Page 2 of 6

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:58 pm
by JakeOrion
Quoting NYC2THEWORLD (Reply 48):
A child cannot legally make their own decisions and when a child has to make a legal decision that can affect the legal standing of their parent/guardian, the court will appoint someone to look after the child's legal interests. In addition, people have already stated the above about studies showing the negative psychological effect of a child entering into marriage.

We know a child under 18 is bad, but my argument was representing say a 21 year old child to marry his 50 year old mother. They are both consenting adults, are they not?

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 49):
Didn't the chain reaction already start when someone said it was okay to marry a woman?

Tu che.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 50):
This notion would be fine if we lived in an anarchy where government did not have a responsibility to ensure that laws did not promote abuse and emotional trauma, but that's not the case is it?

THIS is where the true problem is. If the government did not have tax breaks and other such "incentives" I personally believe this would be a non-issue. Let religious institutions decide whether they wish to wed or not. Also, leave it to the people to call the union whatever they want (marriage, union, whatever.)

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 51):
You think that because some groups (the sheep f***ers, incestuously-inclined etc...) are being discriminated against, the only way to have it be fair is to have more people discriminated against (homosexuals)?

Eh, as I said before:

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 46):
On a personal note, I'm all for banning marriages altogether, as it seems more people are divorcing and being miserable rather than enjoying the marriage life, so what is the bloody point of it anymore?

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:58 pm
by rwsea
I've always maintained that if marriage is going to be denied to any group of people, then there should be no legal privileges associated with marriage. No more joint tax returns, discounted insurance, visitation rights, or anything of the sort. If marriage really is a religious association, then cut out all the legal benefits that go along with it. If such benefits are still legally provided to married couples only, then clearly same-sex marriage bans are discriminatory.

On a related note, I find it fascinating that a certain religion headquartered in Utah is so quick to vocally support the denial of rights to a minority group. Especially considering that said religion was openly persecuted until recently.

Kudos to this judge, and let's hope the remaining courts truly do believe in the constitution as well.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:01 pm
by sv7887
Quoting rwSEA (Reply 57):
Kudos to this judge, and let's hope the remaining courts truly do believe in the constitution as well.

Interestingly enough the EU High Court ruled against Gay Marriage as a universal right a few weeks ago:

"European nations do not have to allow same-sex marriage, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled, though gay rights groups claimed a partial victory Friday because the court acknowledged growing agreement that their relationships should be recognized in law.

The judges acknowledged "an emerging European consensus" that same-sex couples should have legal recognition but said individual states may still decide what form it should take because marriage had "deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another."

Interesting take from Europe and pretty much outlines my beliefs on the subject.

Forgot Link:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...rriage-is-not-universal-right.html

[Edited 2010-08-04 16:02:14]

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:03 pm
by OA412
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 46):
No, now you 3 are using the same arguments that opponents of gay marriage were using and throwing right back in my face.

Please show me where those arguments were used by opponents of same sex marriage. Not religious arguments, mind you, but scientifically verifiable arguments.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 46):
Your hypocrites, you either play fair for everyone, whether you like it or not, or you leave it as it is.

First of all, it's you're. Second, if you are so convinced that all of that is going to happen, please show me all of your evidence indicating that there are now movements in place in Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and South Africa that are advocating leglaizing any of those marriages. The issue here is not that you believe that any of these marriages are actually going to become reality, it's that you claim that they will in order to continue to deny a group of people in this country equality before the law. Sad.

[Edited 2010-08-04 16:41:08 by srbmod]

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:04 pm
by Aaron747
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 56):
If the government did not have tax breaks and other such "incentives" I personally believe this would be a non-issue. Let religious institutions decide whether they wish to wed or not. Also, leave it to the people to call the union whatever they want (marriage, union, whatever.)

I wouldn't have any problem with that - I've always felt it's discriminatory that single and married persons are taxed under different criteria. Child tax credits are fine, but purely being married or unmarried should not hold distinct status where taxation is concerned. But so long as marriage is an institution presided over by government, I will be in this fight.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:09 pm
by sv7887
Quoting OA412 (Reply 59):
First of all, it's you're. Second, if you are so convinced that all of that is going to happen, please show me all of your evidence indicating that there are now movements in place in Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and South Africa that are advocating leglaizing any of those marriages. The issue here is not that you believe that any of these marriages are actually going to become reality, it's that you claim that they will in order to continue to deny a group of people in this country equality before the law. Sad.

