Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

[Procrustes Stretched]

A CC does not have a gender component, your marriage does, and the gender component of your marriage flies in the face of 200 years of legal precedent in this country that didnt even consider having marriages between same sex couples.

The way to change this is via legislative action, not judicial fiat.

And I disagree. If interracial marriage had waited to be popular enough...it would have been long after the 1967 Loving v Virginia decision that it was passed.

Race is a matter of differences in melanin and differences in cosmetic appearance. When it comes to same vs opposite sex marriage the gender issue is in no way shape or form even comparable to the race comparison.

It is up to the legislature to decide when to change these requirements, not the courts.

The Court is not looking to change requirements. They rule on whether requirements are constitutional or not

 

[martybegan]

Just like we eliminated "hundreds of years of precedent" when we allowed women to vote, blacks to vote, blacks to marry whites, blacks to be educated with whites, etc. we're those institutions changed when we allowed more people access to them.

Women were given the vote via an amendment, the proper method of doing this. Blacks were given the vote and thier freedom via amendment, and the bloodiest war this nation has ever seen. All Jim Crow laws had thier basis on Plessey V. Fergueson, which was an abomination propogated by the very Court you are running to right now. ALL of your references are based on amendments that were passed to eliminate said restrictions IMPLICITLY, not derived from an amaglam of case law.

Again, I support legislative action on Gay Marriage, I just dont see it as a consitutional right the courts can impose on States that dont want it.

The vote: Women were not allowed to vote. Blacks were not allowed to vote. People under a certain age are still not allowed to vote. Not everyone is or was allowed to vote.

Marriage: Not everyone is allowed to have their marriage recognized by the state.

The state recognized marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age. Some states acknowledged this by revising laws to say only opposite-sex marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age would be recognized. This opens the door to separate but equal or discrimination on the basis of ... let a legal expert lay this part out...

"t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker."'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. *"Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. - Slate Magazine

A judge shouldnt even be figuring this one out, so his opinion hold no water with me. Yes, rights come from the PEOPLE, what the consitution does is prevent a majority of the people from imposing its will on others. For this to occur an amendment must be created to specifically prevent government action over a given topic, or legislative power holds sway. What we have here is people trying to subvert the will of the people with created consitutional rights that SHOULD be done via amendment, but its supporters are too lazy or impatient to do it the proper way.

And for your insult, go fuck yourself with a tire iron.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Race is a matter of differences in melanin and differences in cosmetic appearance.

If only the Southern White Conservative Christian Racists and Bigots who used Jim Crow laws believed that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Women were given the vote via an amendment, the proper method of doing this. Blacks were given the vote and thier freedom via amendment, and the bloodiest war this nation has ever seen. All Jim Crow laws had thier basis on Plessey V. Fergueson, which was an abomination propogated by the very Court you are running to right now. ALL of your references are based on amendments that were passed to eliminate said restrictions IMPLICITLY, not derived from an amaglam of case law.

Again, I support legislative action on Gay Marriage, I just dont see it as a consitutional right the courts can impose on States that dont want it.

The vote: Women were not allowed to vote. Blacks were not allowed to vote. People under a certain age are still not allowed to vote. Not everyone is or was allowed to vote.

Marriage: Not everyone is allowed to have their marriage recognized by the state.

The state recognized marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age. Some states acknowledged this by revising laws to say only opposite-sex marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age would be recognized. This opens the door to separate but equal or discrimination on the basis of ... let a legal expert lay this part out...

"t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker."'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. *"Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. - Slate Magazine

A judge shouldnt even be figuring this one out...

and there we have a usmb constitutional expert

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Women were given the vote via an amendment, the proper method of doing this. Blacks were given the vote and thier freedom via amendment, and the bloodiest war this nation has ever seen. All Jim Crow laws had thier basis on Plessey V. Fergueson, which was an abomination propogated by the very Court you are running to right now. ALL of your references are based on amendments that were passed to eliminate said restrictions IMPLICITLY, not derived from an amaglam of case law.

Again, I support legislative action on Gay Marriage, I just dont see it as a consitutional right the courts can impose on States that dont want it.

The vote: Women were not allowed to vote. Blacks were not allowed to vote. People under a certain age are still not allowed to vote. Not everyone is or was allowed to vote.

Marriage: Not everyone is allowed to have their marriage recognized by the state.

The state recognized marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age. Some states acknowledged this by revising laws to say only opposite-sex marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age would be recognized. This opens the door to separate but equal or discrimination on the basis of ... let a legal expert lay this part out...

"t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker."'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. *"Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. - Slate Magazine

A judge shouldnt even be figuring this one out, so his opinion hold no water with me.

