Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Oddball]

Equal protection, Dude....it's not the license per se...it's that the government provides the license with all the rights, protections, and privileges to one group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...and denies that same license to another group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens...without a valid (for the welfare of the people) reason.

The issue here definitely is the state-issued license, per se.

You're perfectly free to marry any man -gay or not- you want, under a statutory marriage.

Otherwise, you'll have to go the common or contract law route.

And thus...gender discrimination.

So?

Now I'll ask you: How do we set about to determine and quantify "gayness", to make sure that same-sex hetero couples aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon?

 

[Modbert]

I love when people make the arguments that next people will be marrying dogs or kids or whatever else. Because after all, we know dogs and kids are consenting adults. OWAI-

 

[ConHog]

A lot of silly arguments on this thread. Perhaps the silliest one of all is that since we must get a license to marry it is okay to refuse any two citizens a license simply because they are gay.

What next? No gays granted driver's licenses or hunting licenses?

no reason to keep two brothers from getting married either, least ways I can think of none. since procreation is out of the equation.

Maybe the benefits should just be called something like a Civil Commitment Incentive.

That's what I'm saying. Just get the government out of marriage altogether.

 

[bodecea]

how is it special rights to allow same genders to marry? they are the same rights YOU have to marry someone of a different gender....the need to exclude marriage based on gender is unconstitutional as scotus has declared that anti sodomy laws etc....are unconstitutional

you are actually advocating for special rights, that is, the special right to marry someone of your choosing, but you are notwilling to share that right with someone who chooses to marry someone of their own gender.

Intra-gender marriage would be a special right, since gays currently have, and have always had, the same rights straights have to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Under that logic inter-racial marriage was also a special right.

That argument was presented by Virginia to the SCOTUS and they raised quite a chuckle from the Justices.

 

[Oddball]

Then, to be equal...DROP the state licensing...with all the privileges, protections, and rights that come with it....for ALL. I'm ok with that as long as there is equality.

I'm all for that.

But when is the gay community going to pull their collective heads out of their asses, and even consider the approach of abolishing statutory marriages as an option?
My answer to that: The people driving the "right" to a statutory marriage issue are a bunch of far leftist wackos, who believe that all which is good and just flows from Big Daddy Big Gubmint.

That has been TRIED in CA...with a petition for a Proposition....it did not get very far at all.

Oh...So y'all only have a stick-to-it spirit when it comes to begging Big Daddy Big Gubmint for his "benevolent patronage", but are too damned lazy to be equally determined to get him out of your life.

Gotcha.

 

[bodecea]

The issue here definitely is the state-issued license, per se.

You're perfectly free to marry any man -gay or not- you want, under a statutory marriage.

Otherwise, you'll have to go the common or contract law route.

And thus...gender discrimination.

So?

Now I'll ask you: How do we set about to determine and quantify "gayness", to make sure that same-sex hetero couples aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon?

Why do we have to quantify "gayness"? Maybe the same way states now quantify "straightness" to make sure that different-sex couples of all kinds aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon.....that is, not at all.

 

[bodecea]

It's correct that sexuality isn't mentioned in Prop 8. While the de facto discrimination against gays is a sexy red herring, the de jure discrimination is against gender and I think that's where the legal argument really is.

I look at it real simple-like:

There are privileges provided by marriage. First things that come to mind: tax benefits, 401K benefits, inheritance, medical decisions. I believe those privileges shouldn't be disallowed to a consensual adult relationship--marriage, civil union, I don't give a fuck what it's called--simply because of the gender of both parties. To me, that reeks of gender discrimination, and as a violation of the Fourteenth.

If SCOTUS strikes Prop 8 down, then DOMA will go, too. We're watching a landmark case unfold.

We're watching our country change from a republic to a tyranny, is what we're watching. Where judges overrule the people to assert their own political views.

That's how I would feel, if the judge had ruled the other way.

It would show that any group with oodles of money can come in from out of state, pay for lots and lots of lying commercials and get their "law" passed regardless of its constitutionality.

 

[Oddball]

And thus...gender discrimination.

So?

Now I'll ask you: How do we set about to determine and quantify "gayness", to make sure that same-sex hetero couples aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon?

Why do we have to quantify "gayness"? Maybe the same way states now quantify "straightness" to make sure that different-sex couples of all kinds aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon.....that is, not at all.

Point being it's an unquantifiable trait.

What's to stop same-sex straights from marrying now?