Strangely enough there was this in France a few months back:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0425/france.html

The story was that a Muslim woman was fined for wearing a burqa and then her husband was threatened with legal action for having four wives:

"Polygamy, being married to more than one person at the same time, is a jailable offence in France, but only civil marriages conducted by a state official count - not religious marriage ceremonies.

It was not clear whether the veiled woman's husband was joined to his other alleged wives by civil marriage or by religious rites such as Muslim weddings."

I'd wonder about Mormons too in this case.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:14 pm
by StuckInCA
Quoting sv7887 (Reply 61):

I don't even get what that post is all about (to you). If the guy wasn't civilly married to multiple women then he wasn't actually married to multiple women.

You can go have weddings in churches all you want. If it wasn't legally documented then it's not a marriage. It sounds like that's how it is in France too.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:16 pm
by Mir
Quoting sv7887 (Reply 55):
Would you then agree that first cousins be allowed to marry as common as it is in Islamic community?

We know that inbreeding is bad for society - that's been scientifically proven. The question is whether first cousins marrying counts as inbreeding. I don't know the answer to that question, so I can neither agree nor disagree. If there is solid evidence that first cousins marrying is dangerous from a gene pool standpoint, then I wouldn't be for allowing it. If such evidence does not exist, then I would.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 56):
my argument was representing say a 21 year old child to marry his 50 year old mother. They are both consenting adults, are they not?

Again, the inbreeding problem comes up. That's scientific grounds for banning such a practice. No such grounds exists for gay marriage.

-Mir

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:16 pm
by sv7887
Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 62):
I don't even get what that post is all about (to you). If the guy wasn't civilly married to multiple women then he wasn't actually married to multiple women.

The point of the post was to illustrate that while Polygamy is still rare it does happen. The legality of the situation in France is unknown according to the article, but doesn't diminish the point that it still happens.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:17 pm
by 11Bravo
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 29):
And I have to ask, why would it bother you if somebody married their animal? I mean, its their life isn't it? We all have to be fair now, right?

What nonsense. The legal assumption of "marriage" constitutes an agreement or contract between two, and only two, consenting adult human beings. That is a well defined legal framework that predates the same sex marriage issue. If you want to go off on the dog and polygamy tangent, fine, but don't expect that line of reasoning to be well received by a judge. Bubba from the trailer park might be interested in that ridiculous sort of discussion, but don’t expect anyone in the legal realm to take it seriously.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:18 pm
by OA412
Quoting rwSEA (Reply 57):
On a related note, I find it fascinating that a certain religion headquartered in Utah is so quick to vocally support the denial of rights to a minority group. Especially considering that said religion was openly persecuted until recently.

Sigh! I've lived here for many years now, and the irony is still not lost on me. Indeed, it's not only present-day discrimination against gays. Stories abound of religious discrimination that was commonplace in Utah at one point. You'd think that if one group understood what it feels like to be persecuted, it would be them...

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:19 pm
by FlyDeltaJets87
Quoting OA412 (Reply 59):
Yeah really! I sense some sort of complex.

Maybe he's sexually frustrated? A nice lay might do him some good.   

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:22 pm
by OA412
Quoting sv7887 (Reply 61):

Of course polygamy still happens. It happens all of the time here in Utah. But, the fact of the matter is that it is illegal, and you won't find many people arguing that it is a healthy relationship for those involved. I said please show me where there have been active movements to legalize marriages people man and animal, man and 4 women, mother and son, etc. The fact that one guy was married to 4 women in France does not constitute proof of that.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:27 pm
by sv7887
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 65):
What nonsense. The legal assumption of "marriage" constitutes an agreement or contract between two, and only two, consenting adult human beings

That's the whole crux of this debate. Marriage until the Massachusetts SJC ruling was thought to be One Man One Woman. The judge's ruling essentially changes that definition albeit slightly to "Two People" IIRC the judge in his ruling makes reference that Gender is immaterial in deciding whether a person can marry or not.

The slippery slope argument entails if not limited to Gender, why not Number, etc, etc.

It's all a matter of what perspective you come from. The EU Court took the opposite conclusion, but did clearly say GLBT couples have legal right to have their union legally recognized.

