Same Sex Marriage Ban Overturned in California

[Sun Tzu]

Why the hell are we talking about taxes?

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

[Sun Tzu]

love it

[Greyroofoo]

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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

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]

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]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Masked

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Masked

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]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

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]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by jeff061

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

EXACTLY!

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

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]

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

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

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]

This explains all...

[Autumn]

That's awesome.

[JediKooter]

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

[DanGarion]

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by Matthean

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]

The plot thickens:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM15...it_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]

Originally Posted by Matthean

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by Matthean

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.