Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[jillian]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

if you're going to purport to speak to the constitution, you should read the caselaw.

marriage is a fundamental right.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1

this isn't a licensing issue.

 

[bodecea]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

So...what if a state voted to make interfaith marriages illegal? Ok, cause it's just a privilege, right?

 

[Yurt]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

then you don't agree that marriage is a fundamental right?

as to the license argument...why shouldn't people engaged in legal activity all have equal access to the license?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

The fake libertarian is against gay marriage. Shocking, lol.

You need a license to own a handgun in NY. I guess that means owning a handgun in NY is a privilege? Not a right?

 

[Oddball]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

So...what if a state voted to make interfaith marriages illegal? Ok, cause it's just a privilege, right?

They can set whatever criteria for obtaining the license that they want....That's the point of licensing to start with.

Like I keep saying...If y'all had any brains and any stickability, you'd be trying to strike down the state getting in the way in any way, shape, or form in this area.

 

[Yurt]

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

Wait since when was group sex or having multiple roommates illegal?

Problem with >2 people marriages though is that it creates a giant legal mess and all sorts of problems 2 person marriages don't have.

and you can still do that if you're married...

again, apples/oranges...

 

[Yurt]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

So...what if a state voted to make interfaith marriages illegal? Ok, cause it's just a privilege, right?

They can set whatever criteria for obtaining the license that they want....That's the point of licensing to start with.

Like I keep saying...If y'all had any brains and any stickability, you'd be trying to strike down the state getting in the way here.

as was asked before...i didn't see the answer, sorr if you did...

then you disagree with loving v. virginia....?

 

[syrenn]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

So...what if a state voted to make interfaith marriages illegal? Ok, cause it's just a privilege, right?

Just a few words take care of that.


Separation of church and State.

 

[Yurt]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

The fake libertarian is against gay marriage. Shocking, lol.

You need a license to own a handgun in NY. I guess that means owning a handgun in NY is a privilege? Not a right?

good point...i wonder if dude were to support a ban on homosexuals owning guns

 

[Oddball]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

then you don't agree that marriage is a fundamental right?

as to the license argument...why shouldn't people engaged in legal activity all have equal access to the license?

Nothing can be claimed as a right if you have to obtain permission (i.e. a license) from a third party...Simply put, the one granted the license is always subservient to the grantor of the license.

Therefore, statutory marriage (the kind where you need a license) is a state-granted privilege, subject to the caprice of state statute...Common law contractual marriage is a right, guaranteed by Article 1, Section 10.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh who didn't see this coming?

"Fuck the will of the people, we fascists jerkoffs want the right to force our perversions on everyone we damn well please. Our rights matter, you straights fucking suck if you disagree and shouldn't be allowed to have rights!"

Way to feed homo-hatred, judge! Great way to assure violence will probably go up in the future if this stands.

I guess the conservatives harping about 'tyranny of the majority', that's been going on for the last year and a half,

is temporarily suspended.

This is an exquisite ruling, lol, mostly because the judge makes every argument I've been making for years.

And, because the ruling in effect proves what I've said is the best argument FOR gay marriage -

the simple fact that there are no good arguments against gay marriage.

 

[Oddball]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

The fake libertarian is against gay marriage. Shocking, lol.

You need a license to own a handgun in NY. I guess that means owning a handgun in NY is a privilege? Not a right?

good point...i wonder if dude were to support a ban on homosexuals owning guns

Red herring.

I'm against the state being involved at all....I'm against all statutory marriage, not common law marriage.

 

[bodecea]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

So...what if a state voted to make interfaith marriages illegal? Ok, cause it's just a privilege, right?

Just a few words take care of that.


Separation of church and State.

No, remember...marriage is only a privilege.

 

[bodecea]

Oh who didn't see this coming?

"Fuck the will of the people, we fascists jerkoffs want the right to force our perversions on everyone we damn well please. Our rights matter, you straights fucking suck if you disagree and shouldn't be allowed to have rights!"

Way to feed homo-hatred, judge! Great way to assure violence will probably go up in the future if this stands.

I guess the conservatives harping about 'tyranny of the majority', that's been going on for the last year and a half,

is temporarily suspended.

This is an exquisite ruling, lol, mostly because the judge makes every argument I've been making for years.

And, because the ruling in effect proves what I've said is the best argument FOR gay marriage -

the simple fact that there are no good arguments against gay marriage.

It's icky......there, I've said it.

 

[Yurt]

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v
Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a
fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional
support and public commitment.” Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978)
(“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
individuals.” Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of
personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of
the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.” Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom
to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.” Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“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.&#8221.

it is important to note:

The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is
fundamental.

ruling p. 112

 

[Oddball]

So...what if a state voted to make interfaith marriages illegal? Ok, cause it's just a privilege, right?

Just a few words take care of that.


Separation of church and State.

No, remember...marriage is only a privilege.

Good grief, Charlie Brown....

Did you know that in most statutory marriage states, it's illegal for the clergy of an "official" church to perform a marriage ceremony without the state-issued license?

Where's your separation of church and state now?

 

[Yurt]

The fake libertarian is against gay marriage. Shocking, lol.

You need a license to own a handgun in NY. I guess that means owning a handgun in NY is a privilege? Not a right?

good point...i wonder if dude were to support a ban on homosexuals owning guns

Red herring.

I'm against the state being involved at all....I'm against ALL statutory marriage, not common law marriage.

so am i...however, that is not the reality...since the state is involved in marriage, we have to abide by due process and equal protection of the laws

that is the law in this country

 

[Lumpy 1]

rights aren't subject to a majority vote. if they're rights, they exist whether someone votes for it or not.

that's what courts are for. our government was not structured to trust the unwashed masses with such issues...and, in fact, was specifically constructed to PROHIBIT oppression of a minority by the majority.

The obvious Rhetorical Questions.....

Why even have a proposition 8 in the first place? Why have a vote? Why not just let unelected judges decide in the first place what's good for the American people?

that's not how the process works. there has to be an actual case and controversy for a court to exercise jurisdiction.

and it's not about a court deciding what's 'good' for you. it's about a court not allowing the torch and pitchfork crowd to take away the rights of the people they don't like. if it were something the majority liked, it would never be an issue.

and no, that's not an obvious rhetorical question. sorry.

but i'm sure the pretend constitutionalists will love it.

I would consider myself a member of the unwashed masses here as opposed to torch and pitchfork crowd..
I would feel a lot better about a resolution to this issue if it were decided by the people first.. by our elected representatives second...but I now have a problem with a federal judge or the Supreme Court deciding these issues as they seem to be politically motivated with no possible repercussions.
Well okay then... I trust the people first, the representatives very little and the federal courts, even less....... like I said, unwashed...

 

[Yurt]

A license isn't a right...It's a privilege...You can look it up.

And don't give me any of that swill about Loving...Gays are still free to make up legally binding private and common law marriage arrangements.

then you don't agree that marriage is a fundamental right?

as to the license argument...why shouldn't people engaged in legal activity all have equal access to the license?

Nothing can be claimed as a right if you have to obtain permission (i.e. a license) from a third party...Simply put, the one granted the license is always subservient to the grantor of the license.

Therefore, statutory marriage (the kind where you need a license) is a state-granted privilege, subject to the caprice of state statute...Common law contractual marriage is a right, guaranteed by Article 1, Section 10.

you're wrong...case law clearly says otherwise and even the proponents of prop 8 agreed that marriage is a fundamental right

 

[Yurt]

Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in
most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre.
FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in
Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388
US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions,
despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the
concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. Id.

ruling p. 114