Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:32 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
BTW how's that case against the Salahis coming along? Any charges yet? You certainly nailed that one.

That is not relevant to this discussion, is it?

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
Judge Walker’s orientation really doesn’t matter, since nobody thinks this case will be settled at the trial level anyway — it’s going up to the Ninth Circuit, and possibly up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But unfortunately it does matter and it will forever taint the outcome.

Why? The case is tainted because the judge may or may not be gay?
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:33 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 199):
Are you inferring that someone who loses the ability to donate an egg through no fault of their own is on the same level as someone who couldn't no matter what the circumstances?

From a strictly procreation standpoint, that is what it amounts to, yes.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:35 am

So let me get this straight, you claim that everything wrong with not upholding Prop 8 is that some activist judge just turned away the will of the people. This the main theme of your argument against the ruling:

Quoting dxing (Reply 111):
Californians voted for prop 8 because they somehow believe that gay marriage will affect the moral fabric of society, not in the exact same way as my examples but in its own unique way
Quoting dxing (Reply 161):
But marriage is between a man and a woman. Millions of voters, some of them black and asian agreed with that. It took one gay judge to dismiss their concerns and wishes out of hand.
Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
Millions of people cast their ballot saying they do not want same sex marriage to be legal in the State. Those million included minorites that don't see same sex marriage as relating in any way to prejudices they have had to face. It took one Judge who looks pretty much like he had his mind made up before the argument even reached his court to trash that vote. That is what is very very weak. Had this been a panel of judges then credibilty would have existed in the decision. What we have here is one man dictating to millions.

Yet you cannot answer this:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 198):
"If the majority of people voted for segregation in said state, would YOU, Dxing, support the will of the people and allow segregation to exist?" Answer that, then we are done. And don't answer with a question, just a yes or no.

Why? Because you know that your answer, if you are being true to the legalities, would have to be yes, you would support segregation. These are both civil rights cases in which scientific evidence supports allowing gay marriage, the same way that it supports interracial marriage, or desegregation. Yet you cannot answer....
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:37 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 201):
From a strictly procreation standpoint, that is what it amounts to, yes.

Alright, I can live with that, don't agree but I understand your view point, thanks for clarifying.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
QXatFAT
Posts: 2336
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:51 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:43 am

Being a devoted Christian that I am (and many of you know how devoted I am), I am happy to see this overturned. It is NOT the people's right to limit the freedom of another individual by a vote.

The Christian people who have kept on pushing this do not realize that it is not our job to creat laws to follow Christianity and force all others to live by our standards. Please show me where in scripture it says where we are to do this? A lot of my gay friends respect me for my views even though I am strong devoted Christian. If others would just open their eyes and see the importance of love and not foricing others to follow Scripture when they do not want to.

"I hate the sin but not the sinner". That is great but if you say that phrase, do you also call for adultry (cheating on your wife) to be illegal? I doubt it.

Good job on the hearing as we as Americans can not limit the freedoms of other Americans from persuing the lives with their same sex partners.
Don't Tread On Me!
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:48 am

Quoting cws818 (Reply 200):
That is not relevant to this discussion, is it?

No, it isn't, but don't bother. His silence on my questions is an admission that even he believes I am correct, and does not want to admit it. You can't make him answer -- fortunately, you don't need him to.

It is absolutely the case that there is no legal basis for Judge Walker to recuse himself on this case.

It is also absolutely the case that voters do not have the right to vote on the rights of others when doing so violates the Equal Protection Clause, no matter if we're talking about segregation or marriage.

[Edited 2010-08-06 20:50:59]
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:53 am

I think Steven Colbert puts it all in perspective - "let's stop gay marriage by becoming gay." LOL.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...y_dish/2010/08/does-it-matter.html

As (gay) Andrew Sullivan says, Colbert is in genius form here.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:04 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 203):
Alright, I can live with that, don't agree but I understand your view point, thanks for clarifying.

It should be pointed out that I think marriage is about much more than just procreation, and I certainly wouldn't consider an infertile woman to be analogous to a man even though they might have the same reproductive problems. Which is also why I think using potential reproduction as a requirement for marriage is silly, because it requires putting people into categories where they really don't belong.