Yes, rights come from the PEOPLE, what the consitution does is prevent a majority of the people from imposing its will on others. For this to occur an amendment must be created to specifically prevent government action over a given topic, or legislative power holds sway. What we have here is people trying to subvert the will of the people with created consitutional rights that SHOULD be done via amendment, but its supporters are too lazy or impatient to do it the proper way.

And for your insult, go fuck yourself with a tire iron.

A federal Judge's opinion holds no water with you? There we have it. None of us have to pay attention to federal Judges.

The rest of your post is a partisan screed worthy of the Posse Cum-in-your-mouthatis crowd

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are many federal benefits that are based on marital status. A state that is arbitrarily defining marriage as a union between one male human and one female human is discriminating against the same sex union without being able to offer any relevant cause for doing so -

There's nothing "arbitrary" about it. Marriage laws exist to protect mothers and children. In other words, to promote the propagation of the species by ensuring healthy well adjusted children. Allowing gays to marry doesn't contribute a thing to that purpose.

thus the definition is discriminatory by sexual orientation.

True, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says government laws can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. Plenty of laws discriminate on the basis of sex, so why would discrimination based on sexual orientation be beyond the pale?

Everything that is legal in a heterosexual relationship outside of marriage is legal in a homosexual relationship, therefore,

Wrong.

the state can claim nothing in regards to any specific unique characteristics of a same sex union that gives the state any compelling reason or justification to legally discriminate against such a relationship.

Sure it can: the ability to procreate.

No it can't because no marriage law in any state in the union has a procreation requirement in it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Everything that is legal in a heterosexual relationship outside of marriage is legal in a homosexual relationship, therefore,

Wrong.

Oh really? Tell us all what is legal in heterosexual relationships that is illegal in homosexual relationships?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=23094]martybegan[/MENTION]

Registered User
Member #23094

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,452
Thanks: 546
Thanked 2,171 Times in 1,405 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

FOAD.

I can be an asshole, but no I will not grant your wish and die in a fire.

 

[martybegan]

Race is a matter of differences in melanin and differences in cosmetic appearance.

If only the Southern White Conservative Christian Racists and Bigots who used Jim Crow laws believed that.

The ones that subverted and used the very court you are running to right now?

You may feel comfortable with your "rights" only protected via the whims of 5 of 9 people, If I wanted to preserve something, i would push for an amendment.

We have given up convincing people to do the "right" thing and instead are forcing them to accept it via the courts. The only time a court should use its power is when the consitution is explicit on a right. Until then it is up to the legislature, or the people via amendment, and if needed revolution.

 

[martybegan]

The vote: Women were not allowed to vote. Blacks were not allowed to vote. People under a certain age are still not allowed to vote. Not everyone is or was allowed to vote.

Marriage: Not everyone is allowed to have their marriage recognized by the state.

The state recognized marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age. Some states acknowledged this by revising laws to say only opposite-sex marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age would be recognized. This opens the door to separate but equal or discrimination on the basis of ... let a legal expert lay this part out...

"t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker."'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. *"Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. - Slate Magazine

A judge shouldnt even be figuring this one out, so his opinion hold no water with me.

Yes, rights come from the PEOPLE, what the consitution does is prevent a majority of the people from imposing its will on others. For this to occur an amendment must be created to specifically prevent government action over a given topic, or legislative power holds sway. What we have here is people trying to subvert the will of the people with created consitutional rights that SHOULD be done via amendment, but its supporters are too lazy or impatient to do it the proper way.

And for your insult, go fuck yourself with a tire iron.

A federal Judge's opinion holds no water with you? There we have it. None of us have to pay attention to federal Judges.

The rest of your post is a partisan screed worthy of the Posse Cum-in-your-mouthatis crowd

Yeah, a Federal Judge who is himself gay.... Yeah, no conflict there. When judges take it upon themselves to create new rights and strike down laws based on created precedent, they are no longer judges, they are the lord and master oligarchs you progressives are dying for.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

The flaws in your thinking are that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are the same thing and have the same moral and practical implications for society.

They aren't and they don't.

 

[Seawytch]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

The flaws in your thinking are that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are the same thing and have the same moral and practical implications for society.

They aren't and they don't.

The flaw in your argument is in thinking sex is required for marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

The flaws in your thinking are that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are the same thing and have the same moral and practical implications for society.

They aren't and they don't.

Which would you place on a higher moral standing:

A homosexual monogamous married couple.

A heterosexual prostitute and her married male customer.

eh, genius?

 

[Seawytch]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

The flaws in your thinking are that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are the same thing and have the same moral and practical implications for society.

They aren't and they don't.

Which would you place on a higher moral standing:

A homosexual monogamous married couple.

