Same Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in California [Archive]

Sun Tzu

08-04-2010, 07:25 PM

Sun Tzu

08-04-2010, 07:28 PM

I for one am 100% for same-sex marriages. If two people want to get married because they have found love, GREAT. Let them, who the hell cares if it's two guys, two girls, or a guy and a girl. If your religion is for whatever reason against it, then your religion is broken and outdated. I have a f/f married couple in my own family who got hitched before Prop 8.

RainMaker

08-04-2010, 07:30 PM

Religion has nothing to do with the governments institution of marriage. It is just a legal contract between two parties. If people want to add spiritual elements to it and such, they are more than welcome to do so on their own.

JonInMiddleGA

08-04-2010, 07:32 PM

If your religion is for whatever reason against it, then your religion is broken and outdated.

And if your religion supports it, it besmirches the name of religion even moreso than the abomination that was given the approval of the moral reprobate in San Francisco today bastardizes both language and common decency.

There. We're now about even I think, and between us we've covered most of the relevant bases. We can resume our regularly scheduled programming.

JediKooter

08-04-2010, 07:38 PM

I for one, am not against anal sex. Oh wait, it's not about that, it's about people being happy and being with the ones that they love and being treated as equals like our constitution promises.

Lathum

08-04-2010, 07:38 PM

IBTL

Crapshoot

08-04-2010, 07:46 PM

And if your religion supports it, it besmirches the name of religion even moreso than the abomination that was given the approval of the moral reprobate in San Francisco today bastardizes both language and common decency.

There. We're now about even I think, and between us we've covered most of the relevant bases. We can resume our regularly scheduled programming.

Your religion is not the religion of society. There is this little thing the Establishment cause is trying to explain. If you want a theocracy, you're in the wrong place. Its not a question of "you're entitled to your opinion" - its a question of right and wrong, and the trend in this war is only one-direction.

JPhillips

08-04-2010, 07:47 PM

From the decision:

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.

Hell yes.

Crapshoot

08-04-2010, 07:47 PM

PS - Ted Olson (as many of you know) was the lawyer who argued Bush v. Gore... for Bush. Interesting bedfellows no?

jeff061

08-04-2010, 07:57 PM

Certain travesties are so obvious even the masses can't prevent resolution.

Gay marriage is one of the few things where if you are against it I pretty much don't care what you have to say about anything.

RainMaker

08-04-2010, 07:59 PM

I understand if someone is against it, but no one is forcing you to participate. I'm against smoking but don't think it should be outlawed.

DaddyTorgo

08-04-2010, 08:15 PM

Certain travesties are so obvious even the masses can't prevent resolution.

Gay marriage is one of the few things where if you are against it I pretty much don't care what you have to say about anything.

+1

This is why I pretty much don't care what Jon has to say about anything for instance.

Kodos

08-04-2010, 08:15 PM

Score one for the good guys.

Groundhog

08-04-2010, 08:22 PM

I understand if someone is against it, but no one is forcing you to participate. I'm against smoking but don't think it should be outlawed.

This.

(though I wouldn't mind if smoking in public places was outlawed. :D )

Tigercat

08-04-2010, 09:01 PM

I still don't understand why the obvious isn't argued more in public; that there should be no government "marriages," only civil unions. That the government was ever or should ever be involved in the spiritual (or sexual) connection between two people is absurd and unconstitutional in my mind.

Give two people that want to live together and support each other for the long term the appropriate benefits and protections. If they cut it short, give them monetary punishments equal to the benefits and protections they might have received as a couple. Simple, clean, and let religions of the world decide what "marriage" means.

DaddyTorgo

08-04-2010, 09:12 PM

I still don't understand why the obvious isn't argued more in public; that there should be no government "marriages," only civil unions. That the government was ever or should ever be involved in the spiritual (or sexual) connection between two people is absurd and unconstitutional in my mind.

Give two people that want to live together and support each other for the long term the appropriate benefits and protections. If they cut it short, give them monetary punishments equal to the benefits and protections they might have received as a couple. Simple, clean, and let religions of the world decide what "marriage" means.

this has always been my position, and it's probably what will end up happening in practice in the end.

molson

08-04-2010, 09:14 PM

I still don't understand why the obvious isn't argued more in public; that there should be no government "marriages," only civil unions. That the government was ever or should ever be involved in the spiritual (or sexual) connection between two people is absurd and unconstitutional in my mind.

Marriage itself is an institution based on morals, and regulation of morality.

So it's kind of funny to hear the "keep morals out of marriage" rallying cry, (much like "keep the government out of medicare") Yes, we've incorporated the marriage tradition into our laws, but it's certainly a moral tradition.

I always have trouble thinking of theoretical reasons to be against gay marriage itself. I'd certainly vote pro-gay marriage in a state election, though I'm not sure anything marriage-related is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. It always feels off when an appointed judge strikes down the will of the people based on an interpretation of the constitution that wasn't controlling precedent yesterday. I don't think that was the way things are supposed to work. A good result at the end of the day, but in a way that always makes me feel like we're sacrificing a little more of our system.

RainMaker

08-04-2010, 09:15 PM

I still don't understand why the obvious isn't argued more in public; that there should be no government "marriages," only civil unions. That the government was ever or should ever be involved in the spiritual (or sexual) connection between two people is absurd and unconstitutional in my mind.
Technically that is what it is. Marriage by law doesn't give anyone special sexual or spiritual benefits. It's just a contract you go down to City Hall to sign that allows you to file your taxes together and other legal benefits.

Religion is turning the government form of marriage into something it is not.

Tigercat

08-04-2010, 09:18 PM

Technically that is what it is. Marriage by law doesn't give anyone special sexual or spiritual benefits. It's just a contract you go down to City Hall to sign that allows you to file your taxes together and other legal benefits.

Religion is turning the government form of marriage into something it is not.

I don't know. There are ghosts in the machine in odd places. INS (or whatever it is called nowadays) having requirements to prove a "normal," and right now heterosexual, marriage as one example.

Subby

08-04-2010, 09:26 PM

This is very good news for dangarion.

RainMaker

08-04-2010, 09:29 PM

Marriage itself is an institution based on morals, and regulation of morality.

So it's kind of funny to hear the "keep morals out of marriage" rallying cry, (much like "keep the government out of medicare") Yes, we've incorporated the marriage tradition into our laws, but it's certainly a moral tradition.
In religion and personal views morals are part of marriage, but not in government. There are no moral laws set to receive a marriage license. Most states require you to be 18 years of age, prove who you are, prove you aren't married to someone else, and sign a piece of paper together. Some require blood tests to rule out STDs.

There is no moral requirement. I can meet a stranger on the street and walk into City Hall and get married to her 10 minutes later. The morals you put on it are your own, not the governments. Saying morals are a part of the legal contract the government presides over is completely false.

I always have trouble thinking of theoretical reasons to be against gay marriage itself. I'd certainly vote pro-gay marriage in a state election, though I'm not sure anything marriage-related is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. It always feels off when an appointed judge strikes down the will of the people based on an interpretation of the constitution that wasn't controlling precedent yesterday. I don't think that was the way things are supposed to work. A good result at the end of the day, but in a way that always makes me feel like we're sacrificing a little more of our system.
This is why we aren't a Democracy and are a Constitutional Republic. What you mentioned is the precise reason we are setup the way we are. So that the majority could not take rights away from the minority. If we were a Democracy, I'd agree that this should not be overturned, but we are not. There are a lot of blacks, Asians, hispanics, women, and poor people throughout our nation's history who are happy for that.

RainMaker

08-04-2010, 09:31 PM

I don't know. There are ghosts in the machine in odd places. INS (or whatever it is called nowadays) having requirements to prove a "normal," and right now heterosexual, marriage as one example.
INS isn't a moral issue, it's preventing people from circumventing the citizenship laws.

Greyroofoo

08-04-2010, 09:36 PM

Vote Yes! on Proposition Infinity.

Crapshoot

08-04-2010, 09:43 PM

I still don't understand why the obvious isn't argued more in public; that there should be no government "marriages," only civil unions. That the government was ever or should ever be involved in the spiritual (or sexual) connection between two people is absurd and unconstitutional in my mind.

Give two people that want to live together and support each other for the long term the appropriate benefits and protections. If they cut it short, give them monetary punishments equal to the benefits and protections they might have received as a couple. Simple, clean, and let religions of the world decide what "marriage" means.

Agreed completely - everyone can define marriage as they please, but the civil unions are the base agreement. If you want to call your arrangement a marriage per your religious beliefs, more power to you.

larrymcg421

08-04-2010, 10:08 PM

I'd certainly vote pro-gay marriage in a state election, though I'm not sure anything marriage-related is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. It always feels off when an appointed judge strikes down the will of the people based on an interpretation of the constitution that wasn't controlling precedent yesterday. I don't think that was the way things are supposed to work. A good result at the end of the day, but in a way that always makes me feel like we're sacrificing a little more of our system.

If so, then we were doing that with Loving v. Virginia (Interracial marriage) and Brown v. Board (which directly overturned previous precedent). Do you really think it would have been preferable to wait however long it took for 50.1% to be okay with both of those things?

Also, how else do you expect the judicial branch to function if not a check on the other branches? Why does it matter that they're appointed? The constitution provided for that, so I've never understood why people keep bringing that up as if it's some sort of travesty every time an "unelected" judge makes a decision.

k0ruptr

08-04-2010, 10:24 PM

I don't get how anyone would be against gay marriage. they (the ones against it) are the confused ones. heh. Let people be happy.

RainMaker

08-04-2010, 10:26 PM

I don't get how anyone would be against gay marriage. they (the ones against it) are the confused ones. heh. Let people be happy.
Self-hatred?

molson

08-04-2010, 10:29 PM

This is why we aren't a Democracy and are a Constitutional Republic. What you mentioned is the precise reason we are setup the way we are. So that the majority could not take rights away from the minority. If we were a Democracy, I'd agree that this should not be overturned, but we are not. There are a lot of blacks, Asians, hispanics, women, and poor people throughout our nation's history who are happy for that.

It's not really a constitutional republic if the constitution doesn't have any fixed meaning.

That's not necessarily bad (as long as the judges are making law we like).

A judge can use the constitution to affirm or strike down almost any conceivable law. That makes them the supreme lawmaker, to decide what the rest of us should and should not be doing. It's a ton of power.

I'd love to start from scratch with a new constitution, new branches, new checks and balances. A longer, more easily amendable constitution would be a big part of that. We need a mechanism to determine which rights, in 2010, are SO fundamental (that there can be no dissention, even by the majority of voters in a state), beyond just the whims of a single judge, or panel of judges, who dress up their policy opinion in pseudo-constitutional analysis.

molson

08-04-2010, 10:42 PM

I don't get how anyone would be against gay marriage. they (the ones against it) are the confused ones. heh. Let people be happy.

I was reading stuff on an anti-gay marriage website trying to figure it out, and what they came up with in this scholarly paper was really complicated. I found it tough to wrap my head around. It had to do with society, and family, and even evolution...

Just like with judicial constitutional analysis, they started with a narrow policy idea, "gay marriage is gross and evil!" and dressed it up with blabber to make it look like a legal opinion.

molson

08-04-2010, 10:49 PM

In religion and personal views morals are part of marriage, but not in government. There are no moral laws set to receive a marriage license. Most states require you to be 18 years of age, prove who you are, prove you aren't married to someone else, and sign a piece of paper together. Some require blood tests to rule out STDs.

There is no moral requirement. I can meet a stranger on the street and walk into City Hall and get married to her 10 minutes later. The morals you put on it are your own, not the governments. Saying morals are a part of the legal contract the government presides over is completely false.

All that is pretty new though. The tradition of marriage is that god (and the state) give their blessing and authority to have sex, reproduce and have a legitimate family. It was, traditionally, a tool of governments to regulate morality, and to bring structure to people and their families. The whole idea of "legitimate" family was a big deal through most of history.

Governments have gotten out of the business of regulating those things, but continue to give their blessing and acknowledgment of marriages. For some reason. Government marriage is kind of having an identity crisis. We always hear about marriage "benefits" - but those are all kind of afterthoughts to the moral tradition of marriage.