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 204):
"I hate the sin but not the sinner". That is great but if you say that phrase, do you also call for adultry (cheating on your wife) to be illegal? I doubt it.

An excellent point to demonstrate how our laws are not primarily based on morality. That's one of the things that make this country great.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21803
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:08 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 199):

Hardly. In the case of a hetrosexual couple the man with no sperm can still donate the dna for the womans egg.

Um... no he can't. I'm fairly certain that's impossible with current technology.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12565
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:10 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
supposedly infertile people

Well, by "infertile", I'm not referring to "supposedly infertile". I'm referring to this definition:

Infertility primarily refers to the biological inability of a person to contribute to conception.

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
There doesn't have to be a record. According to the article in reply #150:

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise — or advertise — his orientation.

The line that really tickles me is:

In fact, wondering whether a gay judge might be biased in a gay marriage case is arguably reflective of bias

So in other words just questioning his possible prejudice is showing prejudice? That's absurd. How would you ever interview someone for a job if you couldn't question them on possible problem areas that might arise?

Finally the line that sums up the entire case as this point:

Judge Walker’s orientation really doesn’t matter, since nobody thinks this case will be settled at the trial level anyway — it’s going up to the Ninth Circuit, and possibly up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But unfortunately it does matter and it will forever taint the outcome.

Not meaning any offense, but I honestly don't understand how the above quotes address the point of the judge's bias. Sure, they state that he might be gay. I've stated that as well. That alone does not establish a precedent for bias.

Quoting dxing (Reply 190):
So in other words just questioning his possible prejudice is showing prejudice? That's absurd. How would you ever interview someone for a job if you couldn't question them on possible problem areas that might arise?

I agree it's absurd....Just as absurd as saying that the judge is prejudiced simply because he might be gay.

Quoting dxing (Reply 199):
In the case of no egg, which means that almost certainly her ovaries would have to be destroyed, cancer or some such thing, at least the male in the relationship can donate his chromosomes

The male (actually, either of them!) in a gay relationship can donate chromosomes as well.

Quoting dxing (Reply 203):
Quoting Mir (Reply 201):
From a strictly procreation standpoint, that is what it amounts to, yes.

Alright, I can live with that, don't agree but I understand your view point, thanks for clarifying.

Just FYI, Mir basically stated what I was trying to express as well.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:39 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 209):
Not meaning any offense, but I honestly don't understand how the above quotes address the point of the judge's bias.

If you have someone in front of you for a job interview and you're not sure about them, will you just take their word, or lack of words, for it or will you look for something to quell or confirm your suspicions?

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 209):
Just as absurd as saying that the judge is prejudiced simply because he might be gay.

It is up the Judge to determine if he is or not. No one can force him too. But the evidence presented here by news reports and one posters comments suggests that he is. We will probably never know one way or the other but even a hint of prejudice taints the case.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 209):
The male (actually, either of them!) in a gay relationship can donate chromosomes as well.

Sure, but who's donating the egg?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:48 am

Can anyone tell me what is relevant about this discussion about reproduction, or lack thereof, to the topic at hand? I have become totally lost at the point of the conversation now. Or is that the point?
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11791
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:45 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 210):
It is up the Judge to determine if he is or not. No one can force him too. But the evidence presented here by news reports and one posters comments suggests that he is. We will probably never know one way or the other but even a hint of prejudice taints the case.

Thank you for the valuable lesson, ad hoc law professor  
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4722
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:13 am

A question for dxing, and I'll see if I can actually get him to answer it:

As you claim, the institution of marriage has been around the Western world since before anyone can recall, and the definition has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman, with a few exceptions for certain polygamous groups.

My question is this: what is the compelling factor to keep it that way? What is your rationale for denying a group of people a right that even your side admits won't bring harm to anyone or anything?
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:57 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 178):
The definition for quite some time has been one man and one woman. Loving did not change that definition.