Let the SCOTUS sort this mess out. Just have a look at the current legal mess in the US regarding gay marriage:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67364P20100804

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:29 pm
by sv7887
Quoting OA412 (Reply 68):
Of course polygamy still happens. It happens all of the time here in Utah. But, the fact of the matter is that it is illegal, and you won't find many people arguing that it is a healthy relationship for those involved. I said please show me where there have been active movements to legalize marriages people man and animal, man and 4 women, mother and son, etc. The fact that one guy was married to 4 women in France does not constitute proof of that.

I totally get your point but it has happened in Canada:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588/

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.

The case is the first to test Canada's polygamy laws.

Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.

But Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.

"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada's Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:33 pm
by OA412
Quoting sv7887 (Reply 70):

I still don't see a movement forming in Canada. This is one lawyer making the same bogus slippery slope arguments about gay marriage that some are making in this thread.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 67):
Maybe he's sexually frustrated? A nice lay might do him some good.

  

[Edited 2010-08-04 16:33:39]

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:33 pm
by Acheron
Quoting propilot83 (Reply 23):
if I ever see any gay guy trying to hit on me, I will knock him out.

Funnily enough, that line would indicate you are insecure regarding to your sexuality and usually those guys who at some point were so strongly "macho" and antigay, turn up being the biggest drag queens out there when they come out.

So, either you end up being gay yourself later down the road, or you end up with a gay offspring. You know life has twisted sense of humour.

[Edited 2010-08-04 16:35:05]

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:37 pm
by MSYtristar
The only thing that should count in allowing marriages to take place is total commitment on the part of both people...their gender is inconsequential. I'm really happy for my friends in Cali.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:40 pm
by sv7887
Quoting OA412 (Reply 70):
I still don't see a movement forming in Canada. This is one lawyer making the same slippery slope arguments about gay marriage that some are making in this thread.

I remembered that case from when I read it last year. I googled some more and found this:

http://polyadvocacy.ca/about

I think they're fronting the bills for the challenge and represent a few hundred polygamists in Canada. Though on the internet anyone can makeup anything.

It's all interpretative. The government is making (pro or con) what forms of unions they wish to legally recognize.

As an Indian, we commonly have arranged marriage at times with dowry. But a strict arranged marriage is NOT recognized by the US in terms of granting a visa to an Indian bride. You have to interview with a US Embassy and prove it was essentially a love marriage. People can lie and what not, but most Western countries look dimly at such marriages, which the East has a totally different perspective.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:12 am
by DocLightning
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 22):

All of those things can be reasonably shown by scientific and testimonial means to have a deleterious effect on the people involved

I can do you one better. A dog cannot consent to a wedding. Nor can a child.

As for multiple wives, I'm fine with it as long as they all consent and as long as someone can work out the legal thicket that ensues in case of divorce.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:17 am
by racko
Quoting travelin man (Reply 33):
(Actually I think Germany might, but I'm not sure about that.)

We have civil unions, which are basically equal to marriage except for the right to joint adoption and some tax breaks, but that should be eliminated after a constitution court decision last year.

It might be noteworthy that the Protestant Church in Germany is actually in favor of the law and says same-sex partnerships should be promoted, not fought.

Me personally, I wouldn't have a problem with polygamy either, as long as all the people involved are consenting adults.

[Edited 2010-08-04 17:26:41]

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:26 am
by UAL747
Straight marriage is currently so morally bankrupt, why anyone gives a damn about this, I'll never know. So many unhappy people in the world who are married.

My thought is: If the value of your marriage is SO threatened by gay marriage, then you REALLY need to re-evaluate your relationship with your spouse, cause summin' ain't right there. It's like saying, "Since Craig and Patrick started doing it next door, hunny, I dunno, I'm just not feeling you anymore."


At any rate, YAY!

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:39 am
by einsteinboricua
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 7):
the decision to overturn the will of the voters is WRONG

It's not wrong when a majority wishes to strip away the rights of a minority. They are citizens like you and me; they are entitled to the same benefits as you and me. So if I vote that you are to remain single, you won't ask the Supreme Court to overturn it because it was the will of the people...?

Sometimes the will isn't constitutional. That's what the Supreme Court is for, to make sure that any decisions made by the government, whether at local, state, or federal level, are in line with the Constitution. Why bother having a Bill of Rights if it's only applied to some?

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:43 am
by CaliAtenza
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 72):
Why bother having a Bill of Rights if it's only applied to some?

Thats what the stupid Right Wing wants to do.....  .

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:50 am
by OA412
Quoting Acheron (Reply 66):
Funnily enough, that line would indicate you are insecure regarding to your sexuality and usually those guys who at some point were so strongly "macho" and antigay, turn up being the biggest drag queens out there when they come out.

