Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Allowing tax breaks to a couple that can't start a family seems a bit uneven to me.

A marriage is about love, creating a new branch within a family and potentially expanding that family by having children.

So then the infertile can't marry either? What about people who use contraceptives?

If you wanna go be a Quiverfull, that's your choice, but getting pregnant is hardly a requirement of marriage.

And gay couples still can, and do, adopt. Same sex marriage would help them in that, in that it would help to demonstrate stability and a loyal family unit for adoption agencies.

Why should straight people who won't have children have a right to marry, while gay people who would have children not have the same right, under your logic?

[Mhurron]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Well, except a black woman and a white man are usually still equipped to have kids, while a gay couple is not.

Completely irrelevant as the civil union of marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Completely irrelevant as the civil union of marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.

Then why the tax breaks? Living with another person is not a tax burden and never has been.

Furthermore, didn't majority vote in favor of Proposition 8? On what constitutional basis does this judge have the authority to overturn the will of the people? This vote was done lawfully and the state constitution was amended within the rules.



In numbers 52% for Proposition 8 and 47% against. For the California constitution to be amended, all that is needed is a majority. This looks like a majority to me.

California Proposition 8 (2008) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What concerns me here is that it basically means a California voter's decisions mean jack shit. Today's ruling is a violation of state and voter rights any way you look at it.

As always, forget what the issue pretends to be about and look at what's really going on here - I see personal liberty being diminished for everyone here. I see the power of the state being diminished. That's not a victory for anybody.

What good is gay marriage if your vote and your voice don't mean shit once you got what you wanted?

[Mhurron]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Then why the tax breaks? Living with another person is not a tax burden and never has been.

Why tax breaks for anyone? You CHOOSE to have children. If it is a burden, maybe you shouldn't have had them. Further, you get MORE tax breaks when you do have children married or not. On top of that, not every couple who gets married has two incomes.

The real answer however, is because.

On what constitutional basis does this judge have the authority to overturn the will of the people? This vote was done lawfully and the state constitution was amended within the rules.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

No one can legislate against the unalienable human rights of another law abiding citizen. No group is more equal then another, if marriage among consenting adults is allowed, it is allowed for all consenting adults.

This does not mean you have to like Gay marriage. This does not mean Churches have to marry gays. It means the Government can not treat consenting adults any different. It means one group of citizens can not impose their moral values and beliefs on another group of citizens.

Now go hide in a corner, you got today's American Civics lesson from a Canadian.

[Icemage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

T
Furthermore, didn't majority vote in favor of Proposition 8? On what constitutional basis does this judge have the authority to overturn the will of the people? This vote was done lawfully and the state constitution was amended within the rules.

What concerns me here is that it basically means a California voter's decisions mean jack shit. Today's ruling is a violation of state and voter rights any way you look at it.

As always, forget what the issue pretends to be about and look at what's really going on here - I see personal liberty being diminished for everyone here. I see the power of the state being diminished. That's not a victory for anybody.

What good is gay marriage if your vote and your voice don't mean shit once you got what you wanted?

State law is superceded by federal law in the USA where the two intersect, and this decision appears to be derived from the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. From what I can tell at a cursory glance, the problem the judge found with Proposition 8 is that it enforces discrimination against a minority and depriving them of equality under the law without providing due cause.

For instance, it's OK under the law to deprive felons of some rights (such as voting) because there are judicial mechanisms in place to determine who is or isn't a felon. But that's not what is happening here.

California already allows couples to be legally joined and file taxes together etc. They are just not considered married. They still have all rights associated therein.

Not entirely true. There are a number of notable differences in rights between a civil union and a marriage in California, but I'll grant that "most" of the things that people would be concerned about are roughly equivalent now.

One amusing difference between the two is that civil unions in California require co-habitation for registration. As such, prospective couples have to be conceptually "living in sin" before they can register.

I'm pretty indifferent to the entire debate personally, but the knee-jerk reactions some people have to the concept of "gay marriage" is uproarious.


Icemage

[Etra]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Now go hide in a corner, you got today's American Civics lesson from a Canadian.

Two things:
1.) Canadians are awesome.
2.) I think bbq just needs a good night of hot gay sex to set him straight. (Wheeee for backwards puns and obvious facetiousness.)

That's really all I had to contribute.

Oh wait...

In numbers 52% for Proposition 8 and 47% against. For the California constitution to be amended, all that is needed is a majority. This looks like a majority to me.