Prior to Loving, the definition of marriage in many parts of the US was a union of one man and one woman of the same race. Loving changed that.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
OA412
Moderator
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:39 pm

So I see that our friend hasn't bothered to return to this thread to answer any of the questions posed of him. His deafening silence tells me that he knows he's wrong, those questioning him are right, and he simply doesn't have the class to admit it.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:58 pm

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 211):
Can anyone tell me what is relevant about this discussion about reproduction, or lack thereof, to the topic at hand? I have become totally lost at the point of the conversation now. Or is that the point?

There is no point to discussing reproduction when discussing marriage. It is a smokescreen that the anti-gay marriage people use, but there is absolutely zero legal significance.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:46 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 212):
Thank you for the valuable lesson, ad hoc law professor

As well thank you for not denying that you are willing to look the other way as long as the decision goes the way you want.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 213):
My question is this: what is the compelling factor to keep it that way?

What is the compelling social or legal reason to change it when changing it will open the door to all sorts of changes to the definition. If you allow one group to change the definition. then you have to allow all consenting adults wishing to change the definition to do so. In other words there is no compelling reason to change it.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 214):
Prior to Loving, the definition of marriage in many parts of the US was a union of one man and one woman of the same race. Loving changed that.

Which does not change the definition of marriage, one man and one woman.

To those that demand answers but won't provide any, I won't bother with yours till you bother wth mine. Post all the snipes you wish, makes no difference to me.

Now that I have finished my stint of 12 on and 12 off, if some of you had bothered to read in an earlier reply, I'm off to enjoy my pool. No need to return here.

[Edited 2010-08-07 14:49:33]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11791
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:04 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
As well thank you for not denying that you are willing to look the other way as long as the decision goes the way you want.

Didn't look the other way at all - as I've repeatedly stated and you still can't seem to grasp - legally speaking there is potential for bias *regardless* of the orientation of the judge. That's just the way it works - if you don't like it, change the civil procedure guidelines for recusal. It doesn't apply in this case or else the defense would have gone for it.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10291
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:21 pm

You are not getting it. It's not about if you are "different", it's about: Are you (as a group specifically) persecuted or marginalized by the people, the community, or the society you live in for those differences that are perceived by that person, community, or society? People of various races have experienced this, people of various religions have experienced this, and people with various physical and mental limitations have experienced this.

So it is not about "being identifiable on the street". It is about being persecuted for differences once they are discovered the community attacks you for.

The issue with segregation wasn't that people were black, it was that the communities attacked them for being "free" and black. Many communities were just fine with blacks living there as long as they "knew their place". With homosexuals, the communities are OK with it as long as you hide it (at least that is what you are advocating). Its not about the difference, its about the reaction of the community at large to those people once they know of the difference. Yes, different races are generally easily identified as "different" but I will repeat it again, a homosexual, living openly and a normal life will be easily identified as such. Which should be fine because there is nothing actually wrong with them or harmful to the community. Just because some people don't like their "lifestyle" does not give them license to dictate to them and oppress them in their life.

You simply can not vote for marginalizing a group of people when they are not harming the community in any real way.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:27 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
Which does not change the definition of marriage, one man and one woman.

In case you come back to the thread...

Suppose you went back a hundred years, and got into a debate over interracial marriage. Your opponent would claim that the definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman of the same race. You'd respond that the racial criterion is irrelevant, that the true definition of marriage is a union of one man and one woman of any race. Loving ruled that you are right, and your opponent is wrong.

Now take the current situation. You claim, again, that the definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I respond that the true definition of marriage is a union between two people of any gender, that the gender criterion is irrelevant. The judge in this case has ruled that I'm right, and you're wrong.

See the parallel? Loving may have maintained your definition of marriage, but there were many people back then who held more restrictive definitions, and many people today who hold less restrictive ones. Why is yours right?

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
If you allow one group to change the definition. then you have to allow all consenting adults wishing to change the definition to do so.

That's quite simply incorrect. Each liberalization of marriage law can be weighed on its own merits. Back when Loving was decided, I'm sure there were plenty of racists saying things like, "Well, if you let white people marry black people, what's to stop them from marrying dogs? Or their siblings?" But that hasn't happened, has it? Or we can apply your logic to the legalization of alcohol and cigarettes. Legalization of those drugs hasn't led to the inevitable legalization of all drugs.

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
In other words there is no compelling reason to change it.

