Ca Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Wicked Jester]

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.

Icky?.....No!

Deviant?......Oh hell yes!

It's a CHOICE after all!

 

[Oddball]

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

Now you're doing what republican turd polishers do...You're accepting the premise and trying to make chicken soup out of chicken shit....I'm the one here not willing to surrender so easily to tyrants.

As long as the state interferes with licensing requirements, due process and just law are dead letters.

 

[Steerpike]

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

The license=privilege argument has been advanced multiple times in this thread, apparently under the theory that repeating it will improve it.

 

[Yurt]

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental
right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may
not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319
117 US 624, 638 (1943).

p. 119

 

[Oddball]

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

The license=privilege argument has been advanced multiple times in this thread, apparently under the theory that repeating it will improve it.

Go pick up a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and tell us all where either description under the term "license" infers that any right is being conferred.

Go ahead, I've already done so and know that there is none.

 

[Yurt]

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

Now you're doing what republican turd polishers do...You're accepting the premise and trying to make chicken soup out of chicken shit....I'm the one here not willing to surrender so easily to tyrants.

As long as the state interferes with licensing requirements, due process and just law are dead letters.

turd polishers? guess you forget that women are gay as well....

one could make the argument that the only tyrant is the one who will not allow same sex couples to marry....you want to deny them a fundamental right...that is what tyrants do

 

[hjmick]

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.

America is becoming one of the sickest most perverted countries on Earth!. The people have voted that they did not want Homo marriage. Now we have a judge trying to force sodomy
on an entire state!?.The American Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed.!!

That's right...FORCING sodomy on an entire state....remember to pick up those sodomy confirmation cards, everyone....and don't forget to attach the pics to prove that you have committed the judge determined quota of sodomy that everyone has to commit.

Wait... This decision means that if you live in California you have to be sodomized? Good thing I moved...

 

[Steerpike]

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

The license=privilege argument has been advanced multiple times in this thread, apparently under the theory that repeating it will improve it.

Go pick up a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and tell us all where either description under the term "license" infers that any right is being conferred.

Go ahead, I've already done so and know that there is none.

That's a specious argument. The license doesn't confer a right. But a right can be associated with the license. Happens all the time. Gun licenses. Professional licenses (which are considered property rights for purposes of due process), etc.

 

[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.”).

it is important to note:

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

ruling p. 112

i think the license argument folks need to see this again

 

[Oddball]

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental
right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may
not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319
117 US 624, 638 (1943).

p. 119

Yeah...Under common law.

Because if the context were under statutory law, every state licensing law would've been struck down by that ruling, ab initio.

They're two completely different legal jurisdictions.

 

[Dr Grump]

On the contrary. My posts clearly demonstrate that I'm neither an Islamaphobe, a homophobe or a rigtwinger. However, you're just a run of the mill liberal, democratic party shill, and not a very intelligent one at that. You don't see anyone else here defending polygamy, unless of course they're closet boy fondlers. You probably walk naked in your berkinstocks in gay pride parades. The fact is Grump, I can run intellectual hurdles around your uneducated ass in seconds flat so give it your best shot or sulk and see how many four letter words your single celled brain can substitute for the English language or how many pussy points you can rep me from the sidelines. Come on smart guy, be a man, if you can.

Well, you are either the most sarcastic poster this side of Xotoxi, or you're a liar.

I could out-debate you with my mouth taped shut, and my hands tied behind my back...

I'm not defending polygamy at all, I'm saying it's none of my business. And guess what, it's none of yours either....

 

[ConHog]

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

You have a RIGHT own a firearm, that's clearly in the COTUS. It is my opinion that any law which requires a permit to own one is unconstitutional.

 

[Oddball]

The license=privilege argument has been advanced multiple times in this thread, apparently under the theory that repeating it will improve it.

Go pick up a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and tell us all where either description under the term "license" infers that any right is being conferred.

Go ahead, I've already done so and know that there is none.

That's a specious argument. The license doesn't confer a right. But a right can be associated with the license. Happens all the time. Gun licenses. Professional licenses (which are considered property rights for purposes of due process), etc.

It's not a specious argument.