RainMaker

08-04-2010, 11:35 PM

All that is pretty new though. The tradition of marriage is that god (and the state) give their blessing and authority to have sex, reproduce and have a legitimate family. It was, traditionally, a tool of governments to regulate morality, and to bring structure to people and their families. The whole idea of "legitimate" family was a big deal through most of history.

Governments have gotten out of the business of regulating those things, but continue to give their blessing and acknowledgment of marriages. For some reason. Government marriage is kind of having an identity crisis. We always hear about marriage "benefits" - but those are all kind of afterthoughts to the moral tradition of marriage.
Actually, God is pretty new in the marriage game. Marriage was typically a contract between families. It was done more based on financial reasons and social status than anything else. In fact, the early Church felt that marriage was a completely private matter that they had no business intervening in. There were a couple Bishops who disagreed, but for the most part, religion wasn't a part of marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's when the Church became involved in marriage.

If we're talking about tradition in this country, that's another story. In this country, traditionally women were allowed to marry and conceive as early as 12 years old. Blacks couldn't marry whites. Women couldn't file for divorce. Is that what you mean by traditional marriage?

DanGarion

08-04-2010, 11:36 PM

Actually, God is pretty new in the marriage game. Marriage was typically a contract between families. It was done more based on financial reasons and social status than anything else. In fact, the early Church felt that marriage was a completely private matter that they had no business intervening in. There were a couple Bishops who disagreed, but for the most part, religion wasn't a part of marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's when the Church became involved in marriage.

If we're talking about tradition in this country, that's another story. In this country, traditionally women were allowed to marry and conceive as early as 12 years old. Blacks couldn't marry whites. Women couldn't file for divorce. Is that what you mean by traditional marriage?

You basically said what I was going to add to this one.

ISiddiqui

08-04-2010, 11:50 PM

Score one for the good guys.

This.

Crapshoot

08-05-2010, 01:12 AM

http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/

EagleFan

08-05-2010, 01:45 AM

I for one am 100% for same-sex marriages. If two people want to get married because they have found love, GREAT. Let them, who the hell cares if it's two guys, two girls, or a guy and a girl. If your religion is for whatever reason against it, then your religion is broken and outdated. I have a f/f married couple in my own family who got hitched before Prop 8.

Quite a close minded statement about religions. Not wanting to get into a debate about religions as I am not religious but I understand Christianity and I can understand what pissed Jon off in your statement which seems kind of like a trollish cheap shot to be honest.

Religion has nothing to do with the governments institution of marriage. It is just a legal contract between two parties. If people want to add spiritual elements to it and such, they are more than welcome to do so on their own.

Incorrect. Our country's interpretation of marrige has been based upon the religious union. Everyone wants to seperate religion and government they should also be in favor of it happening here. It is just a matter of phrasing but make anything a civil union and leave marriages to the religious ceremonies (but require a civil union to be filed for any of the legal protections and rights given).

Your religion is not the religion of society. There is this little thing the Establishment cause is trying to explain. If you want a theocracy, you're in the wrong place. Its not a question of "you're entitled to your opinion" - its a question of right and wrong, and the trend in this war is only one-direction.

You sound just as self righteous as the religious sector preaching against it.

Certain travesties are so obvious even the masses can't prevent resolution.

Gay marriage is one of the few things where if you are against it I pretty much don't care what you have to say about anything.

Speaking of close minded...

I still don't understand why the obvious isn't argued more in public; that there should be no government "marriages," only civil unions. That the government was ever or should ever be involved in the spiritual (or sexual) connection between two people is absurd and unconstitutional in my mind.

Give two people that want to live together and support each other for the long term the appropriate benefits and protections. If they cut it short, give them monetary punishments equal to the benefits and protections they might have received as a couple. Simple, clean, and let religions of the world decide what "marriage" means.

Yes, yes and yes.

Technically that is what it is. Marriage by law doesn't give anyone special sexual or spiritual benefits. It's just a contract you go down to City Hall to sign that allows you to file your taxes together and other legal benefits.

Religion is turning the government form of marriage into something it is not.

Sorry but the government form of marriage is taken directly from the religious form of marriage. Make it a civil union and everyone wins. The religious people can keep their marriage label and everyone has access to a civil union. It's win/win.

I don't get how anyone would be against gay marriage. they (the ones against it) are the confused ones. heh. Let people be happy.

It's a matter of religious beliefs. Everyone wants to split religion and government on everything else. Split it here too and make it a civil union, that way it doesn't encroach upon the religious ceremony and everyone wins.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 02:15 AM

Incorrect. Our country's interpretation of marrige has been based upon the religious union.
No it hasn't. There are over 1,000 provisions the Federal government offers married couples and not one of them is religuous in nature. That is unless I missed the verse in the Bible about who Medicare benefits go to if a spouse dies.

So please backup your statement with some fact. Show me where our country interprets in it's laws that marriage be religuous.

Everyone wants to seperate religion and government they should also be in favor of it happening here. It is just a matter of phrasing but make anything a civil union and leave marriages to the religious ceremonies (but require a civil union to be filed for any of the legal protections and rights given).
It is seperate. There is nothing in our marriage laws that require anything religuous at all. All marriage is in our country is a contract between two people that allow them certain benefits and provisions through the government.

And as stated earlier, marriage isn't a religuous act. It was used for financial and social means. So pretending like religion owns the word marriage is a clear ignorance to history of marriage amongst our species.

MrBug708

08-05-2010, 02:29 AM

This is like a 100 year war. Both sides win battles, but never win the war. Gay marriage will be legal for awhile in California, until it isn't again. I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that this is a state's rights issue (5-4), making it illegal again.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 02:35 AM

It's a stupid issue because it'll be legal everywhere in 20 years. It's like people who opposed the Civil Rights movement. Yeah they save a few years here and there, but everyone saw where the tide was shifting. So even if it's overturned by the Supreme Court, it'll eventually be legal and we'll all look back on it like we look back on interracial marriage laws.

Glengoyne

08-05-2010, 03:00 AM

I personally don't believe the government should treat any citizen different from any other based upon a given citizen's legal behavior. The state should be essentially indifferent toward an individual with regard to their sexual preference. One sexual preference over another should not confer or revoke privileges offered by the state.

That said, I didn't like the way the state courts acted leading up to Prop 8. I think the way this turned out, is a good outcome. I do hope that the judge's opinion is actually factually and legally sound. I haven't read it yet, but I do agree with a lot of the excerpts I've seen. I especially like the one JPhillips posted above.

I am a bit surprised by the Prop 8 proponents failing to really put forth much of a case here. By some accounts they sort of laid down when it came to making their case. I'm suspecting this was intentional, but don't see how they make any long term gain here. Perhaps they can pull out all of the stops and win at the Supreme Court level. I guess you'd have to admit they might consider their chances of prevailing before the SC better than with the 9th circuit.

Glengoyne

08-05-2010, 03:04 AM

PS - Ted Olson (as many of you know) was the lawyer who argued Bush v. Gore... for Bush. Interesting bedfellows no?

Also notable, David Boies, who represented Gore in Bush v. Gore, opposed Ted Olson again in this case, representing the Prop 8 proponents.

Dutch

08-05-2010, 03:10 AM

It's a stupid issue because it'll be legal everywhere in 20 years. It's like people who opposed the pantsless-society movement.

Yeah!!!!

Wait.

What???

larrymcg421

08-05-2010, 03:15 AM

Also notable, David Boies, who represented Gore in Bush v. Gore, opposed Ted Olson again in this case, representing the Prop 8 proponents.

That's not true. Boies was with Ted Olson against Prop 8. The Bush-Gore lawyers were on the same side.

Glengoyne

08-05-2010, 03:29 AM

That's not true. Boies was with Ted Olson against Prop 8. The Bush-Gore lawyers were on the same side.

Ah I misunderstood that. Sorry to mis-lead. I believed they were opposing each other again here.

claphamsa

08-05-2010, 07:22 AM

wow lots of fun! Im too lazy to read all the posts.... but I would like to point out that from facebook (where i first saw the news) the SAME people who were all about the courts "correcting" the gun rights cases, are also the SAME ones who are blasting the judges for over ruling democracy.... right there is why im a liberal. at least be consistent.

jeff061

08-05-2010, 07:48 AM

Speaking of close minded...
That is hilarious. I don't care if you call it a marriage or re-name it a civil union to keep the religious happy, gays should be able to do it. If you disagree with that you forfeit the right to call anyone close minded on any topic ever.

Of course the bitch of this "civil union" argument is that making that change won't make most religious people happy. They don't want the government to condone homosexuality, period. Allowing gay "civil unions" instead of "marriages" isn't any better to these people because it's legitimizing something they think should be hidden or fixed.

It's also simply a sign that religion is less powerful in the government than it has been in years past, which is undesirable to them as well.

Ksyrup

08-05-2010, 08:05 AM

Certain travesties are so obvious even the masses can't prevent resolution.

Am I the only one who did a double-take and re-read this to NOT include the word transvestites?

I'm all for the governmental legal union being separated from the religious aspect, whether or not it's traditionally been viewed a different way. It's pretty clear that under the law, marriage/union affords certain personal advantages and societal benefits (passing property, inheritance, life/health insurance benefits, etc.) that should be afforded to all adults, regardless of who their partners are.

Sadly, the main arguments I read on other sites in opposition to this is that it will pave the way for stuff like adult/child marriages and human/animal marriages. I'm not sure what those have to do with the union of two consenting adults and how you make the leap (aside from the disengenuous bogeyman aspect of it), but whatever.

DaddyTorgo

08-05-2010, 08:22 AM

This is like a 100 year war. Both sides win battles, but never win the war. Gay marriage will be legal for awhile in California, until it isn't again. I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that this is a state's rights issue (5-4), making it illegal again.

If they rule that it's a state's rights issue it'd be legal again since the Calif. Supreme Court tossed out Prop 8.

albionmoonlight

08-05-2010, 08:23 AM

Nate Silver's Take:

In the likelihood that Perry v. Schwarzenneger eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court, we know almost for certain that three Justices are going to vote to uphold the lower court's decision that gay marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution, and three Justices are going to vote to overturn it. (I don't think the votes of Justice Roberts and Future Justice Kagan can absolutely be taken for granted.) The Constitution can obviously be interpreted by reasonable people in different ways.

It's probably also the case, of course, that the likely swing vote on the case -- Justice Anthony Kennedy -- could also read the Constitution in different ways. I don't merely mean that we can't predict his decision: I mean that neither decision would be intellectually dishonest relative to his worldview: they'd both be within the "margin of error", so to speak. Kennedy probably won't think about his decision that way once makes it -- he'll believe that he carefully sliced through the argumentation and derived the "right" answer -- but human beings are infinitely skilled at coming up with post-facto rationalizations for decisions that are essentially arbitrary. In reality, Kennedy is probably capable of "finding" either decision depending on where he goes looking for it.

This might seem like an incredibly obvious point. But I think sometimes when the Court faces a momentous decision, the people who are best qualified to analyze the jurisprudence (i.e. lawyers and legal scholars) probably have a bias toward overestimating the degree of precision intrinsic to their discipline, as experts in most fields undoubtedly do. Even if they are not necessarily trying to analyze the Constitution in a vacuum but instead, trying to interpret it through a particular frame (in this case, Justice Kennedy's), they probably overestimate their ability to make skilled predictions about judicial behavior based on an essentially positivist view of the law.

This is a long-winded articulation of the theory of legal realism: the idea that contingencies external to the law (such as politics, emotion, and incentives) matter when the court reaches decisions, a theory which would certainly seemed to have gained additional currency in the wake of Bush v. Gore (as Jack Balkin explains).

Although I'm not qualified to analyze the merits of Perry v. Schwarzenneger point of view from a legal positivist point of view, I will deign to take a crack at it from a legal realist frame. It seems to me that most of the "intangibles" bear upon Justice Kennedy in ways that favor his finding Constitutional protection for same-sex marriage. For one thing, he'll be 75 or 76 by the time the SCOTUS hears this case, and will probably be thinking about his legacy. Given that, in 50 years' time, American society will almost certainly regard the plaintiff's position (the Constitution does not permit discrimination in marriage on the basis of sexual orientation) as the right one, that legacy would be better served by casting the decisive vote in favor of the plaintiffs.