A heterosexual prostitute and her married male customer.

eh, genius?

 

[Katzndogz]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

The flaws in your thinking are that heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are the same thing and have the same moral and practical implications for society.

They aren't and they don't.

Which would you place on a higher moral standing:

A homosexual monogamous married couple.

A heterosexual prostitute and her married male customer.

eh, genius?

You havr finally achieved equality.

 

[Seawytch]

 

[Qball]

But whose fault is that? I don't mean that to sound petulant, but like I said, when you use judges to create rights out of whole cloth, you run the risk of the people coming back and amending the constitution to clarify that this thing is not a right at all. Had the proponents of same-sex marriage waited a few more years until there was a clear, consistent majority willing to legalize SSM, they could put the issue up for a vote and CA would likely have affirmed it. Instead, they wanted to do an end-run around the popular vote figuring that if it's just legalized, the people wont be motivated to "take their rights away" and it would stay in place. It was a gamble that failed.

On this we can agree. While we can argue the merits (or lack there of) of the Prop 8 case - I think that concerning Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM) the Prop 8 challenge was a tactical error.

If not for the Prop 8 case, California would probably already have SSCM. The historical shift in attitudes and voter response in general had shown a trend of more acceptance. In California alone Prop 22 (Statutory Law) passed by 23% and then just 8-years later Prop 8 barely squeaked by with only 2.5%.

There would have been much, MUCH more political capital, in a strategic sense, to have been gained from resubmitting to a vote and having Prop 8 repealed at the ballot.



>>>>

Except that Civil Rights aren't supposed to be up for majority opinion.

You can't assume that which is in question, Seawytch. That's just lazy thinking. Obviously the issue has been put to a vote many times by now, so it's a little silly to say that civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote. What opponents have been saying for years is that your right to marry is a civil right, but there is no right to marry whomever you choose. That is a policy issue that people can vote on.

 

[Qball]

This is another point people miss. In CA, as in any other state and the federal government, the constitution bestows rights, not the court. The court can't grant rights; they're supposed to interpret the constitution to protect them. The fact that this line is so prevalent really just proves that they went to the state Supreme Court to have them create a right out of whole cloth, not uphold the constitution as it is.

The people have the final say in CA to amend their constitution. Because the court ruled one way, the people voted another way, and the court didn't want to stay their ruling until the issue was resolved at the ballot box, people think this mess is somehow the fault of Proposition 8.

Complete imbecility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Asking to have a right recognized and protected, a right other people have, is not asking to have a new right created no matter how you cut, slice, or dice it.

It depends on how much credit you're willing to give. If you're going to essentially ask the legislature to create new policy, which this was regardless of how right or valid you think it is, you run the risk of the people amending their constitution to oppose it. That's why it should be dealt with the same way in which the law you disagree with was passed, in this case through the popular vote.

In Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshal ruled the anti-equality bigots could amend the Constitution. They tried and failed. Even if they had won, a conflict would have ensued where a state cannot have a Constitutional amendment that violates rights recognized by the federal Constitution.

Hasn't the US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is a fundamental right?

"They tried and failed", huh? LOL. The Democrats in the MA legislature wouldn't allow the issue to go to a public vote, likely because they knew in 2005-6 it would've passed, which is why it's the law today. It's much easier to amend the constitution in CA, but with MA you need a popular and a majority vote in the legislature in two consecutive sessions.

The Supreme Court has found marriage to be a right, yes, but in every instance they were defending a person's right to have a spouse of the opposite sex. They have never said it's a right irrespective of who your spouse is, and in fact, have dismissed such a claim (the point of this thread).

 

[Seawytch]

On this we can agree. While we can argue the merits (or lack there of) of the Prop 8 case - I think that concerning Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM) the Prop 8 challenge was a tactical error.

If not for the Prop 8 case, California would probably already have SSCM. The historical shift in attitudes and voter response in general had shown a trend of more acceptance. In California alone Prop 22 (Statutory Law) passed by 23% and then just 8-years later Prop 8 barely squeaked by with only 2.5%.

There would have been much, MUCH more political capital, in a strategic sense, to have been gained from resubmitting to a vote and having Prop 8 repealed at the ballot.



>>>>

Except that Civil Rights aren't supposed to be up for majority opinion.

You can't assume that which is in question, Seawytch. That's just lazy thinking. Obviously the issue has been put to a vote many times by now, so it's a little silly to say that civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote. What opponents have been saying for years is that your right to marry is a civil right, but there is no right to marry whomever you choose. That is a policy issue that people can vote on.

Really? We could vote to take marriage away from Protestants?

 

[Seawytch]

I know, let's VOTE on universal background checks and an assault weapons ban!