A license, properly and legally defined, is permission. If you have to seek permission, then it only follows that the right either doesn't exist or is being abridged.

 

[Yurt]

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental
right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.
Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters
supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may
not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319
117 US 624, 638 (1943).

p. 119

Yeah...Under common law.

Because if the context were under statutory law, every state licensing law would've been struck down by that ruling, ab initio.

They're two completely different legal jurisdictions.

how odd....you're the only one who thinks so...you have no authority to support such an illogical and blatently wrong statement....

that ruling is still good law today and if you bothered to read all the rest of the cases i put in there, you would have known that, not even the proponents of prop 8 agree with you...that is how far outside of norm you are on this subject

 

[Steerpike]

Go pick up a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and tell us all where either description under the term "license" infers that any right is being conferred.

Go ahead, I've already done so and know that there is none.

That's a specious argument. The license doesn't confer a right. But a right can be associated with the license. Happens all the time. Gun licenses. Professional licenses (which are considered property rights for purposes of due process), etc.

It's not a specious argument.

A license, properly and legally defined, is permission. If you have to seek permission, then it only follows that the right either doesn't exist or is being abridged.

It still exists. I'll grant that technically it is being abridged. But the government has long been able to abridge "rights," at least under our case law. It's just that for fundamental rights there are greater limitations on what they can do in terms of abridging them. I don't know that we have any rights that are absolutely free from the government abridging them.

 

[Oddball]

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

Now you're doing what republican turd polishers do...You're accepting the premise and trying to make chicken soup out of chicken shit....I'm the one here not willing to surrender so easily to tyrants.

As long as the state interferes with licensing requirements, due process and just law are dead letters.

turd polishers? guess you forget that women are gay as well....

one could make the argument that the only tyrant is the one who will not allow same sex couples to marry....you want to deny them a fundamental right...that is what tyrants do

There's no "right", fundamental or otherwise, to permission from a third party....I'm for the third party getting the hell out of the way and to quit interfering in private contractual agreements between consenting adults.

What in hell is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[R.C. Christian]

On the contrary. My posts clearly demonstrate that I'm neither an Islamaphobe, a homophobe or a rigtwinger. However, you're just a run of the mill liberal, democratic party shill, and not a very intelligent one at that. You don't see anyone else here defending polygamy, unless of course they're closet boy fondlers. You probably walk naked in your berkinstocks in gay pride parades. The fact is Grump, I can run intellectual hurdles around your uneducated ass in seconds flat so give it your best shot or sulk and see how many four letter words your single celled brain can substitute for the English language or how many pussy points you can rep me from the sidelines. Come on smart guy, be a man, if you can.

Well, you are either the most sarcastic poster this side of Xotoxi, or you're a liar.

I could out-debate you with my mouth taped shut, and my hands tied behind my back...

I'm not defending polygamy at all, I'm saying it's none of my business. And guess what, it's none of yours either....

So far the only thing you've proven is that you have an above average command of profanity.

 

[Oddball]

That's a specious argument. The license doesn't confer a right. But a right can be associated with the license. Happens all the time. Gun licenses. Professional licenses (which are considered property rights for purposes of due process), etc.

It's not a specious argument.

A license, properly and legally defined, is permission. If you have to seek permission, then it only follows that the right either doesn't exist or is being abridged.

It still exists. I'll grant that technically it is being abridged. But the government has long been able to abridge "rights," at least under our case law. It's just that for fundamental rights there are greater limitations on what they can do in terms of abridging them. I don't know that we have any rights that are absolutely free from the government abridging them.

You don't know because you've been accepting the premise that they have any business getting in the way in the first place, dammit!

This all goes away if people quit accepting the flawed premise from the outset.

 

[DavidS]

How disappointing not one gay marriage opponent can answer how gay marriage directly effects their lives. I guess they just take pleasure in trying to take away rights from other people.

 

[Steerpike]

This all goes away if people quit accepting the flawed premise from the outset.

Assuming the premise is flawed. But the government of this country has been doing such things since the founding (though not to the extent they do it today), so it's hard to say it is a flawed premise under out system, because it looks to me like our system was set up that way.