The other major intangible is the presence of Ted Olson on the plaintiff's council. Olson, generally regarded as a conservative, has teamed with David Boies, his adversary in Bush v. Gore, to advocate for same-sex marriage. And as you can see in the clip above, he makes a very persuasive case for it. Whether or not you can call Olson's a conservative case for gay marriage, I don't quite know. But he certainly makes it seem like anything other than a radical position. In fact, he makes it seem like the necessary and obvious one.

That's what any good advocate should do, of course. But the fact that the advocate in question is someone with the gravitas, conservative pedigree, and historical significance of Olson might make a symbolic difference above and beyond that, and could serve to make Kennedy all the more confident that he were lining up on the right side of history.

Just backing up: isn't it nuts that (eventually) one of the most famous rulings in SCOTUS history will be named after Arnold Schwarzenneger?

DaddyTorgo

08-05-2010, 08:27 AM

to your last point....yes. super nuts.

molson

08-05-2010, 08:51 AM

Actually, God is pretty new in the marriage game. Marriage was typically a contract between families. It was done more based on financial reasons and social status than anything else. In fact, the early Church felt that marriage was a completely private matter that they had no business intervening in. There were a couple Bishops who disagreed, but for the most part, religion wasn't a part of marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's when the Church became involved in marriage.

If we're talking about tradition in this country, that's another story. In this country, traditionally women were allowed to marry and conceive as early as 12 years old. Blacks couldn't marry whites. Women couldn't file for divorce. Is that what you mean by traditional marriage?

Nobody's stopping families from making contracts. Obviously it's the government recognition of the union that's at issue here. And the government/church got involved to regulate morality and family structure.

molson

08-05-2010, 08:53 AM

wow lots of fun! Im too lazy to read all the posts.... but I would like to point out that from facebook (where i first saw the news) the SAME people who were all about the courts "correcting" the gun rights cases, are also the SAME ones who are blasting the judges for over ruling democracy.... right there is why im a liberal. at least be consistent.

If they're being inconsistent, how can you have the opposite view on both issues and be consistent?

flere-imsaho

08-05-2010, 08:56 AM

Especially since on a personal level Schwarzenegger supports gay marriage.

Edit: This post was in response to #48 and #49.

molson

08-05-2010, 09:01 AM

It's a stupid issue because it'll be legal everywhere in 20 years. It's like people who opposed the Civil Rights movement. Yeah they save a few years here and there, but everyone saw where the tide was shifting. So even if it's overturned by the Supreme Court, it'll eventually be legal and we'll all look back on it like we look back on interracial marriage laws.

I wonder if we lived in a country where states were more responsible for the rights of their citizens, if they would have guaranteed more rights like this to their citizens decades ago.

I know the knee-jerk reaction to that is of course not, Alabama would still have slavery if it was legal and homosexuality would be a capital offense in Idaho. Maybe that's true. I'm not so sure though. Maybe there's something more complicated going on. Maybe it's easier to cling to, and have support for, old-timey government ideas when you know that ultimately, you have no power to actually enact them.

The U.S. is a very rich country, relatively on the progressive side of culture. Most other countries in that kind of position have the kind of rights that our federal government guarantees. But we apparently, wouldn't have those rights if people in half the states were left to their own devices. Not sure I buy that.

Neon_Chaos

08-05-2010, 09:06 AM

Haven't we learned anything from Footloose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footloose_(1984_film))?

The bigots always lose.

lungs

08-05-2010, 09:10 AM

I wonder if we lived in a country where states were more responsible for the rights of their citizens, if they would have guaranteed more rights like this to their citizens decades ago.

Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!

ISiddiqui

08-05-2010, 09:14 AM

Going back to religion and marriage - while I agree that marriage has not always had religious connotations, I'd like to chime in that linking marriage and religion doesn't necessarily mean that gay marriage does not fit. There are Christian denominations and churchs who have no problems with homosexual marriage and think it is something that should be not only accepted, but also celebrated like any other marriage under God.

MrBug708

08-05-2010, 09:15 AM

If they rule that it's a state's rights issue it'd be legal again since the Calif. Supreme Court tossed out Prop 8.

I would assume that in the ruling, they would decide that the courts do not have the say, but the people in the state's?

molson

08-05-2010, 09:20 AM

I would assume that in the ruling, they would decide that the courts do not have the say, but the people in the state's?

I don't know what the California Supreme Court based its decision on, but they could certainly determine that prop 8 violated their state constitution.

flere-imsaho

08-05-2010, 09:25 AM

A view on this case's future, all the way to SCOTUS: News Analysis - In Same-Sex Ruling, an Eye on the Supreme Court - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html?ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=print)

flere-imsaho

08-05-2010, 09:43 AM

Fascinating. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/the-scaliawalker-convergence.html) Andrew Sullivan seems to think that part of the way Judge Walker phrased his decision was in direct correlation to some of the arguments used by Justice Scalia in dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas (the 6-3 decision which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law - also famous as the law Justice Thomas called "uncommonly silly").

I don't think Sullivan is suggesting that Scalia is going to change his opinion (in fact, he almost says as much), but rather that Walker has pitched his decision squarely at Kennedy that almost serves it up on a platter to that Justice.

molson

08-05-2010, 10:11 AM

In other same-sex union legal news, I thought this was kind of interesting.

I like these decisions because they represent the government taking small steps out of the marriage business. Marriage, same sex or otherwise, has nothing to do with the support of a child. These are very difficult cases, appropriately dealt with on a case-by-case level by the states.

Same-Sex Partners In New York Can Be Liable for Child Support - Law Blog - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/05/same-sex-partners-in-new-york-can-be-liable-for-child-support/)

If you read one legal opinion today dealing with same-sex couples and the law, it should probably not be the one we are about to discuss (The Prop 8 ruling probably deserves a first look.)

But if you have the appetite for two such rulings, read on.

A New York state appellate court on Tuesday became the first in the state to rule that a same-sex partner may be liable for child support.

The case of H.M. v. E.T involved a one-time lesbian couple who allegedly agreed to conceive a child through artificial insemination.

But after the baby was born, E.T. — the non-biological parent — ended the relationship. H.M. argued that she relied on her former partner’s promise of support when she decided to give birth to the child.

H.M. has stated a viable cause action for child support, a New York appellate court ruled. In prior ruling in the state, the court noted, fathers who have denied paternity have still been required to pay child support if they had developed a relationship with a child and had promised to support the child.

“By parity of reasoning, we hold that where the same-sex partner of a child’s biological mother consciously chooses, together with the biological mother, to bring that child into the world through [artificial insemination,] and where the child is conceived in reliance upon the partner’s implied promise to support the child, a cause of action for child support . . .has been sufficiently alleged,” the court ruled. Here’s a copy of the ruling.

“This is first time in New York that a state appellate court has recognized child support obligations between parents of the same sex,” said Peter Sherwin, a Proskauer attorney who represents H.M.

We have a call into E.T.’s lawyer, but have yet to hear back.

Linda McClain, a Boston University law professor who specializes in family law, said the ruling “is very much in keeping with the notion that it’s better for children to have two parents, than one, and why deprive a child of a source of parental funds?”

molson

08-05-2010, 10:19 AM

I don't know what the California Supreme Court based its decision on, but they could certainly determine that prop 8 violated their state constitution.

Duh, I had the procedure all wrong. California passed a "protection of marriage act", the State Supreme Court said it violated the state constitution, so the people changed the state constitution - then we went to federal court.

JediKooter

08-05-2010, 11:06 AM

Can someone please point me to the patent number that says religion owns and or has a monopoly on marriage and the word marriage?

molson

08-05-2010, 11:09 AM

Can someone please point me to the patent number that says religion owns and or has a monopoly on marriage and the word marriage?

They don't, but why should the government want it if they're not regulating sex and family values anymore (or as much)?

It's kind of like there's this long, gradual divorce between government and religion, and they're trying to decide how to share custody of their child, "marriage". Maybe government needs to just move on and let it go, marriage would be happier with religion.

Crapshoot

08-05-2010, 11:11 AM

Can someone please point me to the patent number that says religion owns and or has a monopoly on marriage and the word marriage?

Duh, EagleFan says so - isn't that proof enough? :D

Of course its stupid - the concept of marriage existing long before Christianity, and pretending that it is a Judeo-Christian construct is ridiculous.

molson

08-05-2010, 11:19 AM

Duh, EagleFan says so - isn't that proof enough? :D

Of course its stupid - the concept of marriage existing long before Christianity, and pretending that it is a Judeo-Christian construct is ridiculous.

Ya, it's more accurate to say that marriage is about cultural tradition, than specifically religion.

But tradition shouldn't be a basis for government regulation either, that's what this recent ruling is all about, right?

So why do they need to be the authority on a cultural and/or religious institution?

Sun Tzu

08-05-2010, 11:39 AM

Nice to see so many people here with morals.

I'll stick to my original post too. If your religion feels that gay marriages aren't kosher, then your religion is broken. The notion that all people are not equal because your little book says so is ridiculous and bigoted. You can dress it up with fancy arguments that date back to the year zero if you like, but it still amounts to the same thing.

You are better than someone else, look, it's even written on this piece of paper.

flere-imsaho

08-05-2010, 11:46 AM

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought for certain that the origin of marriage was really mostly about property rights and effectively a business transition as opposed to having anything to do with morals, sexual orientation or even love.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 12:01 PM

Nobody's stopping families from making contracts. Obviously it's the government recognition of the union that's at issue here. And the government/church got involved to regulate morality and family structure.
No it didn't. There are no moral rules at all with our marriage laws. Please show me them since you are certain they are there. A convicted child rapist or murderer has the same ability to get married as the family man who volunteers at the Children's Hospital in his free time. There are no requirements in our marriage laws to maintain a proper family structure.

I'm fine if the system goes back to private contracts between families. But that would require getting rid of the over 1,000 benefits that are given to married couples. That is the issue at stake.

JediKooter

08-05-2010, 12:03 PM

They don't, but why should the government want it if they're not regulating sex and family values anymore (or as much)?

It's kind of like there's this long, gradual divorce between government and religion, and they're trying to decide how to share custody of their child, "marriage". Maybe government needs to just move on and let it go, marriage would be happier with religion.

Religion has never (legally) been a part of our government, regardless of how much people have been trying to, excuse the pun, marry them...1st amendment and all that jazz. Maybe religions should quit grasping onto something that was never theirs to begin with.

Let's make a deal, anyone that gets married in a church, that marriage should not be recognized by any governmental agency in this country. Anyone that gets married at any governmental agency by a government official, that marriage is recognized. Problem solved.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 12:03 PM

So why do they need to be the authority on a cultural and/or religious institution?
They don't. They need the benefits associated with being "married" in this country. Our laws mention nothing of cultural or religious institutions. Just of tax breaks, medical proxies, etc.

Crapshoot

08-05-2010, 12:04 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought for certain that the origin of marriage was really mostly about property rights and effectively a business transition as opposed to having anything to do with morals, sexual orientation or even love.

Yup.

molson

08-05-2010, 12:33 PM

No it didn't. There are no moral rules at all with our marriage laws. Please show me them since you are certain they are there. A convicted child rapist or murderer has the same ability to get married as the family man who volunteers at the Children's Hospital in his free time. There are no requirements in our marriage laws to maintain a proper family structure.

I'm fine if the system goes back to private contracts between families. But that would require getting rid of the over 1,000 benefits that are given to married couples. That is the issue at stake.

I've never said there's moral requirements to get married, I said that governments have traditionally used marriage as a legal status to regulate all kinds of things, including morality and "family values". (i.e. crimes against adultery, ect)

molson

08-05-2010, 12:35 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought for certain that the origin of marriage was really mostly about property rights and effectively a business transition as opposed to having anything to do with morals, sexual orientation or even love.