Non sequitur. Even if it was the case that legalizing gay marriage would risk future legalization of incest/polygamy/bestiality, that does not mean that there are not also benefits to legalizing gay marriage that would have to be weighed against those risks. Some risk =/= no reason in favor.

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
What science is there in marriage? That's a good one, who thought that up?

Marriage can be researched the same as any sociological topic. In this case, one would want to do statistical analyses to determine whether or not there is a correlation between gay marriage and socially detrimental outcomes, such as domestic violence, harm to children, etc. What you can't do is simply define gay marriage as an ipso facto socially detrimental outcome.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11791
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:28 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 219):

You simply can not vote for marginalizing a group of people when they are not harming the community in any real way.

That's just it. Until the FRC, the National Organization for Marriage and all those others can come up with *data* that can be used in court, they will lose.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:40 pm

I can't see what the big deal is anymore. I grew up in the south, and was, unfortunately, anti-gay until recently. But it's like my eyes have been opened... I don't even see why I even was against it and am a much happier person now. I'm not saying I'm gay myself or anything, but holding on to bigotry and hate inside of you makes you a much more miserable person. I am sure many people on this forum are anti-gay (some are more obvious than others) but take it from me, you'll feel like a much better person accepting them than being against them. BTW, even when I was anti-gay, I knew my reasons were BS, change is hard sometimes but very fulfilling.

Congrats on this step. Hope it appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, reversed, and applied all across America.
 
User avatar
OA412
Moderator
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:52 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 222):

Congratulations on admitting that you may have been wrong in the past. It's not an easy thing to do, and few are able to make the leap, so for that I commend you.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:37 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 213):
My question is this: what is the compelling factor to keep it that way?

What is the compelling social or legal reason to change it when changing it will open the door to all sorts of changes to the definition. If you allow one group to change the definition. then you have to allow all consenting adults wishing to change the definition to do so. In other words there is no compelling reason to change it.

That's not an answer to his question!

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 214):
Prior to Loving, the definition of marriage in many parts of the US was a union of one man and one woman of the same race. Loving changed that.

Which does not change the definition of marriage, one man and one woman.

The prepositional phrase "of the same race" made the definition more restrictive; its position at the end of the sentence does not negate its import.
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21803
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:58 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):

What is the compelling social or legal reason to change it

I might ask you and Mr. Strom Thurmond the same question. Before his DOMA act, marriage was not, in fact, legally defined as the union between one man and one woman. Mr. Thurmond re-defined marriage with that act.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12565
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:08 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 210):
Sure, but who's donating the egg?

I suppose the same person who would be donating it in your example:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 209):
Quoting dxing (Reply 199):
In the case of no egg, which means that almost certainly her ovaries would have to be destroyed, cancer or some such thing, at least the male in the relationship can donate his chromosomes
Quoting dxing (Reply 210):
If you have someone in front of you for a job interview and you're not sure about them, will you just take their word, or lack of words, for it or will you look for something to quell or confirm your suspicions?

I'll certainly look for something. But looking at whether they're gay (or black, or female, or whatever) would be rather illegal, methinks.

Quoting dxing (Reply 210):
It is up the Judge to determine if he is or not. No one can force him too.

Certainly it is up to him to determine whether he's prejudiced.

Quoting dxing (Reply 210):
But the evidence presented here by news reports and one posters comments suggests that he is.

Suggests that he is gay. I haven't seen any evidence that he's prejudiced.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
cws818
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:24 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
To those that demand answers but won't provide any, I won't bother with yours till you bother wth mine.

You'll have to be more specific.
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:32 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
To those that demand answers but won't provide any, I won't bother with yours till you bother wth mine.

Right. Look below at who didn't answer the questions, but rather asked a new question to dodge.

Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
So, in the dxing world, heterosexual judges are not biased, while homosexual judges are?

So in the real world hetrosexual judges have ruled in favor of same sex marriage in how many cases so far?
Quoting dxing (Reply 167):
Quoting D L X (Reply 165):
Tell me something: do you think Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor and Thomas should have recused themselves from Bush v. Gore, given their obvious bias?

