Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The court ruling to overturn Prop 8 is not a given. If they were to vote to allow it to stand, that would be a HUGE setback.
>>>>
They won't. I heard Kennedy. If they take the case, we win.
You heard Kennedy what?
I'm listening to the oral arguments right now.
***************************
I thought it was funny when one of the Justices asked about those over 55 being not able to have children and the lawyer started out (and I paraphrase) "Well one of them is likely to remain fertile..." and then got cut off.
Psst - Mr. Lawyer - one of the two people being fertile does not mean the couple is fertile.
>>>>
Marriage has been declared a fundamental right with the Constitution as justification. Would you deny me a fishing or gun license for being gay? Why a marriage license?
When you get a fish or gun liscense your being gay does not change your fishing or your possesion of said firearm. With same sex marriage in these two cases you are asking to eliminate hundreds of years of State precedent with regards to the marriage contract, and not via legislative action (which is the correct way to go) but via judical fiat.
By not going the route of legislation across all the states, you create a classic clauswitzian situation, where there will be peace, but not resolution of the conflict. We will end up with the same situation we have with abortion, where one side has "won" but the other side has not capitulated.
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.
The flaw in your argument is in thinking sex is required for marriage.
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?
I hate to call people dumb or stupid, but you seem intellectually lazy and borderline dishonest with your answers. You're not in the least bit curious about arguments that don't reaffirm your beliefs, so you just spitball answers, no matter how ridiculous or inaccurate they are, just to avoid conceding you may be wrong.
They won't. I heard Kennedy. If they take the case, we win.
You heard Kennedy what?
I'm listening to the oral arguments right now.
***************************
I thought it was funny when one of the Justices asked about those over 55 being not able to have children and the lawyer started out (and I paraphrase) "Well one of them is likely to remain fertile..." and then got cut off.
Psst - Mr. Lawyer - one of the two people being fertile does not mean the couple is fertile.
>>>>
That was a silly question and answer and it does make me nervous. It doesn't matter that not every heterosexual couple can procreate. It's comparing apples and oranges. Some heterosexual couples eventually not being able to reproduce is not the same as no homosexual couples being able to do so, by design.
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?
I hate to call people dumb or stupid, but you seem intellectually lazy and borderline dishonest with your answers. You're not in the least bit curious about arguments that don't reaffirm your beliefs, so you just spitball answers, no matter how ridiculous or inaccurate they are, just to avoid conceding you may be wrong.
See what I mean?
No, you couldn't just vote to take away marriage from a religious group. That wasn't my point and you know it. I'm saying that you can't assume a contested question. Who said same-sex marriage is a civil right? No one. The only agreement between both sides here is that marriage is a civil right...how we define that right is up for debate. Just because you have the right to marry doesn't mean you have an entitlement to whatever kind of marriage you want.
Bull. Either it is a requirement or it isn't. My brother, who had a vasectomy, was allowed to marry my sister in law who had a hysterectomy. No way they were ever having children. Same goes for my 94 year old grandfather. He was not prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend.
Why couldn't we? What prevents it? If you can vote to deny me rights as you want to, why couldn't we take away the right to marry from Protestants?
You heard Kennedy what?
I'm listening to the oral arguments right now.
***************************
I thought it was funny when one of the Justices asked about those over 55 being not able to have children and the lawyer started out (and I paraphrase) "Well one of them is likely to remain fertile..." and then got cut off.
Psst - Mr. Lawyer - one of the two people being fertile does not mean the couple is fertile.
>>>>
That was a silly question and answer and it does make me nervous. It doesn't matter that not every heterosexual couple can procreate. It's comparing apples and oranges. Some heterosexual couples eventually not being able to reproduce is not the same as no homosexual couples being able to do so, by design.
Bull. Either it is a requirement or it isn't. My brother, who had a vasectomy, was allowed to marry my sister in law who had a hysterectomy. No way they were ever having children. Same goes for my 94 year old grandfather. He was not prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend.