It had different functions in different parts of the world, but I'm still not sure what point that makes.

cartman

08-05-2010, 12:41 PM

Let's make a deal, anyone that gets married in a church, that marriage should not be recognized by any governmental agency in this country. Anyone that gets married at any governmental agency by a government official, that marriage is recognized. Problem solved.

That's how it is done in France.

Myself, I'd prefer if it was broken out into the government handles 'civil unions' and religions handle 'marriages'.

molson

08-05-2010, 12:45 PM

Let's make a deal, anyone that gets married in a church, that marriage should not be recognized by any governmental agency in this country. Anyone that gets married at any governmental agency by a government official, that marriage is recognized. Problem solved.

That would be a good plan. I think it would require people to really think about what marriage means, and why they give a shit which entities honor and recognize it.

The terminology would be confusing at first, but we'd get used it.

As for all these incredible legal "benefits" married people receive, that always felt like a tacked on argument to me, and it's not what really drive people, usually, to desire marriage

And those "benefits" might actually be unconstitutional. I mean, what is the trait really being protected by decisions like yesterday's, sexual preference or marrying preference? It's not sexual preference, because we don't discriminate based on that. We discriminate based on your preference regarding WHO you marry. And if I don't want to marry, why shouldn't I be allowed to access all these incredible "benefits" with whoever I want, without marrying them? If I want to file my taxes jointly with someone, or share medical insurance, but don't agree with the cultural and traditional norms of "marriage" - than I'm kind of being discriminated against.

DaddyTorgo

08-05-2010, 12:58 PM

And if I don't want to marry, why shouldn't I be allowed to access all these incredible "benefits" with whoever I want, without marrying them? If I want to file my taxes jointly with someone, or share medical insurance, but don't agree with the cultural and traditional norms of "marriage" - than I'm kind of being discriminated against.

agree

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 01:11 PM

And those "benefits" might actually be unconstitutional. I mean, what is the trait really being protected by decisions like yesterday's, sexual preference or marrying preference? It's not sexual preference, because we don't discriminate based on that. We discriminate based on your preference regarding WHO you marry.
That's the same argument that was made in regards to interracial marriage. If you're a black man, you're free to have sexual preferences, but you just can't marry a white woman.

And if I don't want to marry, why shouldn't I be allowed to access all these incredible "benefits" with whoever I want, without marrying them? If I want to file my taxes jointly with someone, or share medical insurance, but don't agree with the cultural and traditional norms of "marriage" - than I'm kind of being discriminated against.
I agree 100% on this. But government marriage is exaggerated by people. It literally is just a legal contract that you sign with someone that lets you do the things you mentioned above.

dawgfan

08-05-2010, 01:15 PM

This is like a 100 year war. Both sides win battles, but never win the war.
I disagree. Looking at voting patterns by age, seems clear that younger generations are more accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage, and that within a generation or two, the tide will have turned to where gay marriage is legal throughout the country. Well, most parts anyway...

JediKooter

08-05-2010, 01:16 PM

That would be a good plan. I think it would require people to really think about what marriage means, and why they give a shit which entities honor and recognize it.

The terminology would be confusing at first, but we'd get used it.

As for all these incredible legal "benefits" married people receive, that always felt like a tacked on argument to me, and it's not what really drive people, usually, to desire marriage

And those "benefits" might actually be unconstitutional. I mean, what is the trait really being protected by decisions like yesterday's, sexual preference or marrying preference? It's not sexual preference, because we don't discriminate based on that. We discriminate based on your preference regarding WHO you marry. And if I don't want to marry, why shouldn't I be allowed to access all these incredible "benefits" with whoever I want, without marrying them? If I want to file my taxes jointly with someone, or share medical insurance, but don't agree with the cultural and traditional norms of "marriage" - than I'm kind of being discriminated against.

I agree with making people really think long and hard about getting married. I also have to agree that it's very rare that people get married because of the benefits that come with being married. I know I didn't.

As for the taxes, I've always been curious as to why I get taxed at a higher rate because I'm single. Just because I've chosen not to be married or haven't found someone that I want to marry, why am I being penalized by it? I go to the store, there's not a married price for things and a single price for things. If anything, I think it should be harder to get divorced once you are married. Things like abuse and that stuff not being ignored though.

That's how it is done in France.

Myself, I'd prefer if it was broken out into the government handles 'civil unions' and religions handle 'marriages'.

Wow, France got something right?

I think it should be one or the other, not both. Having two will continue to perpetuate the myth that one is more important than the other. But, I'm also going on the assertion that religion does not own the definition or the rights to marriage.

Toddzilla

08-05-2010, 01:17 PM

They don't, but why should the government want it if they're not regulating sex and family values anymore (or as much)?The government DOESN'T want it, it's just telling religions "you can't have it all to yourself".

ISiddiqui

08-05-2010, 01:24 PM

And who says the government isn't regulating sex and family values? It is just that what they are incentivizing, through marriage, are stable pair bonds, which are better for the raising of children or even the happiness of the members of that relationship (the added stability helps with happiness - I think there have been studies on that).

The government has interests, they just aren't religious.

Ksyrup

08-05-2010, 01:28 PM

As for the taxes, I've always been curious as to why I get taxed at a higher rate because I'm single. Just because I've chosen not to be married or haven't found someone that I want to marry, why am I being penalized by it?

You're not being penalized. It's a benefit given to married people for making a commitment that our society, by way of the government, believes makes this a better place to live, by encouraging couples who want to live together to be legally bound to each other and for families to raise kids (whether born of the two parents, adopted, conceived by one of them, etc.).

It's no different than you paying regular price for a phone while I get $200 off the same phone for making a 2-year commitment. You're not being penalized; you're choosing not to make a commitment deemed beneficial to the entity offering the benefit.

CrimsonFox

08-05-2010, 01:41 PM

Marriage itself is an institution based on morals, and regulation of morality.

So it's kind of funny to hear the "keep morals out of marriage" rallying cry, (much like "keep the government out of medicare") Yes, we've incorporated the marriage tradition into our laws, but it's certainly a moral tradition.

I always have trouble thinking of theoretical reasons to be against gay marriage itself. I'd certainly vote pro-gay marriage in a state election, though I'm not sure anything marriage-related is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. It always feels off when an appointed judge strikes down the will of the people based on an interpretation of the constitution that wasn't controlling precedent yesterday. I don't think that was the way things are supposed to work. A good result at the end of the day, but in a way that always makes me feel like we're sacrificing a little more of our system.

First off you are implicating that same sex marriage is in any way immoral. I've seen same sex relationships have a very loving home environment while I've seen tons and tons of completely horrible hetero relationships based on nothing, let alone love. So this element really has nothing to do with morality.

The will of the people argument is just foxnews hogwash. Just buzzwords to put in people's heads and people's mouths. I extremely dislike people using the phrase "The people want this"...."America wants this", "blahblah"

DaddyTorgo

08-05-2010, 01:44 PM

You're not being penalized. It's a benefit given to married people for making a commitment that our society, by way of the government, believes makes this a better place to live, by encouraging couples who want to live together to be legally bound to each other and for families to raise kids (whether born of the two parents, adopted, conceived by one of them, etc.).

It's no different than you paying regular price for a phone while I get $200 off the same phone for making a 2-year commitment. You're not being penalized; you're choosing not to make a commitment deemed beneficial to the entity offering the benefit.

Married people are no better than single people.:rant:

CrimsonFox

08-05-2010, 02:05 PM

Married peoplea re no better than single people.:rant:

+2!

Ksyrup

08-05-2010, 02:11 PM

It's not the people, it's the societal benefits from reaped from legal co-habitation.

DaddyTorgo

08-05-2010, 02:15 PM

It's not the people, it's the societal benefits from reaped from legal co-habitation.

why can't i legally co-habitate with friends then and get the benefits of it, if society is getting benefits from it?

molson

08-05-2010, 02:45 PM

It's a benefit given to married people for making a commitment that our society, by way of the government, believes makes this a better place to live, by encouraging couples who want to live together to be legally bound to each other and for families to raise kids (whether born of the two parents, adopted, conceived by one of them, etc.).

YES, that's what I was trying to get at about marriage being a government tool. The U.S. government has always favored marriage and given those who do so "benefits" - which is a lifestyle/moral family value regulation. It promotes a certain kind of lifestyle above others. That's the government's interest in marriage.

DanGarion

08-05-2010, 02:48 PM

why can't i legally co-habitate with friends then and get the benefits of it, if society is getting benefits from it?

It has to do with money. If you are a male/female couple you will probably eventually have kids which means you are creating more taxpayers which benefits the government. I think it's a bunch of BS, but that's what has been explained here on FOFC before.

DanGarion

08-05-2010, 02:49 PM

YES, that's what I was trying to get at about marriage being a government tool. The U.S. government has always favored marriage and given those who do so "benefits" - which is a lifestyle/moral family value regulation. It promotes a certain kind of lifestyle above others.

Of course it's a big fuck you to those that never marry out of looks, family issues, illness, choice, etc.

ISiddiqui

08-05-2010, 02:53 PM

YES, that's what I was trying to get at about marriage being a government tool. The U.S. government has always favored marriage and given those who do so "benefits" - which is a lifestyle/moral family value regulation. It promotes a certain kind of lifestyle above others. That's the government's interest in marriage.

And what's your point then? Maybe you didn't read the opinion, but if the government has a rational basis for favoring people (well, aside for distinctions on race, gender, etc), it can do so. The judge said that there is not even a rational basis for banning homosexual marriage. It is rational to benefit people who are married for purposes of raising children in stable homes or promoting happiness by providing an individual with the stablity of a legally enforced pair bond.

Ksyrup

08-05-2010, 02:58 PM

YES, that's what I was trying to get at about marriage being a government tool. The U.S. government has always favored marriage and given those who do so "benefits" - which is a lifestyle/moral family value regulation. It promotes a certain kind of lifestyle above others. That's the government's interest in marriage.

The problem is where one tries to fit his/her religious or other morals into how the government should define what an appropriate lifestyle or family should constitute under the law. The government can promote a beneficial lifestyle, but not arbitrarily determine who can participate.

Ksyrup

08-05-2010, 03:00 PM

Of course it's a big fuck you to those that never marry out of looks, family issues, illness, choice, etc.

It is? I suppose food stamps are big fuck you to people who have money, too.

DanGarion

08-05-2010, 03:03 PM

It is? I suppose food stamps are big fuck you to people who have money, too.

Well I wasn't explaining my personal opinion. I don't think there should be any tax breaks for being married. But in the sense of the way it's done, I feel it sort of is. Of course I don't think food stamps solve anything either, but that's another subject for another day.

molson

08-05-2010, 03:07 PM

It is rational to benefit people who are married for purposes of raising children in stable homes or promoting happiness by providing an individual with the stablity of a legally enforced pair bond.

Promoting happiness meets the rational basis test?

"Stable Homes" kind of terminology just screams out lifestyle/family value regulation.

DaddyTorgo

08-05-2010, 03:09 PM

It has to do with money. If you are a male/female couple you will probably eventually have kids which means you are creating more taxpayers which benefits the government. I think it's a bunch of BS, but that's what has been explained here on FOFC before.

me and my friends could adopt a foreign kid..

JediKooter

08-05-2010, 03:10 PM

You're not being penalized. It's a benefit given to married people for making a commitment that our society, by way of the government, believes makes this a better place to live, by encouraging couples who want to live together to be legally bound to each other and for families to raise kids (whether born of the two parents, adopted, conceived by one of them, etc.).

It's no different than you paying regular price for a phone while I get $200 off the same phone for making a 2-year commitment. You're not being penalized; you're choosing not to make a commitment deemed beneficial to the entity offering the benefit.

So it is a penalty? Especially if I have to contribute a higher percentage of my income than married people do. It's saying that single people do not contribute to society as much as married people, so here's your higher taxes. The tax should be the same regardless of marital status with the consideration of the number of exemptions.

I totally understand what you are saying, but, the problem with your analogy is, I can not opt out of paying taxes. Where as, I don't have to buy the phone at all, if I don't want to participate.

