Official Thread: Federal judge rules California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (Michigan, vs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Proponents botched this so thoroughly that they really should cut their losses and not appeal the ruling. They won the original vote by two percentage points. Public opinion on this issue is trending only one way: in favor of gay marriage. It's not a question of whether but when. If the vote were reheld in a few years, Prop. 8 would almost certainly be voted down. If they stop now, the ruling remains confined to California.
On the other hand, if the ruling is upheld on appeal (which is likely) it becomes precedent for the whole of the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. If that happens the Supreme Court has no choice but to get involved.
This is where the Proponents' inept attorneys comes back to haunt them. All of their expert witnesses were essentially disqualified. Even though the Supreme Court is quite conservative, the trial record gives them very little to work with because the Proponents did nothing to refute (or even qualify) the Plaintiffs' arguments. It would be very difficult for them to overturn the ruling without some very convoluted (and embarrassing) legal arguments.
Why is it that the gay population have so many rights today? How is it that they have their own culture? It is all wrong, no gay man should have more rights than a normal human being in any society, it goes against all that is right in the world, NO to Gays should be the ruling in all the States !!!
No one is asking for 'more' rights than anyone else; they are simply asking for equal rights. If you think gays, by this ruling or any other law, have 'more rights' than any other human being, could you point out these 'extra rights'?
Not everyone can choose to get a drivers license.. Do you think people who are blind are now discriminated against because they are denied licenses? Can they help being blind? But if we were to apply your standards, they should be "entitled" to a license anyways right?
like what?
not for everyone
not unlike the argument that "gays" might be an "impairment".. (not making that argument, just going along with your statement. Some people consider "gay" an impairment and not normal, just like we limit people who are "blind" from driving. Who is to determine what is an "impairment" and what isnt? Society determines this. We say its not ok to have poligamy marriage for example, but in the judges ruling, every argument to support gay marriage, can also be used to support poligamy.. I'm not asking if thats next, but is it fair that they are "discriminated against"?
Would these be the same spousal rights that would exist with an "alternative" form of marriage like "partner"? How would they be different? Answer, they wouldnt be
Just like some benefits get removed when one gets married. Do you think getting married is all about gaining benefits? Lots of people lose benefits when they get married. People give up former social security benefits when they get married, they give up the right to obtain social security disability, many give up "welfare" benefits like food stamps, just like there are benefits one gains when getting married, there are similar ones given up..
Hiring a lawyer to draw up contracts to extend some things to my "non legal" spouse isnt a burden, its my responsibility as taking her into my household and agreeing to support her. No different than one leaving an estate to unmarried individuals, like the wealthy leaving money to their butler.. (ok, who has one of those anymore, but you get the idea)..
Even with marriage, estates arent protected without those very same legal documents. Look at Anna Nicole Smith for eample.. The point being that EVERYONE needs those very same documents regardless of their marriage status so its not a burden simply for "gays"..
Why stop there.. If all laws are going to be across the board nation wide, then why have states at all? Isnt that the point? You've now just deemed a state law illegal, so why not just abolish all states and have the federal government write laws that every state must comply with? I'm not being serious here, but with all of the federal mandates, and the fact that many states all have the same laws anyways, isnt this what you are asking for? One national policy for things like "marriage", even though the origination of the country was individual states would have individual laws..
Boys and Girls clubs dont allow adults as members for example.. Seniors are entitled to "discounts", single individuals receive tax consequences.. People are discriminated against all the time.. Its not illegal, nor is it unconstitutional to discriminate.
So now you've justified discrimination "legally", but isnt that what we are doing here with gays? Just because one disagrees with it, doesnt mean its illegal.. Clearly carrying a gun for example is legal per the Constitution, but neither you nor I could walk through DC with one without being arrested and charged. Not only do priviledges have standards but even our rights do, which is why not equating a priviledge is a right when its not is very important..
You spent half of your post challenging mine, when if you had read the entire thing you would see that I had responded.
Again, when we legally discriminate, we have to have a valid reason for that discrimination. Blind people cannot drive because they pose a danger to themselves and to others. What's the justification for discriminating against gay people by prohibiting them from marrying? It's got to be more than gay marriages are non-traditional. Can you justify this discrimination, or not?
If you knew anything about the Constitution, you'd understand that marriage is not a right
And people do have the right to vote on priviledges.. Tell me where in the Constititution the right to vote on privlidges were removed
Try the 14th amendment, wherein it states that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of any citizen of the United States.
I don't know how you voted on the law involved here but since when does the majority vote mean nothing? Actually this is just another nail in the coffin of me ever considering living in California. The people vote for a thing with a good majority and one single judge overturns that vote with nothing more than a grouping of words and his signature? I just can't handle that kind of thing because I see judicial activism involved. I don't care about the sexual lean of the judge who does a thing like this on his own authority.
If this guy can do that when will some judge proclaim the need to sterilize certain individuals?
The Constitution designs a representative Democracy, specifically so mob rule does not trample on the rights of individuals and minorities.
Apparently the concept is too difficult for many conservatives to understand.
Now your being ridiculous.. you know darn well that the OP meant that they have the ability to reproduce.. You dont need people to hold your hand this much all the time do you?
Did you bother to read the post I first replied to? Because that was exactly his implication. If that is not what he meant, then maybe he should come back and clarify - and learn to clearly state his position in the first place.
You spent half of your post challenging mine, when if you had read the entire thing you would see that I had responded.
Again, when we legally discriminate, we have to have a valid reason for that discrimination. Blind people cannot drive because they pose a danger to themselves and to others. What's the justification for discriminating against gay people by prohibiting them from marrying? It's got to be more than gay marriages are non-traditional. Can you justify this discrimination, or not?
You do not need to have a valid reason to discriminate. Thats where your wrong.. You are allowed to discriminate until the legal grounds to discriminate is removed.. Whites discriminated against blacks, men discriminated against women.. People discriminate against Jews, Catholics.. Discrimination is allowed unless you are protected by the government in a situation which says its not allowed..
There is no federal law protecting gays.. people are allowed to discriminate against them for no reason what so ever..
no i still believe marriage is between a man and a women. wont change my mind on that one. but i do think that gay people should be protected as well.
My scenario fits this perfectly. Again, it's the best compromise: If the state has nothing to do with "Marriage" but legal benefits come from "Civil unions" that gay and straight people can both get. "Marriage" is left to the churches and whoever else, and has no real legal power by itself. It's a win-win for all.
wow pocahontas huh , whos the racist now?? hahahaha!! of course your against the bible because it is against gays and it clearly says it. and yeah you did choose to be gay its not proven you were born that way.
Wow! And here I thought that, after 12 years of these sorts of arguments, people would have either tired of being made to look like a**es or at the very least learned to educate themselves before posting nonsense. Again I tell you that you really need to educate yourself. Oh! And this Christian completely disagrees with your assertion that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, homosexuals or same sex marriage.
sorry, I disagree. I don't know if his actions have anything to do with his sexual orientation, but in a case like this, just to be certain there is no conflict of interest, he should have been removed. He should have removed himself to be honest about it.
Nita
But... he'd just be replaced by someone else who has a sexual orientation. Oh, wait, I get it - only heterosexuals should have any say in laws involving sexual orientation!
Frankly, Nita, to do as you say would be as silly as telling Clarence Thomas - and only Clarence Thomas, none of the other Justices - that he should recuse himself from all cases involving race. Or that Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan should recuse themselves from all cases involving gender.
Get real...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