How so? Had they been pictured campaigning for Bush? Seen in the Presidents company? Listed as contributors? Where is their "obvious bias"?

Looks like it's clear who demands answers but won't provide any - it's you!

Look, I'm not trying to rag on you (as you are me), I'm giving you the opportunity to explain your beliefs. I'm showing you how your beliefs seem inconsistent with other unassailable American values, such as that people do not have the right to vote away other people's rights, such as the the riding in the front of the bus, and going to the same school that the white kids go to.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21803
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:33 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 220):

Marriage can be researched the same as any sociological topic. In this case, one would want to do statistical analyses to determine whether or not there is a correlation between gay marriage and socially detrimental outcomes, such as domestic violence, harm to children, etc.

And some such studies have been done and have indicated that lesbians actually make the best parents.

The problem is where do you go with that? The same study will almost certainly show that certain races are better parents than others. Does that mean we need to sterilize all blue people? Or just orange people? Boy, the "science" behind such ideas sure was popular back in Germany in the 1930's.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:47 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 229):
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 220):

Marriage can be researched the same as any sociological topic. In this case, one would want to do statistical analyses to determine whether or not there is a correlation between gay marriage and socially detrimental outcomes, such as domestic violence, harm to children, etc.

And some such studies have been done and have indicated that lesbians actually make the best parents.

You guys are arguing the wrong things. Science has nothing to do with whether the constitution allows a state or the people to ban gay marriage.

I know it's tempting to follow the red herrings the anti-gay marriage crowd produces, but they really are all irrelevant. That's what happens when people don't have a legal argument - they argue red herrings.
 
etherealsky
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:13 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:57 am

Quoting QXatFAT (Reply 204):

I didn't notice this reply until now, but yes! exactly!            
"And that's why you always leave a note..."
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:27 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
What is the compelling social or legal reason to change it when changing it will open the door to all sorts of changes to the definition.

The answer to that question, if there is one, is irrelevant to the legal question at hand. Like so many of your comments, it's a red herring intended to deflect the discussion away from the real issue.

Under the law as it is, the government must show a "compelling state interest" if it proposes to enforce a statute or regulation that applies the law differently to different individuals. If there is no reason, that is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Thus far, you and other supporters of Prop 8 have failed to show any such compelling reason.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4722
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:45 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
To those that demand answers but won't provide any

Funny, becasue this:

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
What is the compelling social or legal reason to change it

is not an answer to my question.

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
then you have to allow all consenting adults wishing to change the definition to do so.

Erm, no. If you're referring to polygamy, there is verifiable evidence that such an arrangement is bad not just for the people involved, but their children and society as a whole. In that case, there is a compelling interest to not allow such an arrangement. It has nothing to do with any "definition" of marriage.

If you're referring to people marrying pets, pets are not consenting adults, so the point is moot.

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):
Which does not change the definition of marriage, one man and one woman.

Who's definition? Because I cannot find one single article or amendment in our Constitution that defines marriage at all. Although there is the bit that states may not deny rights of one group of citizens given to another without due process. You conveniently ignore that part.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
User avatar
johnboy
Posts: 3098
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:21 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 222):

Kudos to you. It takes a courageous person to admit that.
 

[quote=dxing,reply=217]Now that I have finished my stint of 12 on and 12 off, if some of you had bothered to read in an earlier reply, I'm off to enjoy my pool. No need to return here.

I always wonder about the psychology of a person that keeps on arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Makes me think they just get a hard-on because everyone engages them endlessly.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21803
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:39 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 233):

Who's definition? Because I cannot find one single article or amendment in our Constitution that defines marriage at all.

In fact, you are correct. Marriage was not defined as one man and one woman until DOMA in 1996.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11791
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:07 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 217):

Which does not change the definition of marriage, one man and one woman.

Ted Olson answered some tough questions from Chris Wallace here - particularly related to your point above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkU9n5GxCDk

This guy is as solid a litigator as they come.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:15 am

Wonder if Dxing is reading the court ruling like he said he would after his 12 on 12 off?
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
thegreatRDU
Posts: 910
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:47 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:38 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 116):
You have to be direct when you ask. ATC? DX? RDU?..

hold on.. the answer from our friends is coming... I have faith that in their next post and they will be able to elegantly state how gay marriage destroys society, and how it affects hetero marriages negatively.

