.

Oh no! Buttsecks!


Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America, faces up to 15 months in jail and a $2,800 fine for reading from the Bible at his local borough council meeting.

Before you get to be morally outraged, how do you feel about removing the occupy protesters? Wouldn't you agree that freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can exercise speech in any place, any time and in any way? He was charged with disrupting a public meeting and disorderly conduct. A public meeting is not an open public forum. There are rules of decorum and procedure. Violate those and you in fact are subject to arrest. He was not arrested for preaching, he was arrested for where and when he was preaching. The First Amendment does allow for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.


[I]The list of Christian hate ministries under SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) watch includes the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, Traditional Values Coalition, and the National Organization for Marriage. I've got my tinfoil hat on square.

If they're preaching hate, how are they any different than the folks who were against intermarrying of the races?


This memorandum addresses the impact of various attempts to add “sexual orientation” or
“gender identity” to Hate Crimes legislation. Hate Crimes bills have been attempted as amendments
to Defense Spending bills, Habeas Corpus procedure bills and even Child Safety legislation.
Whatever the form of the Hate Crimes bill, the addition of “sexual orientation,” “gender identity”
or similar provisions to hate crimes would have a detrimental effect on religious organizations and
clergy. I don't know, sounds like it's being tried by our elected officials, but what do I know, I fail to grasp even basic definitions.

I don't care what statutes say, hate speech is protected speech. Period.

Midtowner
2/11/2012, 01:43 PM
Not true. Several states other than California under the 9th circuit's authority have bans on gay marriage and civil unions. Those will stay in place.

Everyone is assuming the SCOTUS will grant cert. I'll believe it when I see it. If not, the facts in AZ may be a little different, but I can't see them having a huge impact on the outcome.

Serge Ibaka
2/11/2012, 03:41 PM
It's silly that there is even debate about this.

If you don't think gay people should get married: so what? Is it that big of a deal really?

In 20 years, everybody will be wondering what all of the fuss was about.

I'll let this Washington GOPer explain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338

ouflak
2/11/2012, 03:52 PM
If it goes to the supreme court they will rule it's a religious issue so it should stay out of the federal level and it'll be a state matter.

Religion is only one of the arguments used agains interracial/gay marriages. The top arguments 5 listed below:

1. God said so. There are parts of the bible typically cited that are very clear that interracial marriage and gay unions are specifically banned by God and will doom the participants and any society that allows such things to hell.

2. Biology. It's just biologically wrong. If God had meant such things to be occurring naturally, then they would have very obviously been occurring well since before written history, and at the beginning of written history, or it would provide an obvious benefit for the species to have such things occurring. There is differentiation and dimorphism for a reason. And those reasons are strict biological responses to the natural order of things.

3. Sociology/Anthropology. Allowing unions between blacks and white (or other different races) somehow devalues marriage. The same if they are gay and the same sex.

4. Any children of such a union would be completely confused, displaced and suffer greatly in society as a result. They would likely grow up to traditionally post an official game thread on some internet sports message board or something.

... Actually the opponents to such marriages might have a point here...

5. It's morally/ethically questionable thing to allow because of some moral/ethical reason, normally involving the character of the people wanting to do such a thing, or the character of the society willing to even consider or allow such things to occur. (Blacks trying to steal white women, Whites looking for something exotic, homosexuals being involved in lavicious behavior, AIDS, etc...).

I doubt the Supreme Court would focus on one single point (such as religion), when there has already been a significant challenge to such laws where each of these arguments, with the surrounding legal ramifications, have already been put forward and considered.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/12/2012, 12:38 AM
DWp79jvy9aA

SoonerPride
2/12/2012, 09:37 AM
OFkeKKszXTw

Serge Ibaka
2/12/2012, 10:55 PM
OFkeKKszXTw

Thank you for this.

AlboSooner
2/12/2012, 11:38 PM
OFkeKKszXTw

It does not show intellectual honesty to take things out of context, and to misinterpret the Bible like this video does. Now, if some of you only want to hear one side of the story in order to satisfy your own conscience since some foundations have been shaken on this thread, go right ahead.

If the Bible records something as happening, it does not mean it condones it. For every sin committed by a believer, he or she has suffered the consequences. God never promised to save us from the earthly consequences of our sins.

Ridicule and sarcasm will never win anybody to your side.

Serge Ibaka
2/13/2012, 12:59 AM
It does not show intellectual honesty to take things out of context, and to misinterpret the Bible like this video does. Now, if some of you only want to hear one side of the story in order to satisfy your own conscience since some foundations have been shaken on this thread, go right ahead.

If the Bible records something as happening, it does not mean it condones it. For every sin committed by a believer, he or she has suffered the consequences. God never promised to save us from the earthly consequences of our sins.

Ridicule and sarcasm will never win anybody to your side.

Well, since one side is waving the flag of moral-authority (as ordained by the almighty, who hasn't weighed in on this topic in quite some time, mind you): ridicule and sarcasm is all that's really useful.

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 01:25 AM
The bible is a sad twisted mishmash of nonsense cobbled together over centuries from a bunch of misogynists and lunatics.

Wishboned
2/13/2012, 02:14 AM
Ridicule and sarcasm will never win anybody to your side.

You're right. Fear and hate work so much better.

SoonerPride
2/13/2012, 01:16 PM
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i84/SoonerPride1/foundjesus.jpg