So if 52% of the state of California votes that all Christians are not allowed to practice their faith in said state, that's okay with you? (And saying that'll never happen or some other excuse to block what I'm getting at isn't sufficient. Amuse me.)

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

State law is superceded by federal law in the USA where the two intersect, and this decision appears to be derived from the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. From what I can tell at a cursory glance, the problem the judge found with Proposition 8 is that it enforces discrimination against a minority and depriving them of equality under the law without providing due cause.

I think the problem there is defining gays as a minority. its not an ethnicity or a religion. You can't choose ethnicity, but sexuality is only similar to religion in that it can be chosen and even changed. The main concern seems to be the potential for abuse.

The abuse can happen both ways, but its a lot easier for two people of the same gender to make that decision on a lark. Not saying it doesn't happen with heterosexual couples, but there's a lot more social performance pressure going on there more often than not.

I think the whole issue of marriage just needs to be put on the table and looked at from all sides. But that's another problem, you just can't get people to step back and look at it objectively. As it stands I think it can be abused on both sides and that's what needs to be fixed for gay marriage to be accepted - the problem is what would the terms have to be?

Even with this overturned, you can't just force people to accept it. Its already being appealed. Hell, it will be politicized, too. Just more stupid shit to get voters riled just like abortion still seems to work on both sides. I don't even take such issues to the ballot box anymore.

[Icemage]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I think the problem there is defining gays as a minority. its not an ethnicity or a religion. You can't choose ethnicity, but sexuality is only similar to religion in that it can be chosen and even changed. The main concern seems to be the potential for abuse.

The 14th Amendment doesn't deal in definitions like "minority". *I* used the term, and unless you'd care to argue that homosexuals somehow manage to be more numerous than heterosexuals, calling them collectively a "minority" is entirely accurate.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you're going to pontificate, at least try to keep up with the required reading, BBQ.


Icemage

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Today's ruling is a violation of state and voter rights any way you look at it.

No, it isn't. As has been noted, Federal law almost always trumps state. Constitution always wins. If your law is unconstitutional, you lose. If same-sex marriage is protected by the constitution, then laws against it are invalid, no matter how much public support you have. In the same way that state constitutions that declare that you must believe in Almighty God in order to be a public servant are invalid. In the same way that state laws segregating the races are invalid. And in the same way that the first amendment overrules state laws such as, oh, the anti-video gaming legislation you agree is invalid under the US Constitution.

Bonus points for using the land based map for no other reason than to give a disproportionate view of the votes.

You can't choose ethnicity, but sexuality is only similar to religion in that it can be chosen and even changed.

So you're afraid yer gonna turn inta wonna dem gays, BBQ?

Really, you do realize that there has been scientific proof that genetics can affect and alter sexuality, right? As in, it's a natural and ingrained part of your being. This has been demonstrated through genetic manipulation, not to mention hundreds of species demonstrating homosexual behavior.

You no more choose your sexuality than you choose the color of your hair. Sure, you can hide your natural color, you can lie about it, you can be unsure what it is (Dirty blondes, people with dark hair who aren't sure if it's brown or black), but your hair doesn't fundamentally change without unnatural interference.

Why not argue that homosexuality is a genetic disorder? You're going to be offensive anyway, you might as well choose a type of offensive with some degree of logic. After all, genes naturally seek to reproduce themselves; If they don't, there's something wrong, right?

This theory is of course also flawed. Genes seek to reproduce themselves in ways larger than the individual's input; this is why people without children will gladly fight and die for their country, and why many animals including humans have developed 'family' and 'society' units of some type. The idea being that even if you aren't reproducing your own genes, you're still inclined to maintain genetic lines you have an attachment to. There's also the theory that homosexuality is a natural reaction to overpopulation, that species have an interest in keeping themselves from overgrowing. But at least it's less completely and laughably wrong than saying gay people choose to be socially maligned and abused.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you're going to pontificate, at least try to keep up with the required reading, BBQ.

We can have a mature debate about this or you can be an ass. Either is fine with me, but you're only proving why we shouldn't have political topics here by engaging in condescending. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in you for stooping that low.

I'm well aware of the amendment. My problem is, essentially, that they violated that amendment to uphold it.

I think the problem with Proposition 8 was that it got on the ballot at all. But the cat's out of the bag, people got to have a say. I'm not saying Proposition 8 should stick, I don't think it should. I don't think its right, but I don't ever enjoy seeing the voice of voters denied in any way, shape of form. A vote is your voice and when that's denied of you - right or wrong - I can't help but be extremely offended.