That was a silly question and answer and it does make me nervous. It doesn't matter that not every heterosexual couple can procreate. It's comparing apples and oranges. Some heterosexual couples eventually not being able to reproduce is not the same as no homosexual couples being able to do so, by design.
Bull. Either it is a requirement or it isn't. My brother, who had a vasectomy, was allowed to marry my sister in law who had a hysterectomy. No way they were ever having children. Same goes for my 94 year old grandfather. He was not prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend.
Nobody said it was a requirement for a marriage license. It has been said that the reason for the state's recognition of marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. People's individual situation doesn't change what is generally true for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
There aren't any equal protection issues involved. It's not like married people are moreso protected than single people, because if they were, it would be unconstitutional for the government to recognize "marital status" altogether. I can see how it's an "equality" issue for some, though I don't necessarily think that's a matter for the courts, but the "equal protection" doctrine has a specific meaning. The Lovings faced imprisonment, fines, and banishment from the state if convicted under Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Other cases like Redhail and Turner, that also found a fundamental right to marry, revolved around laws intending to punish, like denying a marriage license to someone in arrears for child support and denying a prisoner the right to marry. The state simply defining marriage as one thing, and not as something else, isn't a matter of equal protection.
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 -
thus the definition is discriminatory by sexual orientation.
Everything that is legal in a heterosexual relationship outside of marriage is legal in a homosexual relationship, therefore,
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.
Defining "marriage" as "the union of a husband (a man) and a wife (a woman)" is not arbitrary. It predates even the federal constitution. Like I said, we can't quarterback traditional marriage into being a reaction to the notion of same-sex marriage. If anything, same-sex marriage is a reaction to traditional marriage.
No statute or marriage amendment says anything about sexual orientation, and like I said before, it isn't true that there is no good or relevant reason for the state to define marriage in one such way and not another. I mean, even if we were to say marriage is the union of any two people, that could still be seen as an arbitrary distinction that is exclusive to some and inclusive to others. If you submit to even one restriction on who can marry whom, you're creating an arbitrary distinction that might exclude someone's preference for a spouse. But see, words matter, and if something means essentially everything, it actually means nothing. So we can't start complaining about lines drawn in the sand, when that's all we can do.
[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
No statute or marriage amendment says anything about sexual orientation, and like I said before, it isn't true that there is no good or relevant reason for the state to define marriage in one such way and not another.
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?
I hate to call people dumb or stupid, but you seem intellectually lazy and borderline dishonest with your answers. You're not in the least bit curious about arguments that don't reaffirm your beliefs, so you just spitball answers, no matter how ridiculous or inaccurate they are, just to avoid conceding you may be wrong.
See what I mean?
No, you couldn't just vote to take away marriage from a religious group. That wasn't my point and you know it. I'm saying that you can't assume a contested question. Who said same-sex marriage is a civil right? No one. The only agreement between both sides here is that marriage is a civil right...how we define that right is up for debate. Just because you have the right to marry doesn't mean you have an entitlement to whatever kind of marriage you want.
Constitutionally and legally irrelevant.
That something is perceived to be historic or traditional is not justification to uphold a law offensive to the Constitution:
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
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.
A federal Judge's opinion holds no water with you? There we have it. None of us have to pay attention to federal Judges.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.
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.
So a gay man cannot be fair but a heterosexual one can? Is there a conflict when a heterosexual Judge gets to rule on heterosexual marriage being the only type accepted? Gawd, you're an embarrassment to USMB
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 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?
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.
You bring forth 'full faith and credit'.It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.
The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.
But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.
Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.
Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?
It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.
You bring forth 'full faith and credit'.It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.
The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.
But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.
Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.
Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?
It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Interesting theory.
However, this does not apply when states have previously enacted laws to the contrary.
For example, An attorney licensed in one state, may not be recognized as an attorney in another state.
The point is when state law is already in place, federal law cannot supersede state law.
If federal law is in place, then the Supremacy Clause kicks in. So a state may not enact a law where federal law is already in place.
Another example. Horse racing owners, trainers and grooms must possess a license for each state in which he or she works. Why? Because there is no federal law in place that states otherwise.