DaddyTorgo

08-05-2010, 03:16 PM

So it is a penalty? Especially if I have to contribute a higher percentage of my income than married people do. It's saying that single people do not contribute to society as much as married people, so here's your higher taxes. The tax should be the same regardless of marital status with the consideration of the number of exemptions.

I totally understand what you are saying, but, the problem with your analogy is, I can not opt out of paying taxes. Where as, I don't have to buy the phone at all, if I don't want to participate.

Ding ding ding. Maybe I should try filing as married on my tax return and then when it gets rejected I should sue and take it to the Supreme Court?

ISiddiqui

08-05-2010, 03:18 PM

Promoting happiness meets the rational basis test?

"Stable Homes" kind of terminology just screams out lifestyle/family value regulation.

It's a rational basis test. Why wouldn't the promotion of happiness pass the test?

Sun Tzu

08-05-2010, 03:22 PM

Why the hell are we talking about taxes?

molson

08-05-2010, 03:23 PM

It's a rational basis test. Why wouldn't the promotion of happiness pass the test?

So the government can show a legitimate purpose for a law if they can show that it makes someone happy? I think there'd be a lot of happy people in California if prop 8 held up. (and per the rational basis test, promoting happiness doesn't even have to be the "real" motivation - I think any law can be justified by a theoretical justification of promoting happiness).

Ksyrup

08-05-2010, 03:47 PM

So it is a penalty? Especially if I have to contribute a higher percentage of my income than married people do. It's saying that single people do not contribute to society as much as married people, so here's your higher taxes. The tax should be the same regardless of marital status with the consideration of the number of exemptions.

This reminds me of the arguments over banning smoking. Smokers see it as a restriction of their rights, while non-smokers see it as restoring their rights.

ISiddiqui

08-05-2010, 03:54 PM

So the government can show a legitimate purpose for a law if they can show that it makes someone happy? I think there'd be a lot of happy people in California if prop 8 held up. (and per the rational basis test, promoting happiness doesn't even have to be the "real" motivation - I think any law can be justified by a theoretical justification of promoting happiness).

It's a rational basis test. Happiness obtained as a result of oppressing someone who isn't like you isn't rational.

Greyroofoo

08-05-2010, 04:44 PM

Sun Tzu

08-05-2010, 05:11 PM

love it

Greyroofoo

08-05-2010, 05:19 PM

Ugh, I think we need to start looking at some of the unintended consequences of this ruling

Gaga 'instantly began to write music' after gay marriage ruling (http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=514567&gt1=28102)

molson

08-05-2010, 05:22 PM

It's a rational basis test. Happiness obtained as a result of oppressing someone who isn't like you isn't rational.

If "making people happy" is a legitimate government purpose, then an act that accomplishes that is "rational" to that end (even if you don't personally agree that people should be happy about the act.) The government isn't in the business of deciding what "should" make people happy - that just circles right back to legislating morality.

MrBug708

08-05-2010, 05:51 PM

I disagree. Looking at voting patterns by age, seems clear that younger generations are more accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage, and that within a generation or two, the tide will have turned to where gay marriage is legal throughout the country. Well, most parts anyway...

In a way yes, but with all of the influx of immigrants from Latin America, the opinions of it tend to still side with keeping it banned.

MrBug708

08-05-2010, 05:54 PM

Ugh, I think we need to start looking at some of the unintended consequences of this ruling

Gaga 'instantly began to write music' after gay marriage ruling (http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=514567&gt1=28102)

Lady Gaga is pretty odd, but she's also pretty talented

dawgfan

08-05-2010, 06:12 PM

In a way yes, but with all of the influx of immigrants from Latin America, the opinions of it tend to still side with keeping it banned.
That's a good point. I wonder if immigration is enough of a counter to the prevailing trends towards accepting gay marriage to keep it from becoming a majority opinion in the next few decades.

EagleFan

08-05-2010, 06:18 PM

That is hilarious. I don't care if you call it a marriage or re-name it a civil union to keep the religious happy, gays should be able to do it. If you disagree with that you forfeit the right to call anyone close minded on any topic ever.

Thank you for your closed minded response. You have proven my point.

Duh, EagleFan says so - isn't that proof enough? :D

Of course its stupid - the concept of marriage existing long before Christianity, and pretending that it is a Judeo-Christian construct is ridiculous.

What country are we living in? You do know that much of what this country was built on was based on Christian values?

Of course people would rather bitch about something than find a common solution that works for everyone...

If the religious groups don't like the civil unions, fine they don't have to participate in one. They just shouldn't expect any of the same "benefits" from the government.

Masked

08-05-2010, 06:26 PM

One potential flaw is the implicit assumption that people's opinions don't change as they grow older. It's likely that their opinions will moderate as they get older - they will be more accepting than today's 40-50 year olds, but perhaps not as accepting as they are today.

DanGarion

08-05-2010, 06:29 PM

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

dawgfan

08-05-2010, 06:35 PM

One potential flaw is the implicit assumption that people's opinions don't change as they grow older. It's likely that their opinions will moderate as they get older - they will be more accepting than today's 40-50 year olds, but perhaps not as accepting as they are today.
That may be, and it's something I considered. But I have a hard time believing that it would be more than a modest shift, and I'm not sure that you wouldn't also see some people get more socially progressive as they get older. Not everyone goes more conservative as they age...

I'm standing by my belief that the general trend in this country is toward greater acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 07:40 PM

If "making people happy" is a legitimate government purpose, then an act that accomplishes that is "rational" to that end (even if you don't personally agree that people should be happy about the act.) The government isn't in the business of deciding what "should" make people happy - that just circles right back to legislating morality.
It is if it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Hanging black people from trees was something that made certain white people happy at one point in our history. The same goes for having them work for free in their fields picking cotton.

I know I mentioned it before, but we are not a Democracy. Our founding fathers built our system to have checks and balances. So 51% of the country couldn't vote to take rights away from the other 49%. This is a Constitutional Republic and it has worked pretty well so far.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 07:50 PM

One potential flaw is the implicit assumption that people's opinions don't change as they grow older. It's likely that their opinions will moderate as they get older - they will be more accepting than today's 40-50 year olds, but perhaps not as accepting as they are today.
I think bias such as this is typically embedded at a young age. I can tell you that my views of race, ethnicity, homosexuality, and other groups has not changed a whole lot as I've gotten older. I'm not really sure what could change it too.

The big difference in my opinion is that most young people are growing up with it. Characters in TV shows are openly gay, famous celebrities, and likely people they know in their own school. It's just not a taboo subject anymore. They're being exposed to it, understanding the science behind it, and realizing it's not a big deal. I'm sure that varies based on locale, but in my experience, I don't know many young people who think it's a horrible thing.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 07:55 PM

It has to do with money. If you are a male/female couple you will probably eventually have kids which means you are creating more taxpayers which benefits the government. I think it's a bunch of BS, but that's what has been explained here on FOFC before.
With out current deficit and debt, I'd be interested to know if every new child is a net positive or negative to the system.

I guess the thing that pisses me off about it is that I have to pay for someone's family of 5 to go to school. I'm fine with pitching in for things, but if you choose to have a family of 5, you should be paying the appropriate taxes for it and not shifting the burden on to me.

dawgfan

08-05-2010, 08:10 PM

I'm fine with pitching in for things, but if you choose to have a family of 5, you should be paying the appropriate taxes for it and not shifting the burden on to me.
In many ways, they are:

- Generally a bigger house with more kids, so higher sales tax on the purchase and higher property tax assessments;
- More items needed to supply all of the kids, so more sales tax paid

JPhillips

08-05-2010, 08:15 PM

Think of it as paying forward. Those five will all be tax payers eventually, providing far more tax income as a unit than a family with one child or a single adult. A growing economy almost requires population growth.

jeff061

08-05-2010, 08:31 PM

Thank you for your closed minded response. You have proven my point.

Right, you do realize, at least from what I can tell, we agree? I realize in my first post I used the "marriage" word, but like most in this thread(and as I've stated) what I mean is equal rights from the government. If needed leave marriage to the religious constitutions and redefine that relationship in the government and have it apply to all consenting adults.

This is, by the way, a solution that will not make most of the religious happy. Marriage gets taken out of the government and gays are granted rights in any way, shape or form? I don't think they see that as a reasonable compromise.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 09:21 PM

Think of it as paying forward. Those five will all be tax payers eventually, providing far more tax income as a unit than a family with one child or a single adult. A growing economy almost requires population growth.
I think that's too simplistic. It's not just about having more kids, it's about where those kids are coming from. Is a kid born to a poor, uneducated family with disinterested parents likely to be a net positive or negative on the tax system? How about one from an affluent, educated household with active parents?

JPhillips

08-05-2010, 09:46 PM

Most are going to pay back far more than they receive directly.

RainMaker

08-05-2010, 09:47 PM

Most are going to pay back far more than they receive directly.
Than why are we in debt when our population continues to increase?

EagleFan

08-05-2010, 10:07 PM

Right, you do realize, at least from what I can tell, we agree? I realize in my first post I used the "marriage" word, but like most in this thread(and as I've stated) what I mean is equal rights from the government. If needed leave marriage to the religious constitutions and redefine that relationship in the government and have it apply to all consenting adults.

This is, by the way, a solution that will not make most of the religious happy. Marriage gets taken out of the government and gays are granted rights in any way, shape or form? I don't think they see that as a reasonable compromise.

Yes I do realize, maybe I misunderstood your response to me. I thought you didn't realize that I wasn't taking one side or the other. I have no problem with the civil union idea (no real problem with the marriage thing either but I figure if we take that out of play than the religious groups no longer can use that as a fallback).

If there are two solutions to a problem I would rather take the one that leaves the least room for instigation.

jeff061

08-05-2010, 10:55 PM

They may have to find a different argument or twist the existing one somehow, but they nonetheless will. Opponents of gay marriage are anti-gay more than pro sanctity of marriage. I don't believe there is any compromise. Either gays get more rights or they get less, period, that's where they draw the line.

Situations like this is what the constitution and supreme court are for. Good to see something in our system work.

Greyroofoo

08-05-2010, 11:16 PM

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

EXACTLY!

Why should a 12 year be limited to marrying an adult of the opposite gender!

ISiddiqui

08-05-2010, 11:27 PM

If "making people happy" is a legitimate government purpose, then an act that accomplishes that is "rational" to that end (even if you don't personally agree that people should be happy about the act.)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "rational".

Increasing the utility of the population is a legitimate governmental interest, and as long as the government goes about that interest in a rational manner, it is ok. Going about it in an irrational manner (ie, bowing to hatred of the other) is not ok. Irrational prejudice has failed rational basis test before (City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center)

The government isn't in the business of deciding what "should" make people happy - that just circles right back to legislating morality.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand government. Of course the government is in the business of deciding what should make people happy. That's basically why it exists in the first place!

Mac Howard

08-05-2010, 11:45 PM

Come on guys. This is not about morality. It's not about religion. It's not about the history of marriage. It's about the constitution. If the constitution says that it is illegal to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation then banning gay marriage is against the constitution.

If you don't like this then you need to change the constitution.

Good luck with that!

ISiddiqui

08-05-2010, 11:55 PM

Here's the problem with that... the Constitution is like the Bible, it all comes down to how you interpret it ;).

CrimsonFox

08-06-2010, 12:14 AM

Here's the problem with that... the Constitution is like the Bible, it all comes down to how you interpret it ;).

WHAT?!?!? THat is the MOST........shit...you're right.

EagleFan

08-06-2010, 12:19 AM

Here's the problem with that... the Constitution is like the Bible, it all comes down to how you interpret it ;).

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bCgCceg042w&hl=en_US&fs=1?rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bCgCceg042w&hl=en_US&fs=1?rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

Mac Howard

08-06-2010, 01:42 AM

Here's the problem with that... the Constitution is like the Bible, it all comes down to how you interpret it ;).

Is it really like the bible? Then thank goodness we don't have one :)

albionmoonlight

08-06-2010, 07:08 AM

The analogy seems very apt. We treat the founding fathers more and more like the early apostles and disciples. Like they are these men with special insight into this sacred document. And, speaking roughly, those who tend to support a more harsh reading of the Bible also tend to support a more harsh application of the laws. And the same "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" argument underlies the worldview.