ATC, DX, RDU.. the forum awaits..

I'm actually pretty libertarian on the issue...If two dudes want to...that's their thing...legally, there's no argument against it..
There really is no sanctity of marriage anyway...40% of children in this country are born out of wedlock..over half of marriages end in divorce and because of Obamanoics you'll pay more in taxes...
But I think it will pave the way for others like polygamy etc... because they deserve "equality" also...
Our Returning Champion
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:57 pm

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 238):
But I think it will pave the way for others like polygamy etc... because they deserve "equality" also...

Not necessarily. Recognizing polygamy brings in a whole can of worms on legal issues. Which of the X number of spouses is the one responsible should something happen to the husband (or the wife with X number of husbands if that's the case)? What's the rank order? Is it by date of marriage? Does the person who is married to several others have to rank order them in their will? And what about businesses that extend benefits to spouses? Will they be required to extend benefits to multiple spouses? That will get expensive quick. Or will businesses be allowed to say "We're only extending benefits to one spouse so pick one"?

So the polygamy argument can be quickly defeated because it creates issues that gay marriage does not. If churches want to recognize polygamy, that's their business but that doesn't mean the government has to or should. The government can recognize couples for the purpose of the benefits and rights that come with marriage - it shouldn't matter whether it's two males, two females, or one male and one female. As long as the number is "Two". Polygamy can't do that, at least very easily. Imagine the legal battles that would ensue should something happen to the husband and all the wives are fighting for the rights and benefits.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11791
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:13 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 239):
Polygamy can't do that, at least very easily. Imagine the legal battles that would ensue should something happen to the husband and all the wives are fighting for the rights and benefits.

Cat-clawing action of epic proportions - wouldn't be pretty no matter how it went down!
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21803
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:55 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 236):

This guy is as solid a litigator as they come.

And he's even a true Conservative.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:01 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 239):
So the polygamy argument can be quickly defeated because it creates issues that gay marriage does not.

Ehhh, I'm not sure I like that argument. "It's hard" has never been a good excuse for not doing what's right. That said, I still would oppose legalized polygamy in most cases, for other reasons people have listed above - it tends to bring with it the oppression of women and the casting out of young men. There's a clear social harm caused by polygamy that just isn't there in gay marriage.

That said, I would not have a problem with legal recognition of polyamorous relationships. (The difference, as I understand it - let's say the group has one man and two women. In a polygamist marriage, there is a spousal relationship between the man and each woman, but no spousal relationship between the two women. In a polyamorous marriage, there is a shared spousal relationship among all three people.) Not sure how to work out all the legal difficulties of this, though.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:28 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 237):
Wonder if Dxing is reading the court ruling like he said he would after his 12 on 12 off?

He's not. He's wondering what tapas Michelle Obama ordered.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 242):
"It's hard" has never been a good excuse for not doing what's right.

Correct. The real issue is that it is not unconstitutional to limit someone's numbers -- that is not discriminatory.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:22 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 243):
Correct. The real issue is that it is not unconstitutional to limit someone's numbers -- that is not discriminatory.

Still not sure I buy that line of reasoning. Gay marriage opponents have often claimed that current marriage law isn't discriminatory, because it grants everyone the right to have a marriage to someone of the opposite gender, and no one the right to have a marriage to someone of the same gender. But that, of course, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the right in question. A gay relationship isn't fundamentally different from a straight relationship, so the law can't treat them differenly/as two separate rights. I'm not sure why a polyamorous relationship is fundamentally different, and thus deserving of different legal status. (Your typical polygamist marriage, on the contrary, is two separate relationships - man and wife 1, man and wife 2 - so it is fundamentally different.)
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
OA412
Moderator
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:03 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 243):
He's not. He's wondering what tapas Michelle Obama ordered.

That would be really funny if it wasn't incredibly sad that this statement is closer to the truth than most of care to believe.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:28 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 244):
I'm not sure why a polyamorous relationship is fundamentally different, and thus deserving of different legal status.

