Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[Rune]

Sooooo what is this new purpose and what possible relation do you see between being gay, and serving that purpose? If it is as stated in the court decisions, to form "stable households", any two consenting adults can form a household. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay.

Listen ASSHOLE, if there is really nothing special about it one way or the other, why are you so frigging oposed to it?

 

[dixon76710]

no shit sherlock. do you even know what this thread is about?

you really have no idea what this case is about. your correction of me is dead wrong. i suggest you read the first couple of pages of the 9th circ. decision in order to avoid further embarrassment.
.... and you're now dishonestly characterizing what you said.
...your last sentence is just a desperate attempt to deflect away from your stupidity. are you one of those closet homosexuals who hates homosexuals because you know deep down you are one? see how that works?

if you read it, then you're a moron for saying you corrected my claim:

it is right on page 5. thus, your correction is entirely wrong.

actually, that is technically true, CA only granted the licenses after CA sct made their ruling. i stand corrected.

F*** OFF Nancy boy!

 

[dixon76710]

Listen ASSHOLE, if there is really nothing special about it one way or the other, why are you so frigging oposed to it?

Cant discriminate in favor of gays without at least a legitimate governmental interest that is served by that discrimination. It is against the Constitution of the US. Im sure just a minor inconvenience to you when it comes to winning special preferences for the gays

 

[Southern Chicken]

Sooooo what is this new purpose and what possible relation do you see between being gay, and serving that purpose? If it is as stated in the court decisions, to form "stable households", any two consenting adults can form a household. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay.

The right to marry is the right to choose to join in marriage with the person you really, really would like to do so with... the person of your choosing. In an empirical sense... hardly... it is easily observed that a homosexual may not marry the person of their choosing if they take their sexual orientation into consideration... instead, they are forced to make a choice that goes against their sexual orientation if they wish to marry. Are heterosexuals forced to make a choice that goes against their sexual orientation? No, so, logically, in an empirical sense everyone is not affected in the same way. Yours is an illogical conclusion.

So, you're argument regarding unequal treatment is illogical. I may be put off by a law that requires me to drive 45 miles an hour on Fulton Drive here in Atlanta, but the law applies to everyone driving on Fulton Drive. If, however, the law only applied to people driving who listen to a particular radio station, then we're not just dealing with being put off anymore, are we? I'm put off because there is discrimination... one group gains a benefit that I do not... that is the very definition of discrimination. Now, we all should recognize that discrimination does occur via the law and sometimes it is constitutional and sometimes not. But to deny that there is any discrimination at all in this case is ignorance, blindness or absolute, utter insanity.

So, for those not ignorant, blind or absolutely, utterly insane, the ban on same-sex marriage is discriminatory.

 

[dixon76710]

The right to marry is the right to choose to join in marriage with the person you really, really would like to do so with... the person of your choosing. In an empirical sense... hardly... it is easily observed that a homosexual may not marry the person of their choosing if they take their sexual orientation into consideration... instead, they are forced to make a choice that goes against their sexual orientation if they wish to marry. Are heterosexuals forced to make a choice that goes against their sexual orientation? No, so, logically, in an empirical sense everyone is not affected in the same way. Yours is an illogical conclusion..

??????What does sex have to do with formation of stable households? The only relation of sex in heterosexual marriages is that it creates children in need of stable households. If marriage is to be severed from procreation, whether or not the couple has sex becomes irrelevant to the formation of households.

Ive formed stable households with both my brother, and a platonic friend, for longer periods of time than I did with my wife.

 

[Southern Chicken]

??????What does sex have to do with formation of stable households? The only relation of sex in heterosexual marriages is that it creates children in need of stable households. If marriage is to be severed from procreation, whether or not the couple has sex becomes irrelevant to the formation of households.

Ive formed stable households with both my brother, and a platonic friend, for longer periods of time than I did with my wife.