I mean, you do value voting, right? I'm not really eager to let federal judges get away with some shit "just this once" because it was for a good reason, because federal judges will find a reason to do it again if there's a precedent for it. Next time, there might not be a good reason

Really, you do realize that there has been scientific proof that genetics can affect and alter sexuality, right? As in, it's a natural and ingrained part of your being. This has been demonstrated through genetic manipulation, not to mention hundreds of species demonstrating homosexual behavior.

I'm still more inclined to believe how one socializes determines who they become more than their genes do.

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

My problem is, essentially, that they violated that amendment to uphold it.

...what?

BBQ, you do understand how the law works, right?

First, you have the US constitution. It's called the Law of the Land for a reason. It is the highest law, applicable to all jurisdictions in the United States of America. In the amendments to the Constitution, there are a number of other laws, mostly concerning civil rights. The only one of these to take away a right was the one enacting Prohibition; which was as we all know reamended out of existence relatively quickly.

Second, you have Federal Law. This handles some issues, and takes precedent over state law. However, Federal Law is effected by the 10th Amendment, which says that some matters are up to state law.

Third, you have State Constitutions. These say how that individual state will be run, what laws it can make.

Fourth, you have state laws.

Working down, you also typically have town charters and ordinances, but those aren't worth getting into for this.

Even at the bottom, the weakest city ordinance can be taken to the Supreme Court and found unconstitutional. Say that a city has a problem with WBC members picketing funerals. So they make a law saying that you can't protest near a funeral or cemetery. The WBC takes this to court, and indeed it's found to violate the first amendment. This is a use for something most people consider negative, but it is still protected speech.

This was a case where a law was tried against both the state constitution, and failed. In response to this, the state's constitution was amended to allow such a law; however, this amendment was challenged under the US constitution. This judge found that the law was in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, and therefore was invalid.

Again, BBQ, you cannot vote away a constitutionally protected right. You can ask if we value voting; we can turn that right around and ask Hey, BBQ, do you not care about the bill of rights? And yes, the constitution trumps any vote.

There is only one exception. Our founding fathers realized that the needs of the country would change. If we dislike the constitution, we can amend it. If the people really want to pass a law firmly, there is a process for amendments. It takes broad support precisely because it could be easily abused.

---------- Post added at 06:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 AM ----------

NB: Just realized that if the Supreme Court does uphold this ruling, it would basically mean that the supporters of Prop 8 were responsible for getting marriage legally recognized throughout the USA. That would be some sweet irony.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

You can't choose ethnicity, but sexuality is only similar to religion in that it can be chosen and even changed.

Are we going to pray away the gay now?

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I'm still more inclined to believe how one socializes determines who they become more than their genes do.

Incline all you like, BBQ. That doesn't change fact.

[Murphie]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

So, the stupidity in this thread comes from the usual suspects, I see.

The majority doesn't get to determine the rights of the minority. Thanks, US Constitution!

"But they can totally marry whomever they want! Of the opposite gender of course, so you know, not someone they love, but hey, equal rights!" Not so much.

If someone can present to me an argument against gay marriage that doesn't have a basis in religion, bigotry, or just plain ignorance, then I'll be honestly surprised. I haven't been before, and I don't anticipate such a surprise anytime in the future.

[Ziero]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

marriage is a sacred union

...no it's not, not in this country and not in this current world. When I can get married in my car while going through a drive through by a guy dressed like Elvis and then change my mind days later...whatever was sacred about the process is suddenly left battered, beaten and crying on the floor hiding in a corner.

On top of that, Marriage pre-dates the religions which people consider it sacred to today. There's also the fact that even within those religions, there have been long stretches of history where Marriage was *literally* a business deal between families. "I'll give you three goats, an acre of land and a trunk full of fabrics if you give my son your daughter" was a common, accepted and often enforced practice in many civilizations. In many others, families of the bride would often give gifts to families of the groom for marrying their daughter. And of course there's the always enjoyable arranged marriage, where you're told you'll be marrying someone you don't know whether you want to or not. This was even more fun when the girl was literally a child at the time of the decision while the man was...well, a man.

The "sacredness" of marriage is as romanticized as the notion that marriages were traditionally based on the love between a man and a woman. A lot of people claim it, but only when it suits them.

NB: Just realized that if the Supreme Court does uphold this ruling, it would basically mean that the supporters of Prop 8 were responsible for getting marriage legally recognized throughout the USA. That would be some sweet irony.

....that would be irony of epic proportions. It just goes to show that sometimes the more you fight against something, the worse you'll make it for yourself.