Fate Of Prop 8 In Balance Today

UAL747 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:05 pm

Today, the California Court of Appeals will decide whether or not Proposition 8 is constitutional. Speculation is that if it is indeed ruled to be unconstitutional, same-sex couples would not yet be able to get married because there would likely be another appeal to that decision. The case is likely headed for supreme court.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justic...proposition-8/index.html?hpt=us_c2

My question is, if this DOES go all the way to the supreme court, would a decision on this case at the supreme court level open up marriage for same-sex couples across the country, or would those rights still reside within the state? Either way, I expect prop 8 to be overturned in California, on the US level, I'm not sure, but I think it is leaning towards legalization.

UAL

mt99 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:46 pm

done!

" A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

Dreadnought · Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:57 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 1):
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal."

Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.

The only thing that the USSC might be interested (if they were at all interested in the Constitution) is whether a gay couple married in (let's say) Massachusetts where it is legal, should expect to be treated as married if they go to a state where gay marriage is not legal. That's the only federal issue I can see.

DocLightning · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:07 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.

The only thing that the USSC might be interested (if they were at all interested in the Constitution) is whether a gay couple married in (let's say) Massachusetts where it is legal, should expect to be treated as married if they go to a state where gay marriage is not legal. That's the only federal issue I can see.

If marriage is a fundamental right (and the USSC has ruled eight times than it is) then the equal protection clause must apply. So it actually is a federal issue.

The full faith and credit issue is also important.

I'm happy about today's ruling. Every court to have heard this case so far has struck down Prop 8. However, whether the USSC hears it is the big issue.

mt99 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:08 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
However, whether the USSC hears it is the big issue.

Not being a lawyer, i ask - what happens if they don't take it up?

Tugger · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:09 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.

Hmm... according to the Constitution:

Quote:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

(emphasis added)

Looks like they have jurisdiction as this is a suit against the state of California.

Tugg

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:10 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.

I can see an argument under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment holding up in the SCOTUS. I'm generally a more state's rights advocate, but I think this is a 14th Amendment (federal) issue.

Glad to see this outcome. I guess this will make Newt and Santorum want to shut down the 9th Circuit even more. Because that's not tyrannical

UAL747 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:13 pm

If the USSC takes up the issue, and rules one way or the other, does that open up or bar same-sex marriage for the entire country? Do either parties really want this thing going to the supreme court?

Tugger · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:20 pm

Also

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.

It is not the issue of "marriage" per se, but rather the issue of equal application of the law. Again per the Constitution, 14th Amendment:

Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(emphasis added)
The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"

Tugg

2H4 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:26 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
If marriage is a fundamental right (and the USSC has ruled eight times than it is)

Wow, eight times? I was only aware of Loving vs Virginia. Do you happen to know where I can see a list of the others?

Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"

And the entire answer is fear and bigotry.

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:29 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9):
Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"

And the entire answer is fear and bigotry.

It's not as cut and dry as one would think. I was on the other side of the issue just years ago. It was a strange state of mind really, but I never had any hate for gays or lesbians. Then again, I was never a full functioning adult while having that view so who knows

2H4 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:35 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
It's not as cut and dry as one would think.

From an equality standpoint, it would appear to indeed be that cut and dry.

Dreadnought · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:39 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
It is not the issue of "marriage" per se, but rather the issue of equal application of the law. Again per the Constitution, 14th Amendment:

But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:39 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
It's not as cut and dry as one would think.

From an equality standpoint, it would appear to indeed be that cut and dry.

Well I'm just saying the entire answer is not "fear and bigotry." One must fully understand the other side and where they are coming from, then engage in a civil debate for them to even consider changing their minds.

mt99 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:42 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.

Easy, that all men cannot marry another man, and that all women cannot marry another women.

Dreadnought · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:46 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 14):
Easy, that all men cannot marry another man, and that all women cannot marry another women.

Right. you can't marry a man, and neither can I. it's equal treatment.

2H4 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:48 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):

You cannot marry a man, but a woman can. It's UNequal treatment.

zckls04 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:49 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
Right. you can't marry a man, and neither can I. it's equal treatment.

But you can marry the person you love, and a gay person cannot. That's inequality.