Yeah really. If you're so offended by some guy hitting on you, then you're heterosexuality is hanging by the thinnest of threads.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 66):

So, either you end up being gay yourself later down the road, or you end up with a gay offspring.

That would be such delicious irony. Although I would feel sorry for any gay child whose parent is as narrow-minded as the poster in question.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:58 am
by Aaron747
Quoting OA412 (Reply 74):
If you're so offended by some guy hitting on you, then you're heterosexuality is hanging by the thinnest of threads.

I'm not convinced that's necessarily true - where someone grows up and what their environment's attitudes about homosexuality are play a big role. My stepfather is a good example - he grew up in a Brooklyn slum, ran with Puerto Rican gangs as a teenager, and readily admits he was wrong when he and friends beat the living daylights out of a tranny who approached him in a club once. His heterosexuality is not at all challenged, but he feels his actions were dictated more by what his friends expected him to do and how he reacted to the unwanted advances at the time.

Not a black or white thing by any stretch.

[Edited 2010-08-04 17:58:49]

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:03 am
by thegreatRDU
Quoting sv7887 (Reply 64):
Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.

But Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.

This is the downside to progressiveness and PC......geez...
What's next you can "marry" an animal or an object? Think guys with the life-size dolls..

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:04 am
by UAL747
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 75):
His heterosexuality is not at all challenged, but he feels his actions were dictated more by what his friends expected him to do and how he reacted to the unwanted advances at the time.

Not a black or white thing by any stretch.

So he had no self-esteem and/or personal ethics, since his personal ethics were determined by his friends. Sorry, homophobia is homophobia. That's like saying, "I only called that black man a N888er because my friends in Oklahoma expected me to." Does that not make me a racist because I chose not to have a spine to stand up to that?

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:06 am
by Mir
Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 76):
What's next you can "marry" an animal or an object? Think guys with the life-size dolls..

No....see earlier posts in the thread for why.

-Mir

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:10 am
by OA412
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 75):
I'm not convinced that's necessarily true - where someone grows up and what their environment's attitudes about homosexuality are play a big role. My stepfather is a good example - he grew up in a Brooklyn slum, ran with Puerto Rican gangs as a teenager, and readily admits he was wrong when he and friends beat the living daylights out of a tranny who approached him in a club once. His heterosexuality is not at all challenged, but he feels his actions were dictated more by what his friends expected him to do and how he reacted to the unwanted advances at the time.

Not a black or white thing by any stretch.

No I realize that. I was being facetious in my post. Although it is true that some of the biggest gay bashers are gay themselves, there are a whole lot of perfectly straight people out there who are homophobes.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:10 am
by Cadet985
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 4):
Are you saying a gay judge can't make a fair ruling on this case?

Yes, I would say that too. As a gay, the judge no matter what he says is automatically biased toward his fellow gays. Would it be appropriate for a judge whos child was murdered to hear a case involving same? No. This judge should have recused himself right from the start.

I further feel that there needs to be a MAJOR change to our political system. The legislature put this law on the ballot for the people to vote on. The people voted to pass it. A federal judge - who isn't elected by the people - can decide that their vote is invalid? That's assinine.

Marc

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:12 am
by Aaron747
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 77):
So he had no self-esteem and/or personal ethics, since his personal ethics were determined by his friends. Sorry, homophobia is homophobia. That's like saying, "I only called that black man a N888er because my friends in Oklahoma expected me to."

I only know him as the individual he is now in his late 50s - someone who supports my mother's gay relatives in this fight, stands up for what's right, and treats everyone with respect. I can't speak to what his state of mind was as a 16 year-old protecting turf in Brooklyn, but I don't think ethics were high on his list of priorities then.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:25 am
by 2707200X
Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 76):
What's next you can "marry" an animal or an object? Think guys with the life-size dolls..

This is the absurdity of the anti-gay marriage movement, they have nothing to argue about other than gays should be feared and loathed and that they are an abomination to society. This is exactly what former Senator Rick Santorum was talking about and the people of Pennsylvania rightfully voted him out of the senate.

This is a civil rights and equality issue.

[Edited 2010-08-04 18:40:57]

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:34 am
by einsteinboricua
Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 76):
What's next you can "marry" an animal or an object? Think guys with the life-size dolls..

Is there something that says you can't? if I decide to marry a broom, will you pay for the wedding? People protest things as if THEY were responsible. If a man wants to marry a broom or a cow or whatever, who are we to tell him not to?