Obviously the type of intimacy between siblings, friends, and the intimacy between married couples is different. Same-sex couples are just as capable of legally engaging in all aspects of marital intimacy as opposite sex couples, whereas siblings are not. Same-sex couples raise children and are only prevented from adopting in one state... in fact, in some states it is even illegal to take the sexual orientation of a couple into consideration when it comes to adopting a child. So, in terms of creating an ideal environment for children (aka stable household) that is equal to that of an opposite sex-married couple, a same-sex couple is capable of that. Civil marriage is a legal contract... it is supported by a network of laws that create the benefits and obligations of civil marriage. If civil marriage is all about procreation such that it is necessary to exclude same-sex couples, there should be laws associated with the contract to reflect this fact. If there aren't, then civil marriage - a legal contract - is not all about procreation such that it is necessary to exclude same-sex couples.

 

[Damocles]

Children who are born to their married parents thrive, compared to children born to single mothers who have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the #s of children born to single mothers and increases the # of children born into homes with the benefit of both their mother and father to provide and care for them.

Encouraging gay couples does not.

Which part of the constitution allows the Federal Government to "encourage" any specific relationship? Telling people which "groups" are "blessed" by government largesse while not giving the same consideration to others would be a violation of our Rights of Association and Assembly noted in the First Amendment.

The government does not have the power to tell you what kind of relationship is "best", it is one of the things we gave up when we limited the government constitutionally and recognized that you and I have a right to be able to hang with the people we want to hang with and follow the religions we want to follow, including marrying whomever we danged well please.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

NO, IT DOES NOT.
If you want to keep fucking your pet goat, have at it, but it will never be legal you fucking moron.

14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
--------------------------------------------------------

If it is legal for you to marry your sexual preference, it has to be legal for anyone to marry their sexual preference. It's called "equal protection" and it is outlined in the 14th Amendment. You see, currently, marriage is the union of a male and female of consenting age, that is the parameters we've established and adhere to, and everyone (including gays) has the right to do. If we alter the definition of marriage to include a sexual preference, then that becomes the parameter we codify into law, and we must adhere to the constitution regarding it, whether we like it or not. So when a goat fucker comes along and demands his right to marry his goat, because that is his sexual preference, then we have no basis on which to deny him this request, and we can't deny the request and remain true to the constitution.

Now, the goat fucker example is a little extreme (which is why you brought it up), most goat fuckers tend to keep that a secret and wouldn't likely emerge from the closet to demand their rights anytime soon, our generation would probably not have to deal with it, but eventually, someone would bring the case. The more likely scenario involves polygamists, who are already lobbying in states which have passed gay marriage. Again, the problem is, you can't say THIS sexual behavior is okay as a basis for marriage, but THAT sexual behavior is not. If you do say that, you are in violation of the 14th, if marriage has been defined by a sexual lifestyle, which "gay marriage" is, it's in the name!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

your grasp of history is wrong, dead wrong. cite for me where the court relies on CRA 64.....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

the bans were STILL in place after 64. get your history right before you call anyone an idiot.

if you read the arguments against lifting interracial marriage bans, you would see your arguments are identical. further, you prove yourself against the constitution as you want to ban gay marriage because of "religious" customs. there are very, very few religious customs and they are very minor, that pass the 1st amendment, such as swearing in on the bible or congressional prayer. marriage is a fundamental right, something entirely different.

Let's be clear on some things. The court very seldom relies on one single piece of legislation to make ANY ruling. Cases are reviewed on the basis of the law in total at the time, and any number of laws may apply. In Loving, the 14th was the basis, but the 14th applies to black people differently before 1964, or before 1954 (Brown), as blacks were not included. It is only AFTER these measures were passed, that legal court cases could be made and won, and there were a ton of them following Civil Rights, Loving being one of them.

The bans were still in place after '64, but are they still in place today? What happened? Did people just voluntarily lift them one day, realizing they must be in the wrong? Nope... Court cases were brought, rulings were made, and one by one, the laws were struck down. Now why didn't someone bring these cases before? Why did it take until 1967 for Loving? We didn't just wake up one day and say..well, time has come for us to do this.. it took YEARS of struggle, and passage of specific legislation which forbid the discrimination against blacks on the basis of race. Once that was done, the 14th Amendment becomes the basis for establishing justice.