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:50 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.

I used to use this argument. But in almost all cases, we try to use "citizen" instead of "man" and "woman." That is striving for gender equality. So an American adult can marry and American adult is more fair than choosing who a man can marry and who a woman can marry.

For the time being, I realize that sometimes (at least in this day and age) we need to distinguish between man and woman, but in this case, I see no harm. We look at people as citizens in this case.

Edit: way better wording than my argument:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 16):
You cannot marry a man, but a woman can. It's UNequal treatment.

[Edited 2012-02-07 11:52:29]

Tugger · Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:57 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
It's not as cut and dry as one would think. I was on the other side of the issue just years ago. It was a strange state of mind really, but I never had any hate for gays or lesbians. Then again, I was never a full functioning adult while having that view so who knows

I can relate and I am and pretty much always have been socially liberal. At one point I was "against" same-sex marriage. I use the quote becasue I wasn't against it per se, I just did not support it as being equal nor did I see any reason to.

And yet I had many friends who were gay and lesbian and many of whom were in a relationship. I can't say why I didn't support it nor can I defend it, I just never really thought about it. But when it started to become an issue (more accurately when I became aware that it was an issue, and an important issue for many people that I know) and people were demanding to be recognized equally, I had to actually look at what I was doing (and thinking and not doing) and what I was supporting and how my actions or lack thereof were impacting others.

I truly cannot see why I did not support same-sex marriage, the only reason I had was "well this is just the way things are" and that is not a reason. It was dumb and I feel dumb for not being more aware.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.

But are not "all men created equally"? If they are then they can marry each other. Doesn't say nothing about women being equal, in fact they aren't. Oh wait, things change... So are you saying that the US Constitution SHOULD address marriage? Just like it address' suffrage?

I can see you are trying to dance around the issue but it simply doesn't work. The USA and its courts have long recognized that men and women are equal (after realizing the error in it original writing and amending the Constitution). There are rights and legal benefits that are provided to those that are "married" in the eyes of the state, yet not to an entire class of people who would not marry a opposite sex partner (and that they do not desire to marry a member of the opposite is not something that is "bad").

Tugg

[Edited 2012-02-07 12:03:52]

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:18 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 19):
I truly cannot see why I did not support same-sex marriage, the only reason I had was "well this is just the way things are" and that is not a reason. It was dumb and I feel dumb for not being more aware.

Actually this is pretty much how I felt. But it was rooted deep for me, hard to explain. Before I couldn't just say that's how it was. I don't know, it was confusing. I do know that most people respond very negatively to being called homophobe and all. It puts up a shield, and you focus only on that and not on why you feel the way you feel. That's why I highly encourage everyone to stay civil. Speaking from personal experience, I know it is very touchy for a lot of people and anger pops out very easily. It's natural, but it only hurts the fight.

Meant to say this earlier:

inb4 gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality

mt99 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:25 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
One must fully understand the other side and where they are coming from, then engage in a civil debate for them to even consider changing their minds.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20):
do know that most people respond very negatively to being called homophobe and all. It puts up a shield,

It hard to keep cool when people are saying things like:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20):
gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality

It hard to keep cool when people say that the homosexuality will finish with humanity, and that we are going to hell.

So, yes I agree that a civil discussion is the way to go, but that civility MUST come from both sides

I appreciate and find your journey thru this inspiring, but i ask the same level of civility that you are asking from the gay community, you should ask from the Religious folks.

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:46 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 21):
I appreciate and find your journey thru this inspiring, but i ask the same level of civility that you are asking from the gay community, you should ask from the Religious folks.

inb4 = in before, meaning I'm in before someone says whatever follows inb4. It's a meme. I'm not saying it does lead to those, in fact, I completely disagree that it does. Sorry for the confusion.

mt99 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:48 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
. It's a meme.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22):
inb4 = in before, meaning I'm in before someone says whatever follows inb4. It's a meme. I'm not saying it does lead to those, in fact, I completely disagree that it does. Sorry for the confusion.

I got it.. Bu that is what "other" people say, I know you don't say that.

My point still stands, the hurtful comments go BOTH ways, and its unfair to ask only gays to tone it down.

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:55 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 23):
My point still stands, the hurtful comments go BOTH ways, and its unfair to ask only gays to tone it down.

Oh trust me, I know. Best thing to do is call them out on it. I cannot blame anyone for getting mad, I just try and convince them to stay calm. When it comes to this debate, I'm asking a lot more of the other side. But I'm trying to win over their hearts and minds, it does help that when they equate it to bestiality, it doesn't directly harm me as a straight.

sorry for the thread derailment. Back on topic, has this been appealed, or will it definitely get appealed? Or can gays and lesbians now marry in CA?

RamblinMan · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:03 pm

To all my lgbt a.nutter bretheren... Celebrate this victory. If you've had the courage to come out in this homophobic world, you've earned it. And I sincerely hope an equal rights amendment is not far off.

And to anybody who came on this thread to say hateful things... go f#ck yourself and quit meddling in other people's lives.

zrs70 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:04 pm

Most people, to my knowledge, who are against same gender marriage say that it is morally wrong and that it tears down the fabric of society. What are the other arguments?

UAL747 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:07 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
Or can gays and lesbians now marry in CA?

It may be appealed, not sure. That's why I was wondering if it did go to the US Supreme court, would that indeed become law of the land? The way the judges ruled in this case, makes their ruling fairly specific to California and the issue of Prop 8, not necessarily gay marriage itself. They address the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 because rights were granted and then taken away, therefore, Prop 8 is unconstitutional. They are NOT saying, however, that gay marriage is a right. I believe they are simply stating that Prop 8 isn't constitutional, if that makes any sense. Thus, it may not go to the USSC. While I believe if the issue of gay marriage went to the supreme court, it would rule in favor, I'm wondering if both sides aren't completely worried about the finality of such a decision, and how that would impact their groups. Wondering that if the fear of the finality of such a ruling would keep it from going to the Supreme court?

UAL

UAL747 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:10 pm

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 26):
Most people, to my knowledge, who are against same gender marriage say that it is morally wrong and that it tears down the fabric of society. What are the other arguments?

Same-sex marriage opens the door for Polygamy, Bestiality, and then there is the notion by homophobic people that if gays can marry and adopt, they will raise gay kids, molest them, and then more gays would be in society.

In all of recorded history, gay individuals have existed in society, and society is doing a pretty good job of ripping the moral fabric all on its own, without help from the gays. Gays do no more "ripping" than any other group. In fact, I could go further to say that gays probably do much less, because they are scrutinized so severely, especially those who want to marry or adopt. But anyone else can have a kid...

UAL

RamblinMan · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:12 pm

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 26):
What are the other arguments?

There are none as far as I know. Just a mindset of needing to impose your values on everybody else, sadly not uncommon in this country.

2H4 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:17 pm

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 26):
Most people, to my knowledge, who are against same gender marriage say that it is morally wrong and that it tears down the fabric of society. What are the other arguments?

Well, there's the argument that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" in the bible. Those against marriage equality tend to cling to that one while ignoring other socially and morally defunct concepts contained therein.

zrs70 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:21 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 30):
there's the argument that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" in the bible

This is blatantly false! The bible never defines marriage like this. (I'm not arguing with you, 2H4, but rather with the people who point to it).

If we were to be intellectually honest, biblical marriage = polygamy.

D L X · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:25 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.

This is 180 degrees from what the Constitution says.

No, the Constitution does not mention the word "marriage," but it does say that you have to treat people equally. That's why states cannot ban miscegenation, why states can't ban women from a public university, why states cannot ban sex between persons of the same gender, etc.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
I'm happy about today's ruling.

I'm glad you've come around on this issue.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
Not being a lawyer, i ask - what happens if they don't take it up?

Prop 8 is banned. Since Prop 8 is only present in California, nothing would happen elsewhere. However, presumably, the 9th Circuit would rule the same way should Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, or Nevada try to institute such a ban.

Quoting tugger (Reply 5):
Hmm... according to the Constitution:

Quote:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

(emphasis added)

Looks like they have jurisdiction as this is a suit against the state of California.

That's not what that phrase means. That sentence means that the case may originate at the Supreme Court, instead of going to the Supreme Court only on appeal.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
I'm generally a more state's rights advocate, but I think this is a 14th Amendment (federal) issue.

Entirely correct that this is a 14th Amendment issue. (We'll work on your states' rights advocacy at another time.

)

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
If the USSC takes up the issue, and rules one way or the other, does that open up or bar same-sex marriage for the entire country?

Basically, yes, though there are some nuances to it.

Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
It is not the issue of "marriage" per se, but rather the issue of equal application of the law.

This is correct.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.

And they used to say, "All whites can go to white schools. All blacks can go to black schools. Where is the inequality? There is none."

Yup, that's what they used to say.

2H4 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:25 pm

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 31):
This is blatantly false! The bible never defines marriage like this.

Really? I always took the people who claimed this at their word.

zrs70 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:30 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 33):
Really? I always took the people who claimed this at their word.

Those who hide behind religion rather than engage in it often quote things that are just wrong. It's a shame that the religious right has taken this as a cause.

As a rabbi on the religious left, I also believe in family values. But I define it very differently than the right. For me, family values are about love in a family, not about gay parenting.

Ken777 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:31 pm

I was glad to see the ruling.

I don't believe it will be moved to the USSC because it is so focused on one state. The USSC might end up looking for a more universal case to consider, but I don't believe that will happen until after the November elections.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
The only thing that the USSC might be interested (if they were at all interested in the Constitution) is whether a gay couple married in (let's say) Massachusetts where it is legal, should expect to be treated as married if they go to a state where gay marriage is not legal.

That is going to be interesting. I believe that the legal status of a couple will be determined if they are legally married in a US State, There might be some challenges in areas like state tax calculations, but I believe that there can be some flexibility in areas like spousal rights in hospitals, etc. I also believe that tome wise state level politicians who know "marriage" won't fly in their states moving to a civil union law that simply changes the name of the relationship. If a couple happens to fly to California to get married they will have the same legal rights in their state - but the state won't call them married.

With the conservatives fighting gay marriage (while half of them file for divorce) I think that is the best the country can do at this time.

2H4 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:34 pm

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 34):
Those who hide behind religion rather than engage in it often quote things that are just wrong. It's a shame that the religious right has taken this as a cause.

Interesting, thanks for clearing that up.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 34):
As a rabbi on the religious left, I also believe in family values. But I define it very differently than the right. For me, family values are about love in a family, not about gay parenting.

Good for you! I sincerely wish more people would share that philosophy.

photopilot · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:37 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
Right. you can't marry a man, and neither can I. it's equal treatment.

Quoting RamblinMan (Reply 29):
There are none as far as I know. Just a mindset of needing to impose your values on everybody else, sadly not uncommon in this country.

Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 30):
Well, there's the argument that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" in the bible.

It's got nothing at all to do with the bible. I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept. I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby. As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.

[Edited 2012-02-07 13:38:57]

zrs70 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:39 pm

Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.

Mother nature didn't give us wings either. But here we are on a.net

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:44 pm

Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.

What is the gay agenda?

UAL747 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:44 pm

Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.

LOL, I'm still trying to figure out what agenda I have, and how it differs from yours.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
It's got nothing at all to do with the bible. I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept. I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby. As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.

Please, all this world needs is more babies. Gays are constantly trying to take in your rejects, if you let us. The last thing this world needs is more procreation by reckless straight couples....and the funny thing is, even if they do reject their babies, some straight mothers and fathers would rather those children be in foster care for the rest of their lives than in a loving home, which also happens to be gay. The irony.

Photopilot, can you show me proof that somehow gay marriage would be bad for society and should be banned? Something other than biblical? Something quantitative and scientific, not something based on Biblical "interpretation?" If you can show me proof, somehow, I might entertain the notion. In fact, if any factual proof that is not biblical in nature can be shown, I will hereby resign my entire fight for equal rights for gay individuals.

UAL

zrs70 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:46 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39):
What is the gay agenda?

I just got a copy of mine. It is officially sealed by the International Gay Society.