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:35 am
by Lufthansa411
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
As for multiple wives, I'm fine with it as long as they all consent and as long as someone can work out the legal thicket that ensues in case of divorce.

I agree, as long as we include not just multiple wives, but multiple husbands as well. Whatever makes people happy is fine by me.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 80):
Yes, I would say that too. As a gay, the judge no matter what he says is automatically biased toward his fellow gays.

The problem with that argument is that everyone that could possibly hear the case would be biased. If you got a straight judge to hear the case, what would stop them from having a bias the other way? There are Log Cabin Republicans that seemingly vote against their interests a majority of the time.

You would have to find an asexual judge. I know asexuals do exist as it is now a recognised sexuality, but whether one of them is a federal judge and part of a particular circuit is a different question.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:38 am
by N104UA
THANK GOD This Hateful law is struck down

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 4):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
For starters the judge is gay, so no surprise.

Are you saying a gay judge can't make a fair ruling on this case?

I think he is saying that a Straight Judge will rule against it because of his/her sexual orientation

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:48 am
by garnetpalmetto
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 80):
A federal judge - who isn't elected by the people - can decide that their vote is invalid? That's assinine.

No, it's called a good idea as it allows judges to function without fear of being subject to the whims of an often short-sighted electorate, ensures that precedents and sentencing are kept as consistent as possible, and that (in theory, anyway) only the most qualified judges are selected and it doesn't become a popularity contest. And - hang on to your socks here - you did, indirectly, select that federal judge by voting in the senator who nominated him/her for the judiciary or who then voted on his/her confirmation. Shall we elect EVERY federal office? US Attorneys? Every member of the cabinet? Maybe we should elect special agents-in-charge of FBI offices? How about our military leaders - let's elect them too, I mean they aren't accountable to the voters, after all! (Interestingly, South Carolina does this, as the Adjutant-General of the SC National Guard is elected into their position)

Again, you've not addressed a major point that multiple posters, myself included, have brought up - if voters approve an unconstitutional law, are you seriously saying it should be allowed to stay on the books? Would you be in favor of a return to Jim Crow laws in the South? Would you suggest my pending marriage to my fiancee should be declared illegal once it occurs, as some "activist" judge(s) overturned NC's existing antimiscegenation law? Should Chicago's gun ban be maintained?

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:00 am
by StuckInCA
The number of people who don't understand how our country works is.... frightening.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:00 am
by CaliAtenza
Here is my take on the whole issue:

People need to grow up and let this thing not bother them. The US is a SECULAR country and i think all the religious nuts in this country have no place to talk about this issue because invariably it all comes down to which religion thinks gays are more "evil". Politicians on both sides of the aisle need to shut their traps and go back to working on issues that really matter in this country. Im not gay, im competely straight and competely hetero, and yes, maybe i am a bit uncomfortable around gay people displaying affection, but that doesnt mean they dont deserve the same rights as me. Its the same as denying rights to African Americans or Mexican Americans (come on we all know who that "Repeal the 14th Amendment" thing is targeted at). So what if they are Gay? Does it really affect you or me? Or the good 'ol boys down in Mississippi or Alabama or Georgia. Does it really affect the Right Wing? No..it doesnt...they just want some issue to bring up time and again because they are pretty much bankrupt on everything else right now.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:02 am
by Lufthansa411
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 86):
Again, you've not addressed a major point that multiple posters, myself included, have brought up - if voters approve an unconstitutional law, are you seriously saying it should be allowed to stay on the books?

Going further, it is one of the reasons (next to article 48 of the Weimar constitution) that Hitler was able to come to power: He was democratically elected and followed the constitution as it was written at the time. A majority of the people put him in power. There was no check on his power and so the gays gypsies and other minorities suffered. Same thing is applicable with this case. Without a check on the power of the majority, the minority suffers.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:17 am
by Cadet985
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 86):

If the people voted for the law, then the law should be on the books.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 86):
Shall we elect EVERY federal office? US Attorneys? Every member of the cabinet?

Yes, absolutely. At least people would know who these people are. Most people in this country can't tell you who any of the cabinet secretaries are, and that's disgusting.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 86):
Should Chicago's gun ban be maintained?

Not that the gun ban is at issue here, but no, it should nto be maintained. Chicago enacted it, if I recall, as a measure to stem violent crime. In addition to not working very well, it infringes onto the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights - it cannot be infringed upon.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:34 am
by CaliAtenza
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):

If the people voted for the law, then the law should be on the books.

people vote for laws all the time, doesnt mean they arent stupid  .