 

[Rune]

14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
--------------------------------------------------------

If it is legal for you to marry your sexual preference, it has to be legal for anyone to marry their sexual preference. It's called "equal protection" and it is outlined in the 14th Amendment. You see, currently, marriage is the union of a male and female of consenting age, that is the parameters we've established and adhere to, and everyone (including gays) has the right to do. If we alter the definition of marriage to include a sexual preference, then that becomes the parameter we codify into law, and we must adhere to the constitution regarding it, whether we like it or not. So when a goat fucker comes along and demands his right to marry his goat, because that is his sexual preference, then we have no basis on which to deny him this request, and we can't deny the request and remain true to the constitution.

Now, the goat fucker example is a little extreme (which is why you brought it up), most goat fuckers tend to keep that a secret and wouldn't likely emerge from the closet to demand their rights anytime soon, our generation would probably not have to deal with it, but eventually, someone would bring the case. The more likely scenario involves polygamists, who are already lobbying in states which have passed gay marriage. Again, the problem is, you can't say THIS sexual behavior is okay as a basis for marriage, but THAT sexual behavior is not. If you do say that, you are in violation of the 14th, if marriage has been defined by a sexual lifestyle, which "gay marriage" is, it's in the name!

Again, NO.
Allowing gay maraige does NOT open the door to polygamy nor beastiality, as much as you may desire it to.

The 14th amendment does not mandate multiple wives nor sex with animals.

 

[Rune]

Cant discriminate in favor of gays without at least a legitimate governmental interest that is served by that discrimination. It is against the Constitution of the US. Im sure just a minor inconvenience to you when it comes to winning special preferences for the gays

Wut?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, NO.
Allowing gay maraige does NOT open the door to polygamy nor beastiality, as much as you may desire it to.

The 14th amendment does not mandate multiple wives nor sex with animals.

No, the 14th mandates equality under the law. If we make a law which states that marriage is based on a sexual lifestyle, then all other alternative sexual lifestyles have to be given the same consideration under the law, it's the constitution. You standing on your soapbox shouting... NO IT WON'T is not very reassuring to me. I know what the 14th says, and I know that if we change marriage to be defined based on a sexual lifestyle, it will pave the way and open the door.... as it already has with POLYGAMISTS... but even further, with any and every sexual perversion we can imagine.

 

[dixon76710]

Obviously the type of intimacy between siblings, friends, and the intimacy between married couples is different.

Obviously the type of intimacy between between a man and a woman, and the intimacy between two people of the same sex is different in that heterosexual relationships are responsible for the perpetuation of the human species while homosexual relationships are responsible for 62% of the new HIV cases in the US and not much more.

Same-sex couples are just as capable of legally engaging in all aspects of marital intimacy as opposite sex couples, whereas siblings are not.

Just not that one aspect that is the foundation of the institution of marriage

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Just like closely related couples

Same-sex couples raise children and are only prevented from adopting in one state... in fact, in some states it is even illegal to take the sexual orientation of a couple into consideration when it comes to adopting a child. So, in terms of creating an ideal environment for children (aka stable household) that is equal to that of an opposite sex-married couple, a same-sex couple is capable of that.

Both gay couples and closely related couples raise children. Nothing special about gays that makes them somehow preferrable to ANY other couple made up of any two consenting adults. Nothing to justify special treatment when a couple happens to be gay.

 

[Rune]

No, the 14th mandates equality under the law. If we make a law which states that marriage is based on a sexual lifestyle, then all other alternative sexual lifestyles have to be given the same consideration under the law, it's the constitution. You standing on your soapbox shouting... NO IT WON'T is not very reassuring to me. I know what the 14th says, and I know that if we change marriage to be defined based on a sexual lifestyle, it will pave the way and open the door.... as it already has with POLYGAMISTS... but even further, with any and every sexual perversion we can imagine.

You are so full of shit.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are so full of shit.

Well who can argue with such a well thought out response?