 

[AllieBaba]

It's correct that sexuality isn't mentioned in Prop 8. While the de facto discrimination against gays is a sexy red herring, the de jure discrimination is against gender and I think that's where the legal argument really is.

I look at it real simple-like:

There are privileges provided by marriage. First things that come to mind: tax benefits, 401K benefits, inheritance, medical decisions. I believe those privileges shouldn't be disallowed to a consensual adult relationship--marriage, civil union, I don't give a fuck what it's called--simply because of the gender of both parties. To me, that reeks of gender discrimination, and as a violation of the Fourteenth.

If SCOTUS strikes Prop 8 down, then DOMA will go, too. We're watching a landmark case unfold.

We're watching our country change from a republic to a tyranny, is what we're watching. Where judges overrule the people to assert their own political views.

That's how I would feel, if the judge had ruled the other way.

If the judge had ruled the other way, he would have supported the people.

This way, he overrode the people.

They aren't one and the same. The people voted, and made the law. The judge essentially said the people don't matter.

 

[ConHog]

So?

Now I'll ask you: How do we set about to determine and quantify "gayness", to make sure that same-sex hetero couples aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon?

Why do we have to quantify "gayness"? Maybe the same way states now quantify "straightness" to make sure that different-sex couples of all kinds aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon.....that is, not at all.

Point being it's an unquantifiable trait.

What's to stop same-sex straights from marrying now?

I'm going to go with common sense.

 

[Big Fitz]

I want three womens and three mens. to marry me. don't deny me now. it's my right.

Here's your pile of fiancees.

 

[Oddball]

Why do we have to quantify "gayness"? Maybe the same way states now quantify "straightness" to make sure that different-sex couples of all kinds aren't horning in on the statutory marriage bandwagon.....that is, not at all.

Point being it's an unquantifiable trait.

What's to stop same-sex straights from marrying now?

I'm going to go with common sense.

Really?

What if a couple of lifer bachelor hetero roommates decide that they want to get in on all the state-bestowed benefits of marriage, without having to drag around "the old ball and chain"?

What's to stop them?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Marriage equality does not include plural marriage Willow. Move to Utah.

 

[Oddball]

Marriage equality does not include plural marriage Willow. Move to Utah.

Since when?

The precedent is set...All it takes is the say-so of a federal judge.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Marriage equality does not include plural marriage Willow. Move to Utah.

Since when?

The precedent is set...All it takes is the say-so of a federal judge.

Bull.

 

[DavidS]

The public voted overwhelmingly for no gay marriage. A judge overturned this for activists who aren't content with just working out contractual agreements on the side like rational people. Therefore you have taken away the will of the people and supplanted it with activist special interest. People don't LIKE that when their vote is nullified by an asshole judge looking play social engineer because they feel entitled to.

It will be interesting IF it turns out SCOTUS bans gay marriage nation wide though. Willing to accept THAT decision too? The majority of Americans, particularly minorities would rejoice their will would matter.

Since when does the PUBLIC get to vote on the rights of other people? Usually the public gets to vote on something that effects them - but gay marriage DOESN'T effect anyone other than the gay couple who are getting married! The PUBLIC should have NEVER been allowed to vote for Proposition 8 - it should've never BEEN allowed to be a proposition in the first place!

 

[topspin]

I like the Mormon way, doubt my wife would go for having another hottie around. I luv how they don't allow women to have multiple hubbies.

 

[Oddball]

Marriage equality does not include plural marriage Willow. Move to Utah.

Since when?

The precedent is set...All it takes is the say-so of a federal judge.

Bull.

Bull nothing.

All it took today was the say-so of a federal judge...What's to stop another one from affirming the "right" to polygamy?

 

[Yurt]

Since when?

The precedent is set...All it takes is the say-so of a federal judge.

Bull.

Bull nothing.

All it took today was the say-so of a federal judge...What's to stop another one from affirming the "right" to polygamy?

apples/oranges....homosexuality is not illegal

 

[Sheldon]

We're watching our country change from a republic to a tyranny, is what we're watching. Where judges overrule the people to assert their own political views.

That's how I would feel, if the judge had ruled the other way.

It would show that any group with oodles of money can come in from out of state, pay for lots and lots of lying commercials and get their "law" passed regardless of its constitutionality.

I've never been a fan of ballot initiatives, this topic being a case in point. It reminds me of the Jefferson quote, about tyranny of the fifty-one percent.