Then to avoid this, the law should be written that the marriage is between two consenting adults, whether both male, both female, or one male and one female.

As I said, such instances produce legal difficulties that extend far beyond just the government, for both polyamorous relationships and polygamy. If it's one relationship, what happens in divorce? That would be an incredibly messy battle in which the law might have to be clearly defined before hand. What about extension of benefits from both the government and private employers?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 222):
I can't see what the big deal is anymore. I grew up in the south, and was, unfortunately, anti-gay until recently. But it's like my eyes have been opened... I don't even see why I even was against it and am a much happier person now. I'm not saying I'm gay myself or anything, but holding on to bigotry and hate inside of you makes you a much more miserable person. I am sure many people on this forum are anti-gay (some are more obvious than others) but take it from me, you'll feel like a much better person accepting them than being against them. BTW, even when I was anti-gay, I knew my reasons were BS, change is hard sometimes but very fulfilling.

Congrats on this step. Hope it appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, reversed, and applied all across America.

   I'm in the same boat. I grew up in Central Georgia - the heart of Bible Belt. I used to be strongly against gay marriage. I even argued against it at a Youth Conference/Youth Government event in ATL my senior year of high school, using many of the same arguments that have been posted on here. Within a couple years though I began to realize how narrow minded my views were on the subject and they began to change. Four years later my views had turned around completely, and although it passed in Florida, I proudly say that I voted against the marriage defining amendment in Florida in 2008.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21803
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:46 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 242):

Ehhh, I'm not sure I like that argument. "It's hard" has never been a good excuse for not doing what's right. That said, I still would oppose legalized polygamy in most cases, for other reasons people have listed above - it tends to bring with it the oppression of women and the casting out of young men. There's a clear social harm caused by polygamy that just isn't there in gay marriage.

Well, if you equalize it by allowing women to have multiple husband, the numbers might work out again. It certainly doesn't work to only allow men multiple wives.

I think a case can be made that the legal complexities are so byzantine that it would truly be deleterious to society to recognize polyamorous relationships on the same level as bigamous relationships. There simply is no fair way to go about it.

But if someone can propose such a way, I'll help lead the parade to legalize it.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
D L X
Posts: 12669
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:49 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 244):
Still not sure I buy that line of reasoning. Gay marriage opponents have often claimed that current marriage law isn't discriminatory, because it grants everyone the right to have a marriage to someone of the opposite gender, and no one the right to have a marriage to someone of the same gender.

Forget what gay marriage opponents say. I have yet to hear a single Constitutional law argument from gay marriage opponents.

The Loving Rule is that the anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional because they discriminated against an INDIVIDUAL's rights - as in, Wally could marry Winnie but Bobby could not marry Winnie because Wally was white and Bobby was black. Any law that determines criminality based on the color of an individual's skin is unconstitutional.

Same with gender - it's an INDIVIDUAL right. If Wally can marry Winnie but Suzie can't, it infringes Suzie's rights because the law discriminates against women disallowing her from marrying the person she wants, Winnie, but would not prevent Wally from marrying her.

The thing these two issues, interracial and gay marriage have in common is that they involve INDIVIDUAL rights. I capitalize that with reason. Polygamous relationships do not invoke individual rights. While race and gender are protected classes under the Constitution for whom the Equal Protection clause comes into play, the desire to marry multiple people does not put a person into a protected class. There is no constitutional protection for numbers. The only way this could fall into the Loving Rule is if someone could argue that X can marry two people but Y can't. But since *no one* can marry two people, there are no X's to compare against.

Now, I'm open to the people who are against gay marriage to present a cogent constitutional argument for how polygamy implicates an individual right, but as yet, I've never seen one, and I'm fairly convinced it doesn't exist.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:24 pm

The Mexican Supreme Court has ruled that all states must recognize the same-sex marriages made in Mexico City:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...esfflOb0tjV_flyYRem81BVMwD9HGRI5G0

"All Mexican states must recognize gay marriages

Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples in their territory."


They have not ruled that all states must allow same sex marriages - or not yet, anyway.

Between Canada and Mexico these surely are interesting times.  

mariner
aeternum nauta

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, N583JB and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos