CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
USFREEDOM911 said:
And now it's being address by the PEOPLE and many religions.
The laws are going to be changed, so that gays are going to be allowed to marry somene they love and want to have a relationship with.
No one is going to force 51 year old men to marry a man.
Click to expand...

Well, in the case of prop 8 and 4 of the 6 states with gay marriage its being addressed by judges perched upon their bench of judicial activism, believing that they know better than both the people and their elected governments.
And they are still going to prohibit government recognition of that 51 yr old man if he were to choose to marry his brother or close platonic friend.
 
dixon76710 said:
Well, in the case of prop 8 and 4 of the 6 states with gay marriage its being addressed by judges perched upon their bench of judicial activism, believing that they know better than both the people and their elected governments.
And they are still going to prohibit government recognition of that 51 yr old man if he were to choose to marry his brother or close platonic friend.
Click to expand...

And that's because the laws regarding platonic marriages (read conveniance) and close relatives, are not the same when it comes to denying gays from marrying someone they love.
You're also not allowed to marry your sister; but that may be something you might want to discuss with your family.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I agree and also feel that the public has misinterpreted what the restriction meant; but that's not part of this disagreement.
And now by your own admission; the Government has no right to say that homosexuals can't marry.
Click to expand...

Marriage laws are state laws. If the people of the state have voted to say marriage is between a man and a woman, then the Feds have no right to change that. We need to appoint judges who believe in the US Constitution and what it says, not what a cherry picked liberal Federal judge says that overrides the will of the people of that state. That is not democracy. That's the problem with lefties. Democracy according to a lefty is when their agenda overrides the will of the majority. That is called soft tyranny.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
No they weren't based on biology; unless you want to explain why people who are not able to have children are allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

Same reason government encourages all owners of motor vehicles to have liability insurance, even though many of them will never be in an accident for which they are liable. We dont know which couples will procreate. We do know that all who will procreate, will be exclusively heterosexual couples. And from a constitutional perspective.

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/bakrvnel.htm

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And that's because the laws regarding platonic marriages (read conveniance) and close relatives, are not the same when it comes to denying gays from marrying someone they love.
Click to expand...

Two people of the same sex marrying isnt the "same" as two people of the opposite sex. Soooo not sure of your point. Proclaiming them not to be the "same" isnt an argument.
 
Alias said:
Marriage laws are state laws. If the people of the state have voted to say marriage is between a man and a woman, then the Feds have no right to change that. We need to appoint judges who believe in the US Constitution and what it says, not what a cherry picked liberal Federal judge says that overrides the will of the people of that state. That is not democracy. That's the problem with lefties. Democracy according to a lefty is when their agenda overrides the will of the majority. That is called soft tyranny.
Click to expand...

Then the courts are the only complaint you have.
Therefore if the people vote to recognize gay marriages, then you have no problem with it and you'll accept them also?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then the courts are the only complaint you have.
Therefore if the people vote to recognize gay marriages, then you have no problem with it and you'll accept them also?
Click to expand...

If it's the will of the people in that state. I want things done right. I'm tired of the left crying that things aren't fair when the vote doesn't go their way, but then ramming their agenda down our throat with one cherry picked liberal judge to overrule the will of the people. That is un-American. The left lies and cheats.
 
dixon76710 said:
Same reason government encourages all owners of motor vehicles to have liability insurance, even though many of them will never be in an accident for which they are liable. We dont know which couples will procreate. We do know that all who will procreate, will be exclusively heterosexual couples. And from a constitutional perspective.

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/bakrvnel.htm

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
Click to expand...

Surely you could have done better, then trying to equate car insurance and marriages??
But since you are making the attempt; are their laws that say gays can't insure their vehicle?

You were the one that continue to bring up the procreation situation and were saying that was the reason that the Government was interested in marriages.
Now you're trying to refute your own argument.
 
dixon76710 said:
Two people of the same sex marrying isnt the "same" as two people of the opposite sex. Soooo not sure of your point. Proclaiming them not to be the "same" isnt an argument.
Click to expand...

Sure it is.
Both groups want to marry someone they love, want to have an intimate relationship with, and have a home with.
 
Alias said:
If it's the will of the people in that state. I want things done right. I'm tired of the left crying that things aren't fair when the vote doesn't go their way, but then ramming their agenda down our throat with one cherry picked liberal judge to overrule the will of the people. That is un-American. The left lies and cheats.
Click to expand...

Since all States recognize a marriage that has been preformed in another State, then the problem is resolved.
States that don't want to have gay marriages preformed within their boundries, can pass laws prohibiting such (as long as they don't violate other laws) and States that allow gay marriages can preform them.
Then the married gays can move to other States and have thier marriages recognized; just like is done with common law marriages now.
There, are you now happy?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Since all States recognize a marriage that has been preformed in another State, then the problem is resolved.
States that don't want to have gay marriages preformed within their boundries, can pass laws prohibiting such (as long as they don't violate other laws) and States that allow gay marriages can preform them.
Then the married gays can move to other States and have thier marriages recognized; just like is done with common law marriages now.
There, are you now happy?
Click to expand...

Let the will of the people in California be respected and I'll be happy.
 
Alias said:
If it's the will of the people in that state. I want things done right. I'm tired of the left crying that things aren't fair when the vote doesn't go their way, but then ramming their agenda down our throat with one cherry picked liberal judge to overrule the will of the people. That is un-American. The left lies and cheats.
Click to expand...

The way our nation is set up protects the minority from tyranny of the majority.

Otherwise the civil rights movement would have been dead in the water in the south.
 
Alias said:
Let the will of the people in California be respected and I'll be happy.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. Unless they get the required number of votes to amend their constitution.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
There are scientific reasons why close relatives are prohibitied from marriage, that involve inherant genetic problems.
Click to expand...

Well, that was in te olden days when marriage was intended to deal with the potential of procreation. Now that you want procreation to be irrelevant to marriage, such genetic concerns become irrelevant. And as well, of course, they have no applicability in the case of the single mother and grandmother raising a family together.

USFREEDOM911 said:
We're not talking platonic relationships; but instead were discussing people who are in love with each other.
Click to expand...

The single mother and grandmother truely love each other. Two platonic friends can love each other

USFREEDOM911 said:
Prop 8 does not exclude heterosexual couples from marrying and nothing has been suggested that would preclude heterosexuals from marrying.
Click to expand...

No one claimed it did. You kicked the shit outta that strawman.

USFREEDOM911 said:
Since you like referring to history and other cultures; are you aware that there were Native American tribes that felt that a homosexual (our description) was a link between the man spirit and the spirit of women.
They were respected and treated with honor.
Click to expand...

Men didnt marry them and make them their wives. They didnt form families with them. They obtained sexual gratification from them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top