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:49 pm

Some interesting (scary) reading: http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_marriage#Issues

Note: I don't frequent the site, I only visit it sometimes just for the lulz

I forgot where I read it, but this site said Portugal's economy tanked after adopting gay marriage. I looked at the source which stated not gay marriage, but "liberal policies" and within the article, it said nothing about gay marriage. Not that this site had any credibility before, but now it has negative credibility IMO

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 41):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39):
What is the gay agenda?

I just got a copy of mine. It is officially sealed by the International Gay Society.

I only asked because everyone is trying to get me to go gay. One unnamed poster on this site claims he needs a new toaster so I must go gay. What is this evil movement??? (sarcasm for the less inept)

[Edited 2012-02-07 13:51:47]

2H4 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:51 pm

Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
I'm agnostic but still believe in the one man, one woman concept. I'll change my mind when a man can bugger another man and produce a baby. As mother nature didn't intend that, then you're out of luck.

If reproduction was a necessary element of marriage, you might be onto something.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.

I'm sure those who were in favor of slavery were similarly irritated by the "agenda" of those fighting for equality. Marriage equality is another example of society evolving and advancing.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39):
What is the gay agenda?

DocLightning · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:52 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
Not being a lawyer, i ask - what happens if they don't take it up?

Then gays can get married in CA. The thing is that if the USSC rules that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, it could follow that ALL bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.

Then, I've heard that it might not mean that. The vagaries of law are a bit beyond me.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
If the USSC takes up the issue, and rules one way or the other, does that open up or bar same-sex marriage for the entire country? Do either parties really want this thing going to the supreme court?

I do. The outlook is favorable. Kennedy is the swing vote, but he has a history of generally voting for gay rights. Of course, if a plane carrying Scalia crashed on top of Thomas just before the case, it might make the outlook a bit better.

The thing is that gay marriage is an inevitability, much as interracial marriage was, much as desegregation was. Public opinion doesn't really matter in theory, but in practice it does and it is rapidly swinging towards the side of equality. As it does so, opponents of gay marriage have become more desperate, and in doing so have shown themselves to be pretty rabidly hateful. Santorum has compared it to bestiality. Bachmann has called it a disease. As they continue to do so, middle-of-the-road Americans who have never really thought about gay rights are getting more and more turned off to the anti-gay groups and their agenda.

It is only a matter of time. If not this time, then next time.

UAL747 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:53 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 42):
I forgot where I read it, but this site said Portugal's economy tanked after adopting gay marriage.

If anything, the economy should slightly benefit. But being only 10% of the population at max, I can't see how it affects it much in the first place. Secondly, what fiscal practices are different between gay people and straight people? From all accounts, gay people seem to stimulate the economy more than heterosexuals.

UAL

zrs70 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:54 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 42):
but this site said Portugal's economy tanked after adopting gay marriage.

Here's the text:

"After recognizing same-sex "marriage" and other liberal policies, Portugal saw its credit rating reduced to junk level."

That's like saying, "After the red head looked at me, I got sick. Therefore, red heads cause illness." Think about what Germany said about the Jews. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

In the case of Portugal, what else was going on at the time?

GBLKD · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:59 pm

Quoting photopilot (Reply 37):
Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their agenda on us.

As far as I can see gay people don't want to impose any agenda on anyone. The only gay agenda I can see is that gay people want to be treated equally. As a straight married man I would feel absolutely no threat at all to my own way of life if such a law were in debate in my country.

Gay couples live together and commit to each other for life in the same way that straight couples do. If the gay couple are serious about that commitment and want to marry I honestly don't see the problem. It won't affect my life one jot.

DeltaMD90 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:59 pm

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 46):
"After recognizing same-sex "marriage" and other liberal policies, Portugal saw its credit rating reduced to junk level."

Hahaha that's it. You know, they may have a point. Look at CA's economy

2H4 · Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:12 pm

Quoting GBLKD (Reply 47):
Gay couples live together and commit to each other for life in the same way that straight couples do. If the gay couple are serious about that commitment and want to marry I honestly don't see the problem. It won't affect my life one jot.

Indeed! I've heard people say that marriage equality destroys the sanctity of marriage, and that it cheapens "traditional" marriage. But a marriage whose sanctity depends upon the actions of others is a marriage that lacks a quality foundation to begin with.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net