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:37 am
by 11Bravo
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):
In addition to not working very well, it infringes onto the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights - it cannot be infringed upon.

,.... but you suggest that an infringement on the 14th Amendment is perfectly fine as long as the majority of voters agree? I must have missed that day in school. You have some very strange views about the Constitution and its interpretation.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:41 am
by CaliAtenza
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 92):

,.... but you suggest that an infringement on the 14th Amendment is perfectly fine as long as the majority of voters agree? I must have missed that day in school. You have some very strange views about the Constitution and its interpretation.

This is what gets me...the people who cry hoarse about rights being infringed usually dont know or give 2 shits about the basics of the Constitution and civics.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:45 am
by CPH-R
Personally, I'm just surprised this hasn't become a First Amendment issue in the first place. The way I see, the vast majority of people wants to ban gay marriage on the grounds that it's against the teachings of the bible. Which would immediately strike it down as being in violation of the First Ammendment.

But then again, that's just my socialist welfare state-bred view  

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:49 am
by garnetpalmetto
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):

Not that the gun ban is at issue here, but no, it should nto be maintained. Chicago enacted it, if I recall, as a measure to stem violent crime. In addition to not working very well, it infringes onto the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights - it cannot be infringed upon.

But didn't you just say that if the people voted for the law then it should be on the books? You can't have it both ways here.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:49 am
by CaliAtenza
Quoting CPH-R (Reply 94):
Personally, I'm just surprised this hasn't become a First Amendment issue in the first place. The way I see, the vast majority of people wants to ban gay marriage on the grounds that it's against the teachings of the bible. Which would immediately strike it down as being in violation of the First Ammendment.

thats what i said a couple of posts ago. Invaribly to comes down to a religious thing and how people are "scared by the gays".

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:54 am
by FlyDeltaJets87
Quoting OA412 (Reply 79):
Although it is true that some of the biggest gay bashers are gay themselves

$5 says sometime in the future, the poster in question turns up in the MSP Airport Men's Room with Senator Larry Craig.   

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 90):
Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 86):
Shall we elect EVERY federal office? US Attorneys? Every member of the cabinet?

Yes, absolutely. At least people would know who these people are. Most people in this country can't tell you who any of the cabinet secretaries are, and that's disgusting.

Many people can't even tell you who the VP is and they DO vote for that position.

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:04 am
by thegreatRDU
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 83):
Is there something that says you can't? if I decide to marry a broom, will you pay for the wedding? People protest things as if THEY were responsible. If a man wants to marry a broom or a cow or whatever, who are we to tell him not to?

Thanks for reinforcing my point...

RE: Federal Judge: CA Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:21 am
by ATCtower
Hold your breath all, you are about to see a socially liberal side of me that does not surface often.

I for one could not support gay rights more. I also believe being gay is a choice, no matter the flaming liberal science (no pun intended) trying to convince everyone otherwise. I have had a great many gay friends who openly admit it is a choice of theirs. And I still support gay rights. Those opposed gay marriage too have their beliefs and often have merit, be it God, or homophobia, or whatever. To bash one for their beliefs on the issue is absurd and I do not agree with. For a gay to bash someone for believing its wrong is NO LESS ignorant and arrogant than the person bashing the gay. State your facts if you wish, but flaming is wrong on both sides of the aisle.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 34):
So now I ask that if it is becoming apparent that the opinions (even those shared by a majority of the people) don't matter, what is the sense of voting or getting involved in politics?

Unfortunately with the advent of the ACLU and other similar groups, the will of the people is immediately diminished in the interests of preserving those of the few. There is little reason to vote, even when it is a legislative issue as opposed to a judicial one.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 3):
It's going to go to the 9th Circut Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

And it will of course be a landmark decision, not unlike Roe V. Wade and Brown V. Board of Education. The unfortunate aspect is that it has to get to that point.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 4):
Are you saying a gay judge can't make a fair ruling on this case?

Not a fair, unbiased, ruling. I for one will say that. Arguing cases is rarely based on sole evidence or facts, but also pertains to the particular tendencies of the particular judge. This can not be argued, as it would be the same as expecting a Klan judge to be unbiased, or a Jew on the bench for the trial of a known Nazi. Biases play a very large part of our judicial system; top to bottom unfortunately.

My $.02