DanGarion

08-06-2010, 10:19 AM

This explains all...

Autumn

08-06-2010, 10:32 AM

That's awesome.

JediKooter

08-06-2010, 11:07 AM

I'm still trying figure out what christian principals this country was founded on.

DanGarion

08-07-2010, 05:03 PM

molson

08-07-2010, 06:29 PM

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "rational".

Nope, you're just using the wrong meaning for it.

You can say anything is not "rational" as a matter of opinion - war, religion, government itself, whatever. That's not what the rational basis test is talking about. "Rational" describes a relationship between two things, not someone's opinion about whether one thing is "good" (i.e. rational). It's about the relationship between the action and the hypothetical government interest. As an extreme example to make the point - the government can't claim that in order to increase fuel efficiency in vehicles, they're going to ban gay marriage. There's no rational basis to that. The "goal", even if legitimate, clearly has nothing to do with the government action. On the other hand, they can say that in order to preserve traditional family values - they want to ban gay marriage. That's RATIONAL - but the question there is whether "preservation of traditional family values" is a legitimate government function (which it probably isn't, but the key for the anti-gay marriage people is to come up with a hypothetical legitimate government function that (1.) IS advanced by banning gay marriage and (2.) IS a legitimate government interest.

And I'm sure you can back up with stats that religion makes people "happy". Anything makes someone happy. That's not a legitimate purpose of a government law, to make someone (i.e. religious groups, for example), "happy". Gay marriage pretty easily would make that rational basis test, as would anything else.

ISiddiqui

08-08-2010, 12:26 AM

As I've already pointed out City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center has said that policy based on irrational prejudice is NOT a rational basis.

That's not a legitimate purpose of a government law, to make someone (i.e. religious groups, for example), "happy".

I don't want to live in a government you form if you think a legitimate purpose of government law is to increase the happiness of the population.

Anthony

08-08-2010, 08:12 AM

i've always wondered if we decided to throw out the Constitution and start over with an updated version that reflects todays sensibilities and thinking, what would the new Constitution look like? i imagine a very oppressive document and that the first "right" that the government would love to get their grubby hands on would be Freedom of Speech. i'd expect that to be ramped down heavily in a new Constitution. and i imagine marriage, in any form, to be more loosely definied to include same sex marriage. it'd be a sad day for America. i was actually looking to reading more of Jon's thoughts on this. say what you want about him, but i always thought of his views as a more extreme version of mine. he's obviously holding back, i can only imagine what he really thinks.

RendeR

08-08-2010, 10:25 AM

Having read Jon's posts for 10 years now I don't want top know what he REALLY thinks. He's frightening enough with what he lets slip out around the edges ;)

SirFozzie

08-13-2010, 08:14 PM

Very interesting:

The Prop 8 decision may not get to the Supreme Court after all. One of the things at issue here is standing. Normally, the state AG and the Governor would have standing to defend these decisions, but in this case, both the AG and the Governor declined to defend Prop 8 (and indeed, testified for the other side).

The parties defending Prop 8 were given leave to intervene in the case at the current level, but to appeal, they have to show that the decision harms them, and that may not be possible. (as the article states, "ideological harm" is not enough to create legal standing)

Gay marriage: Proposition 8 hangs by a legal thread - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0813-gay-marriage-california-20100813,0,5087660.story)

Matthean

08-13-2010, 08:27 PM

I'm still trying figure out what christian principals this country was founded on.

There are some people in my guy's accountability group at church who are so hardcore on the idea of the US starting out as a "Christian nation" that I simply have to shut up when they get talking about the issue.

jeff061

08-13-2010, 08:34 PM

There are some people in my guy's accountability group at church who are so hardcore on the idea of the US starting out as a "Christian nation" that I simply have to shut up when they get talking about the issue.
I'm not sure why it's even relevant to anything in this day and age. I really don't care if they used Christianity or not to rally support hundreds of years ago.

SirFozzie

08-16-2010, 06:02 PM

The plot thickens:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_ninth_circuit_appeal.html

The Ninth Circuit Allowed the stay, but indicated that the people trying to appeal have a large uphill climb ahead of them.

Marc Vaughan

08-16-2010, 06:16 PM

There are some people in my guy's accountability group at church who are so hardcore on the idea of the US starting out as a "Christian nation" that I simply have to shut up when they get talking about the issue.

You might want to mention to them that one of the first treaties the US signed as a country explicitly indicates that the nation ISNT Christian in basis ....

SirFozzie

08-16-2010, 06:22 PM

There you go again with your Liberal-biased facts, and history, and all that, Marc! ;)

Seriously, for a lot of folks, it's a Christian nation because they say it is, and they will not listen to any evidence to the contrary.

JediKooter

08-16-2010, 06:44 PM

You might want to mention to them that one of the first treaties the US signed as a country explicitly indicates that the nation ISNT Christian in basis ....

Marc, how dare a forner know our histery better than us! ;)

JediKooter

08-16-2010, 06:47 PM

There are some people in my guy's accountability group at church who are so hardcore on the idea of the US starting out as a "Christian nation" that I simply have to shut up when they get talking about the issue.

I bite my tongue almost every day on Facebook because of stuff like that. I think it can only be explained in one of two ways: They are willfully ignorant or intentionally stupid.

DaddyTorgo

08-16-2010, 07:12 PM

You might want to mention to them that one of the first treaties the US signed as a country explicitly indicates that the nation ISNT Christian in basis ....

as i've mentioned before though marc - facts don't matter to these types. you could show them the actual treaty and they'd go off on a tangent about the "hidden intent" behind the words or some crazy nonsense.

SackAttack

08-16-2010, 08:00 PM

The plot thickens:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_ninth_circuit_appeal.html

The Ninth Circuit Allowed the stay, but indicated that the people trying to appeal have a large uphill climb ahead of them.

Other thing is...if the Ninth denies the appeal on a standing basis, that would open up a whole 'nother can of worms, as SCOTUS could decline to step in at that point, but it wouldn't exactly be "settled law," either. It'd just be deferring the inevitable - that SCOTUS hears a case like this one.

larrymcg421

08-16-2010, 08:13 PM

Other thing is...if the Ninth denies the appeal on a standing basis, that would open up a whole 'nother can of worms, as SCOTUS could decline to step in at that point, but it wouldn't exactly be "settled law," either. It'd just be deferring the inevitable - that SCOTUS hears a case like this one.

Agreed. SCOTUS will likely use this as a way to avoid ruling on a controversial issue like they did with Newdow. However, when other circuits start giving conflicting opinions, that's when SCOTUS will have to step up.

JonInMiddleGA

08-16-2010, 10:47 PM

i've always wondered if we decided to throw out the Constitution and start over with an updated version that reflects todays sensibilities and thinking, what would the new Constitution look like?

I dropped by the thread to see if the indefinite hold update had been posted (no idea when it happened, I just saw it a few minutes ago myself) & saw your comment here.

I think the contents a new constitution might depend upon the process used to ratify it. I think we'd probably get a different document if states had to ratify it by popular vote versus by legislative vote on a state-by-state basis vs approval only by those on the drafting committee. The latter would be the most relaxed I imagine, as at some point the members would simply tire of the process & compromise however necessary just to have it completed. And what number would be needed for "ratification" or "adoption" (or whatever term applies to a new/replacement Constitution, I'm tired & it's late)
I'm having a hard time separating the process for Constitutional amendments from the notion of an entirely new Constitution, so I'm not really sure what standard of agreement would be applied.

With regard to this particular subject, I have a tough time imagining a looser definition of marriage in any document that could get approved, considering that 41 states have statues (http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16430) defining marriage as one-man/one-woman, 30 have defined it in their Constitutions, and all but three of those have done so since 1988. Not sure how much closer the states could get in expressing a majority viewpoint on the subject.

Truth be told though, I think your hypothetical do-over is almost a trick question. I see virtually no chance that any document with significant changes could be crafted that would get approval in, say, even 2/3rds of states and I'm not close to convinced that you could craft anything more than the most limited of documents that could get even 50% approval from the people actual governed by the document.

i was actually looking to reading more of Jon's thoughts on this. say what you want about him, but i always thought of his views as a more extreme version of mine. he's obviously holding back, i can only imagine what he really thinks.

I've actually commented on this before in some thread or another, to summarize here though, I'm actually primarily offended at the sheer absurdity of the notion of defining same-sex couples as "married" even moreso than I am by the moral depravity of it. It's the equivalent of having a court declare that the color formerly known as "blue" shall henceforth be known as the the color "red" or even the color "bumperguard". Basically my biggest outrage is at the affront to sanity or reason than as a religious/moral objection.

larrymcg421

08-16-2010, 11:01 PM

BTW, I looked up the case the 9th circuit mentioned in their order - Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). I don't see how Prop 8 proponents are gonna be able to argue they have standing based on this precedent:

(a) Grave doubts exist as to the standing of petitioners AOE and Park to pursue appellate review under Article Ill's case-or-controversy requirement. Standing to defend on appeal in the place of an original defendant demands that the litigant possess "a direct stake in the outcome." Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/476/54/case.html), 62. Petitioners' primary argument-that, as initiative proponents, they have a quasi-legislative
<hr>interest in defending the measure they successfully sponsored-is dubious because they are not elected state legislators, authorized by state law to represent the State's interests, see Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/484/72/case.html), 82. Furthermore, this Court has never identified initiative proponents as Article-Ill-qualified defenders. Cf. Don't Bankrnpt Washington Committee v. Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 460 U. S. 1077. Their assertion of representational or associational standing is also problematic, absent the concrete injury that would confer standing upon AOE members in their own right, see, e. g., Food and Commercial Workers v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U. S. 544 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/517/544/case.html), 551-553, and absent anything in Article XXVIII's state-court citizen-suit provision that could support standing for Arizona residents in general, or AOE in particular, to defend the Article's constitutionality in federal court.

Anthony

08-16-2010, 11:26 PM

I dropped by the thread to see if the indefinite hold update had been posted (no idea when it happened, I just saw it a few minutes ago myself) & saw your comment here.

I think the contents a new constitution might depend upon the process used to ratify it. I think we'd probably get a different document if states had to ratify it by popular vote versus by legislative vote on a state-by-state basis vs approval only by those on the drafting committee. The latter would be the most relaxed I imagine, as at some point the members would simply tire of the process & compromise however necessary just to have it completed. And what number would be needed for "ratification" or "adoption" (or whatever term applies to a new/replacement Constitution, I'm tired & it's late)
I'm having a hard time separating the process for Constitutional amendments from the notion of an entirely new Constitution, so I'm not really sure what standard of agreement would be applied.

With regard to this particular subject, I have a tough time imagining a looser definition of marriage in any document that could get approved, considering that 41 states have statues (http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16430) defining marriage as one-man/one-woman, 30 have defined it in their Constitutions, and all but three of those have done so since 1988. Not sure how much closer the states could get in expressing a majority viewpoint on the subject.

Truth be told though, I think your hypothetical do-over is almost a trick question. I see virtually no chance that any document with significant changes could be crafted that would get approval in, say, even 2/3rds of states and I'm not close to convinced that you could craft anything more than the most limited of documents that could get even 50% approval from the people actual governed by the document.

I've actually commented on this before in some thread or another, to summarize here though, I'm actually primarily offended at the sheer absurdity of the notion of defining same-sex couples as "married" even moreso than I am by the moral depravity of it. It's the equivalent of having a court declare that the color formerly known as "blue" shall henceforth be known as the the color "red" or even the color "bumperguard". Basically my biggest outrage is at the affront to sanity or reason than as a religious/moral objection.

i call all of this insanity the "Will & Grace-ification of America". that show dressed up homosexuality in a cute little bunny costume and added a laugh track and POOF - we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, America's Next Top Model and all these displays of gay empowerment and now here i am, in the year 2010 and the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women. i'll give them their civil union, but marriage, nah, that i can't do. i know the song "American Idiot" is actually anti-homophobia, anti-redneck sensibilities, but i've always agreed with the line

"Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay."

i always focus on the "everything isn't meant to be okay" part. i truly believe that. not everything in life needs to be fair. not every group needs to be heard. its ok for certain segments of society to not have the same things as the normal majority. i don't think that was ever the purpose of our government to try to accomplish that. that's why i always shudder at the thought of what a new Constitution would look like if one day we decided to start over. some kook may one day convince the nation that we're trying to progress and evolve as a country but we're being held back by the sensibilities of rich white landowners who owned slaves hundreds of years ago. i'd truly hate to live in this country knowing the kind of sun-shiny utopia a new reformed Constitution would have this country look like. i'd say off the top of my head we'd tear down borders and let any Mexican waltz through and become a citizen. gay marriage probably become legit. and what about abortions? how close is the nearest Wal-Mart? guns? can't have 'em.