 

[Bonestorm]

No, the 14th mandates equality under the law. If we make a law which states that marriage is based on a sexual lifestyle, then all other alternative sexual lifestyles have to be given the same consideration under the law, it's the constitution. You standing on your soapbox shouting... NO IT WON'T is not very reassuring to me. I know what the 14th says, and I know that if we change marriage to be defined based on a sexual lifestyle, it will pave the way and open the door.... as it already has with POLYGAMISTS... but even further, with any and every sexual perversion we can imagine.

But isn't a definition of marriage that is restricted to heterosexual couples based on a sexual lifestyle, too? Your argument makes no sense.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But isn't a definition of marriage that is restricted to heterosexual couples based on a sexual lifestyle, too? Your argument makes no sense.

No, marriage is the union of a man and woman, it doesn't matter what their sexuality is. Marriage is not restricted to heterosexuals, no state in the union has that as a requirement that I'm aware of. One man - One woman... that's the parameter. You wish to alter this, to include homosexuals, which are defined by their sexual lifestyle. In order to accommodate their lifestyle, we would have to equally accommodate others as well, it is the law, according to the constitution.

 

[Southern Chicken]

No, the 14th mandates equality under the law. If we make a law which states that marriage is based on a sexual lifestyle, then all other alternative sexual lifestyles have to be given the same consideration under the law, it's the constitution. You standing on your soapbox shouting... NO IT WON'T is not very reassuring to me. I know what the 14th says, and I know that if we change marriage to be defined based on a sexual lifestyle, it will pave the way and open the door.... as it already has with POLYGAMISTS... but even further, with any and every sexual perversion we can imagine.

Pure crap, polygamy requires a reconstruction of the marriage contract in order to accomodate multiple spouses. It has already been attempted in this country with the laws regarding the civil marriage contract remaining basically as they are today and it didn't work -- so much so that abuses outweighed right to religious freedom. Allowing for same-sex marriage requires absolutely zero reconstruction of the laws regarding the civil marriage contract. So the argument that allowing for same-sex marriage allows for polygamy is, as I've stated, highly unlikely and ridiculous. Currently, in the event a spouse leaves the contract, assets are split in half between the spouses. How would that work should polygamy be legal? Who gets custody of children? These are all things that are much easier to work out in a system geared to marriages between two people. Yet, you state that same-sex marriage will somehow allow for polygamy? I mean, the current system is just as likely to allow for polygamy -- meaning, the changes to the laws necessary to safely accomodate polygamy could occur now even without same-sex marriage. But, being that same-sex marriage has absolutely no effect on the contract itself and the protections it provides to couples engaging in that contract, polygamists will still have to fight the exact same battle they are fighting now. Allowing for same-sex marriage has zero impact on the contract, polygamy does. Same-sex marriage has just as much a chance of allowing for polygamy as heterosexual marriage.

So, how in the world does it logically follow that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy? To sibling marriage?

To state that any simple change to a law opens the floodgates is ridiculous and ignores the fact that the same obstacles keeping these other two types of marriages illegal will remain even if same-sex marriage is allowed. Why? Because allowing same-sex marriage does nothing to change the reasons for keeping polygamy and sibling marriage illegal.

How is heterosexual marriage redefined by allowing same-sex couples to marry? How are heterosexual marriages affected? They aren't. Heterosexuals will continue to marry in the same manner that they always have and nothing will change regarding the contract in which heterosexual couples will engage.

 

[Rune]

Well who can argue with such a well thought out response?

There is no point in arguing with you.
1. You do NO RESEARCH.
2. You routinely deny reality.
3. You NEVER cite or link up.
4. You are totaly fucking insane.

Debating you is a no win situation. In other words a waste of time.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, marriage is the union of a man and woman, it doesn't matter what their sexuality is. Marriage is not restricted to heterosexuals, no state in the union has that as a requirement that I'm aware of. One man - One woman... that's the parameter. You wish to alter this, to include homosexuals, which are defined by their sexual lifestyle. In order to accommodate their lifestyle, we would have to equally accommodate others as well, it is the law, according to the constitution.

I don't see how one man, one woman is not defined by a sexual lifestyle, but two men or two women is. It makes no sense.