DaddyTorgo

08-16-2010, 11:35 PM

i call all of this insanity the "Will & Grace-ification of America". that show dressed up homosexuality in a cute little bunny costume and added a laugh track and POOF - we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, America's Next Top Model and all these displays of gay empowerment and now here i am, in the year 2010 and the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women. i'll give them their civil union, but marriage, nah, that i can't do. i know the song "American Idiot" is actually anti-homophobia, anti-redneck sensibilities, but i've always agreed with the line

"Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay."

i always focus on the "everything isn't meant to be okay" part. i truly believe that. not everything in life needs to be fair. not every group needs to be heard. its ok for certain segments of society to not have the same things as the normal majority. i don't think that was ever the purpose of our government to try to accomplish that. that's why i always shudder at the thought of what a new Constitution would look like if one day we decided to start over. some kook may one day convince the nation that we're trying to progress and evolve as a country but we're being held back by the sensibilities of rich white landowners who owned slaves hundreds of years ago. i'd truly hate to live in this country knowing the kind of sun-shiny utopia a new reformed Constitution would have this country look like. i'd say off the top of my head we'd tear down borders and let any Mexican waltz through and become a citizen. gay marriage probably become legit. and what about abortions? how close is the nearest Wal-Mart? guns? can't have 'em.

eh...it's not even worth it. you're just looking for attention and to cause controversy like usual.

Anthony

08-16-2010, 11:38 PM

eh...it's not even worth it. you're just looking for attention and to cause controversy like usual.

go bury your head in the sand you fucking ostrich. instead of meeting someone else's views with your own, you rather cover your eyes and pretend its just a troll talking. get some spine, son. not everyone thinks the same way you do. its called America.

dawgfan

08-16-2010, 11:57 PM

i call all of this insanity the "Will & Grace-ification of America". that show dressed up homosexuality in a cute little bunny costume and added a laugh track and POOF - we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, America's Next Top Model and all these displays of gay empowerment and now here i am, in the year 2010 and the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women.
So any marriage that doesn't produce offspring is invalid? I guess seniors shouldn't ever remarry then, right?

And nevermind the fact that gay couples can reproduce since there are plenty of willing donors out there to make it happen for them, or all the gay couples willing to adopt children that need a home.

It makes me happy knowing that your kind of bigotry against gays is getting less and less common with each succeeding generation, and sad that in a few decades from now our children will look back at our era and wonder what took so long for common sense to take hold in this country.

DaddyTorgo

08-16-2010, 11:58 PM

go bury your head in the sand you fucking ostrich. instead of meeting someone else's views with your own, you rather cover your eyes and pretend its just a troll talking. get some spine, son. not everyone thinks the same way you do. its called America.

So any marriage that doesn't produce offspring is invalid? I guess seniors shouldn't ever remarry then, right?

And nevermind the fact that gay couples can reproduce since there are plenty of willing donors out there to make it happen for them, or all the gay couples willing to adopt children that need a home.

It makes me happy knowing that your kind of bigotry against gays is getting less and less common with each succeeding generation, and sad that in a few decades from now our children will look back at our era and wonder what took so long for common sense to take hold in this country.

looks like dawgfan took care of basically what i would have said.

DaddyTorgo

08-17-2010, 12:04 AM

Remember, in HA's world.

Two gay people in love being recognized as marriage by the state = Horrible
Getting himself off to a 16 yr old in a bikini = A-OK!

You forgot "Fucking a sandwich = A-OK" ;)

DaddyTorgo

08-17-2010, 12:07 AM

the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women. i'll give them their civil union, but marriage, nah, that i can't do.

If your relationship with your wife is so fragile that sharing its label with other people in a committed relationship is such a threat to you then you've got bigger problems in your relationship.

And if your relationship was really truly strong you wouldn't be threatened by how anyone else referred to their relationship.

Atocep

08-17-2010, 12:08 AM

i call all of this insanity the "Will & Grace-ification of America".

Maybe people started realizing that gay people don't affect their lives in any way and there's nothing wrong with it. It's not a disease you're going to catch. You can even shake their hands and not catch the gayness.

in the year 2010 and the government wants to tell me that my relationship with my wife, one that produces offspring that will go forth and populate the earth, is the same kind of relationship as two gay men/women. i'll give them their civil union, but marriage, nah, that i can't do.

The hangup is really word? This sounds like the same bullshit reasoning bigots are using over the mosque that would kinda-sorta be in the vicinity of the WTC site. "I don't have anything against them, I just want to treat them different than everyone else".

and what about abortions? how close is the nearest Wal-Mart?

This comes from the same person that once posted;

your mother is an idiot for not shoving a hanger up her rotten vaginal canal to abort you.
Obviously abortion is a touchy subject that you care deeply about.

Anthony

08-17-2010, 12:36 AM

If your relationship with your wife is so fragile that sharing its label with other people in a committed relationship is such a threat to you then you've got bigger problems in your relationship.

And if your relationship was really truly strong you wouldn't be threatened by how anyone else referred to their relationship.

there is no threatened. i simply don't want certain relationships being considered the same as mine.

this is all an excercise in futility. no one is gonna change anyone's views with a few posts in a text sim website. i hang with likeminded ppl as i'm sure you also do. we'll do just fine operating in our respective circles. i've spoken my mind, you've let other speak yours for you, its all good. kumbaya and handjobs for everyone.

JonInMiddleGA

08-17-2010, 12:45 AM

this is all an excercise in futility. no one is gonna change anyone's views with a few posts in a text sim website. i hang with likeminded ppl as i'm sure you also do. we'll do just fine operating in our respective circles.

Which is why I haven't bothered to make much in the way of appearances in this thread. It's not as though more than a handful of us actually encounter each other outside of here anyway, I knew this thread would be largely a kumbaya knitting circle so posting much seemed rather pointless.

albionmoonlight

08-17-2010, 06:20 AM

i simply don't want certain relationships being considered the same as mine.

This actually gets to the nub of it. HA believes this. And he won't change our mind and we won't change his. And HA has every right to vote based on his beliefs and, more fundamentally, the right to believe what he believes.

The actual question at issue is whether the fact that about half the country agrees with HA provides the state with a rational basis for discriminating against individuals with respect to a fundamental right (marriage). I don't think that it does. "Some people don't like it" has, historically, not been enough to support state-sanctioned discrimination vis a vis fundamental rights.

Huckleberry

08-17-2010, 07:21 AM

I've actually commented on this before in some thread or another, to summarize here though, I'm actually primarily offended at the sheer absurdity of the notion of defining same-sex couples as "married" even moreso than I am by the moral depravity of it. It's the equivalent of having a court declare that the color formerly known as "blue" shall henceforth be known as the the color "red" or even the color "bumperguard". Basically my biggest outrage is at the affront to sanity or reason than as a religious/moral objection.

That's almost as absurd as using the Constitution as a dictionary.

The idea of granting homosexual couples all the same rights and privileges but making the official designation be called a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" is possibly the dumbest political stance I've ever heard.

What will the marriage defenders do when a gay civilly united couple calls themselves "married" in conversation? Call the cops?

"They used the wrong word, officer. They said *gasp* - MARRIED!"

JonInMiddleGA

08-17-2010, 07:29 AM

The idea of granting homosexual couples all the same rights and privileges but making the official designation be called a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" is possibly the dumbest political stance I've ever heard.

I think you're confusing me with HA re: civil union. I don't support any formal recognition of the relationship, that was him (in the last page or so of the thread anyway).

I said that the misappropriation of the word was the most offensive thing about it to me, not that it was the only offensive thing.

DaddyTorgo

08-17-2010, 08:12 AM

there is no threatened. i simply don't want certain relationships being considered the same as mine.

this is all an excercise in futility. no one is gonna change anyone's views with a few posts in a text sim website. i hang with likeminded ppl as i'm sure you also do. we'll do just fine operating in our respective circles. i've spoken my mind, you've let other speak yours for you, its all good. kumbaya and handjobs for everyone.

Why don't you want them being considered the same: Because that makes you feel insecure? Because you think it makes your relationship less special? What's your reasoning for not wanting it?

*yawn* I'm sure that was supposed to be some veiled insult that you spoke your mind and i wanted for someone else to take up my side of the argument, but i look at it as "i've only got so much time to spend on FOFC...i'd rather not spend it rehashing my POV everytime I get into a conversation with someone."

Marc Vaughan

08-17-2010, 08:56 AM

I've actually commented on this before in some thread or another, to summarize here though, I'm actually primarily offended at the sheer absurdity of the notion of defining same-sex couples as "married" even moreso than I am by the moral depravity of it. It's the equivalent of having a court declare that the color formerly known as "blue" shall henceforth be known as the the color "red" or even the color "bumperguard". Basically my biggest outrage is at the affront to sanity or reason than as a religious/moral objection.

I've never quite understood the 'moral outrage' by some Christians about gay marriage to be honest.

Bear in mind in early church life women had never to no say (if any) in who they married or at what age it occurred, in medieval England daughters were married off (with the church's blessing) for political/business convenience from the age of 6 sometimes ..... today that would be thought horrific to allow.

As such if the Christian church can adapt from that to todays 'standards' of marriage (and acceptance of equality for women in 'most' things) I really don't see the huge deal about them accepting gay marriage.

JPhillips

08-17-2010, 09:03 AM

Marc: I think you missed the part in the Bible where Jesus said,

"Let the children come to me so that I might marry them off to cement my political and business relationships."

That makes it okay.

Huckleberry

08-17-2010, 09:10 AM

I think you're confusing me with HA re: civil union. I don't support any formal recognition of the relationship, that was him (in the last page or so of the thread anyway).

I said that the misappropriation of the word was the most offensive thing about it to me, not that it was the only offensive thing.

Didn't mean to imply that was your stance in particular, although I recognize that my post reads that way now that I look at it again.

Just highlighting the absurdity of that argument.

Anthony

08-17-2010, 11:38 AM

I think you're confusing me with HA re: civil union. I don't support any formal recognition of the relationship, that was him (in the last page or so of the thread anyway).

I said that the misappropriation of the word was the most offensive thing about it to me, not that it was the only offensive thing.

my stance on civil union is me throwing a bone to them. the Greeks have managed to penetrate Troy, can't pretend things haven't changed. again, another case where you have more extreme views of mine.

RendeR

08-17-2010, 11:47 AM

Frankly this comes down to the Right wing bible thumpers not having a legal leg to stand on and fighting tooth and nail to hold on to archaic self-important opinions of how they think the world should be for everyone. See the equal rights movement, women's suffrage, interracial marriage and oh...slavery? for examples of the same problem throughout history.

Those who get offended that gays want to use the word Marriage have every right to be offended. This is America, you have the right to feel however you want to about any given subject.

Lucky for everyone that you don't have the right to legislate bigotry into law though. All those states mentioned before, who voted in statutes and constitutional definitions? This is just the first brick in the removal of all that crap too.

DanGarion

08-17-2010, 11:54 AM

Remember, in HA's world.

Two gay people in love being recognized as marriage by the state = Horrible
Getting himself off to a 16 yr old in a bikini = A-OK!
I'm sure if they were two really HOT women he wouldn't mind though, especially if they wanted to play with him...

Passacaglia

08-17-2010, 11:55 AM

I'm sure if they were two really HOT women he wouldn't mind though, especially if they wanted to play with him...

Look, he already said he was throwing a bone to them, what more do you want?

RainMaker

08-17-2010, 12:16 PM

there is no threatened. i simply don't want certain relationships being considered the same as mine.
Of course you're threatened and that is why you don't want it considered the same as yours. I would suggest not basing your marriage on a piece of paper the State gives you though to determine it's strength and meaning.

Anthony

08-17-2010, 12:17 PM

I'm sure if they were two really HOT women he wouldn't mind though, especially if they wanted to play with him...

what, you gonna be the one to break this up??!?:

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0814/pg2_g_bullock11_200.jpg

Anthony

08-17-2010, 12:21 PM

Of course you're threatened and that is why you don't want it considered the same as yours. I would suggest not basing your marriage on a piece of paper the State gives you though to determine it's strength and meaning.

why are gays so threatened about their relationship that they need to have their relationship validated by a piece of paper? heck, we can play this game all day.

Anthony

08-17-2010, 12:25 PM

keep in mind, being anti-gay marriage is not the same as being anti-gay. well, i'm not pro gay, but far be it for me to police 2 consenting adults. i'm all for protecting the sanctity of a traditional relationship, modern new age sensibilities be damned. i don't push my beliefs onto gays and don't deny their right to exist as equal individuals, i just want to keep sacred the things that mean a lot to me.

RainMaker

08-17-2010, 12:25 PM

why are gays so threatened about their relationship that they need to have their relationship validated by a piece of paper? heck, we can play this game all day.
Why are blacks so threatened that they'd need to have their existence validated by being allowed to sit where they want on a bus? Why are women so threatened that they need to be able to vote?

Gay marriage isn't about validation by a piece of paper, it's about receiving the same legal rights that you receive through your marriage. If them being able to file their taxes jointly has that big of an impact on your marriage, than I'd believe the issues are bigger than the gays.

RainMaker

08-17-2010, 12:29 PM

keep in mind, being anti-gay marriage is not the same as being anti-gay. well, i'm not pro gay, but far be it for me to police 2 consenting adults. i'm all for protecting the sanctity of a traditional relationship, modern new age sensibilities be damned. i don't push my beliefs onto gays and don't deny their right to exist as equal individuals, i just want to keep sacred the things that mean a lot to me.
Define traditional relationship. Because in this country, our form of marriage is not traditional in any way. In fact, our form of marriage has changed dramatically in just the last 100 years.

Arranged marriages are traditional. Having one family "sell" their daughter to another for social and financial reasons. That has been around much longer than what we have. That is traditional marriage, what we have now is just a piece of paper that gives you some legal benefits.

Kodos

08-17-2010, 12:30 PM

They should probably have two kinds of marriage: 1. a legal one that confers legal rights onto the married couple; and 2. a religious marriage that confers legal rights plus whatever religious meaning your particular brand of religion wants to add.

Kinda like buying a car, only the religious version has mudflaps. ;)

Marmel

08-17-2010, 12:31 PM

why are gays so threatened about their relationship that they need to have their relationship validated by a piece of paper? heck, we can play this game all day.

A couple of examples for ya:

Let's say a guy has a partner for 30 years. He is the breadwinner in the family. He dies suddenly one day. His partner, without that piece of paper, has no rights to anything. To make matters worst, the family of the dead man, who has shunned him since he came out, now comes forward and claims all of his assets as next of kin.

Two ladies in a long term committed relationship. One gets laid off in this economy and loses her health benefits. Without that piece of paper, he partner is not able to add her to her health benefits.

JediKooter

08-17-2010, 12:32 PM

I say the only valid/legal marriages should be the ones performed by a government entity/employee.

Anthony

08-17-2010, 01:14 PM

I say the only valid/legal marriages should be the ones performed by a government entity/employee.

i agree with this. and the ones that aren't valid/legal can be performed by this guy:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61511tIcXCL.jpg

DaddyTorgo

08-17-2010, 01:28 PM

why are gays so threatened about their relationship that they need to have their relationship validated by a piece of paper? heck, we can play this game all day.

it's not about validating their relationship - it's about the legal and financial benefits afforded by the word "marriage."

As others, including myself, have said in the past, there are 2 solutions:

1) Make everything a "civil union" in the eyes of the government. Rewrite all of the laws and rules and regulations so that they say "civil union." Religions can still have their "marriages," but unless people who are married also have a "civil union" (and obviously you make it automatic for existing married couples, no need to get a new civil union license) they don't get any of the legal/financial benefits.
2) Allow gays to be "married."

That's the result of the fact that through intellectual laziness, the government is in the business of "marrying" people, and uses that word in documentation.

I don't even care which way it comes to pass frankly.

DanGarion

08-17-2010, 02:14 PM

keep in mind, being anti-gay marriage is not the same as being anti-gay. well, i'm not pro gay, but far be it for me to police 2 consenting adults. i'm all for protecting the sanctity of a traditional relationship, modern new age sensibilities be damned. i don't push my beliefs onto gays and don't deny their right to exist as equal individuals, i just want to keep sacred the things that mean a lot to me.
I always thought that a traditional relationship was two people that loved each other and are committed to each other. No one is taking anything away from you.

DanGarion

08-17-2010, 02:17 PM

They should probably have two kinds of marriage: 1. a legal one that confers legal rights onto the married couple; and 2. a religious marriage that confers legal rights plus whatever religious meaning your particular brand of religion wants to add.

Kinda like buying a car, only the religious version has mudflaps. ;)

But no one is stopping religions from having their own "accepted" marriage. Why does the government need to get involved in religious marriages? The government should only be worrying about the legal marriage of two adults who wish to give each other the legal rights that government has determined are allowed via marriage.

RainMaker

08-17-2010, 02:32 PM

They should probably have two kinds of marriage: 1. a legal one that confers legal rights onto the married couple; and 2. a religious marriage that confers legal rights plus whatever religious meaning your particular brand of religion wants to add.

Kinda like buying a car, only the religious version has mudflaps. ;)
We already have that. Our legal form of marriage has nothing about religion in it at all. The religious stuff is just optional for people. The government treats the person who has a giant wedding in a Church the same as a couple who goes to City Hall one sunny afternoon.

DaddyTorgo

08-17-2010, 02:39 PM

We already have that. Our legal form of marriage has nothing about religion in it at all. The religious stuff is just optional for people. The government treats the person who has a giant wedding in a Church the same as a couple who goes to City Hall one sunny afternoon.

Exactly. The problem arises because the government uses a word that it coopted from religion.

Well let me clarify - I'm sure there woul still be bigots against it even if it was called "civil unions," but the primary cause of the problem is that the government coopted a religious word for legal purposes.

DanGarion

08-17-2010, 02:51 PM

Exactly. The problem arises because the government uses a word that it coopted from religion.

I would love to see proof that the word marriage was taken from religion. So which came first the government involvement or the religious involvement?

RainMaker

08-17-2010, 03:02 PM

Exactly. The problem arises because the government uses a word that it coopted from religion.
The word and act of marriage does not come from religion.

DaddyTorgo

08-17-2010, 03:18 PM

Well then religion coopted the word.

Whatever. Point being, the word has strong religious connotations to some, and yet enjoys legal status as well.

molson

08-17-2010, 03:24 PM

Marc: I think you missed the part in the Bible where Jesus said,

"Let the children come to me so that I might marry them off to cement my political and business relationships."

That makes it okay.

Even if we want to talk religious justification - I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage or homosexuality. But he did like to hang out with prostitutes, and that pissed everyone off. From the little we know about that "person/fictional character" (as described in the gospels, I'm not making any statement about any real-life Jesus), I'm sure he wouldn't take part in anything that treated people differently or oppresed anyone. I don't think you can read the gospels any other way. The gays of today, are, in some circles, the prostitutes of Jesus' time.

Jesus loved to piss of the religious elite and I don't think there's any doubt where he'd stand on the gay marraige issue, and I don't think there's any doubt how he'd react to fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S.

JediKooter

08-17-2010, 03:31 PM

i agree with this. and the ones that aren't valid/legal can be performed by this guy:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61511tIcXCL.jpg

As long as Justin Timberlake wears that mustache the whole time.

JPhillips

08-17-2010, 03:38 PM

Even if we want to talk religious justification - I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say anything about gay marriage or homosexuality. But he did like to hang out with prostitutes, and that pissed everyone off. From the little we know about that "person/fictional character" (as described in the gospels, I'm not making any statement about any real-life Jesus), I'm sure he wouldn't take part in anything that treated people differently or oppresed anyone. I don't think you can read the gospels any other way. The gays of today, are, in some circles, the prostitutes of Jesus' time.

Jesus loved to piss of the religious elite and I don't think there's any doubt where he'd stand on the gay marraige issue, and I don't think there's any doubt how he'd react to fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S.

From TeaPartyJesus, the greatest blog eva:

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6xprucmoZ1qbauyyo1_500.jpg

JPhillips

06-24-2011, 08:58 PM

Same sex marriage passed in the NY Senate. Will be signed by the Governor shortly. Marriage consultants all over NYC are going to be very busy.

PackerFanatic

06-24-2011, 09:01 PM

*standing ovation*

jeff061

06-24-2011, 09:16 PM

*standing ovation*

Sad to me that such an obviously correct move, both morally and logically, legitimately evokes this response.

This should not be a debate. We should not be celebrating miniscule victories. Gays should be allowed to marry and there shouldn't be fanfare about it. There is no discussion to be had, it should just be.

PackerFanatic

06-24-2011, 09:32 PM

Sad to me that such an obviously correct move, both morally and logically, legitimately evokes this response.

This should not be a debate. We should not be celebrating miniscule victories. Gays should be allowed to marry and there shouldn't be fanfare about it. There is no discussion to be had, it should just be.

I 150% agree. But with how it's been over the years, unfortunately the "powers that be" don't agree. At least not enough of them at this point. It really is sad it has to be such a deal in the first place.

Galaxy

06-24-2011, 10:10 PM

Sad to me that such an obviously correct move, both morally and logically, legitimately evokes this response.

This should not be a debate. We should not be celebrating miniscule victories. Gays should be allowed to marry and there shouldn't be fanfare about it. There is no discussion to be had, it should just be.

As long as they are subject to all the same laws (divorce, custody, ect.) of heterosexual marriages, I'm all for it.

PackerFanatic

06-24-2011, 11:36 PM

As long as they are subject to all the same laws (divorce, custody, ect.) of heterosexual marriages, I'm all for it.

And there is no reason they shouldn't be.

ISiddiqui

06-25-2011, 12:12 AM

Huzzah! But why this in a California thread? :D

Crapshoot

06-25-2011, 04:00 AM

Sad to me that such an obviously correct move, both morally and logically, legitimately evokes this response.

This should not be a debate. We should not be celebrating miniscule victories. Gays should be allowed to marry and there shouldn't be fanfare about it. There is no discussion to be had, it should just be.

A-fucking men. I went to read NRO and saw some self-righteous horseshit about the liberal agenda. Apparently, you can't have a vote on issues either - its not about victory through the judicial path (activist judges!!!) or the legislative one (should have prevented the vote!!!). It comes down to a bunch of old farts whose bigotry and idiocy will be a mark of shame, just as civil rights is for many today.

I chuckle to myself knowing that the likes of Bubba Wheels and SFL Cat have to quaking in their beds tonight, now that "Gay men" can force them to marry them. :D

Scoobz0202

06-25-2011, 09:56 PM

No idea his political history so for all I know he may be a piece of shit, but really liked seeing this.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zEfN26t5yk8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

jeff061

06-25-2011, 10:11 PM

Spends half the time talking about all his so called research and fact finding. Yet he breaks it down to the standard "I'm religious and I hate the gays", but "I need to be logical and fair".

I don't want to rag on a guy making the right choice, but I do find this a bit humorous(with face firmly in palm). I think I'm really wanting someone from the anti-gay marriage side to actually make an even remotely legitimate point to back their view that doesn't find it's roots in religion. I'm not sure one exists though.

So I'll just continue to be madly disappointed in people.

Scoobz0202

06-25-2011, 10:54 PM

Sure, he did say "im catholic" a few too many times, but I think he could have easily voted no and got on with his day.

MrBug708

06-26-2011, 12:45 AM

http://i.imgur.com/mKlNb.jpg