Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

[Caspian]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Why do you hope the thread will die? People clearly find the topic worth discussing. I mean, most people seem to be on the same page, but hey, we, as the majority shouldn't silence the minority who want to do and say things we disagree with.

SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

People arguing all day makes me cry.

[Feba]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Because it appears the majority of voting Americans don't believe the state should recognize same-sex marriages.

Actually no. I was speaking for both sides: A "Defense of Marriage" amendment couldn't pass now; it just doesn't have the support now that it might've had, say, ten or twenty years ago. Likewise, a same-sex marriage amendment couldn't pass because it's not yet got the broad support it would need. Remember constitutional amendments take 2/3rds of the states, on top of the congress. That or a constitutional convention, which nobody wants to get into.

WTF? It is a federal judge's job to critique the rationality of a popularly voted amendment to a state constitution?

Yes. Because sometimes, taking away rights is justified. For example, the inability to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. It is a limitation on free speech, no doubt our most important right. But it serves a very reasonable goal in protecting the public. A more 'real world' example of people's rights being taken away would be the concentration camps that the US set up for ethnic Japanese during WWII. In retrospect, it was a mistake, but it was justified at the time by the potential threat they could pose. It is in fact part of the judge's job to point out his reasoning in a case; and finding for or against a human rights law demands to know whether that law serves a valid purpose.

and which federal law, exactly, guarantees marriage rights across the Union?

Equal protection clause.

14th Amendment

If you people are not willing to take the time to read other posts or read at least one news article on the subject, please leave.

Basically it works like this:

* Both Federal and State government recognize marriages for certain purposes.
* The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all citizens of the US be subject to the same privileges and rights.
* Homosexuals are citizens of the US.
∴ Governments subject to the US Constitution are not allowed to recognize marriages for heterosexuals while banning homosexuals.

Is this a correct ruling? Maybe, maybe not. But it's certainly a perfectly legal one, and it's certainly exactly how the constitution was intended to function. You people have heard the phrase "checks and balances" right? The judicial branch overturning unconstitutional laws is exactly part of that.

[Ziero]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

What kind of sexual relationships my neighbor has is none of my damn business and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. The nature of their marriage or relationship is none of my business until they try to impose something on me and my lifestyle. That or they disrupt the lives of their neighbors in some glaringly obvious way.

Except the only ones having anything imposed on them by this law would be gays. Straight people will go on living exactly the same as they've always been, but gay people are told they can't do stuff simply because they're gay.

That's exactly what I just said. Two groups that have conflicting ideals both have the right to maintain their ideals, but where is the line drawn? Who looses ground? Who really has the right to infringe upon another groups rights? I am not saying that either group does, but that is the ongoing arguement.

The line is draw when one of those groups starts having their rights taken away from them by laws created by the government simply because the group is different from other people. If gay marriage is legal, it has absolutely no effect on straight people, you still have your opinions and your ideals and can still spout them anywhere and everywhere you want, it's just that gay people will be granted the same exact rights as you. Conversely if gay marriage was made illegal, straight people would still have their opinions and ideals and could spout them anywhere and everywhere they wanted, it's just that gay people would have less rights simply because they are different.

If a state law was made that suddenly outlawed Muslim marriages, that law would be overturned so fast it would make your head spin. Despite one's religion being a choice (and it is a choice) it still marks a very clear sub-group of people, and that sub-group of people is guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the Constitution to have the same legal rights and receive the same legal treatment as every other American. Outlawing gay marriage specifically and intentionally singles out a specific sub-group of people and tells them "No, you can not have the same rights as everyone else" which is completely illegal in accordance to the highest laws of our country.

The biggest problem here comes from the people who swear up and down that marriage is somehow, in some way shape or form, a solely religious matter. But it's not, marriage, as an establishment, was created long before actually written history was created, with the first actual Laws regarding marriage dating back to 1790 BC. Marriage, as a concept, has changed many times through-out history. It's not as "sacred" a union as people seem to claim when used against gay marriage because it's origins are anything but religious because people never seemed to have problems changing it before.

Those issues are extremely relevant, though, as they feature groups that refuse to compromise They are polarizing, divisive issues that people can't agree on and likely never will. We can only have two sides and the other side is always wrong, ignorant and a bigot if they don't agree with us? That's what they'd like to sell me.

When one side is trying to take away rights from the other side, while the other side just wants the same rights, then it's easy to see which one is in the wrong.

If that's the game you wish to participate in, you're welcome to that shallow world view where its easy to find a bad guy, but to me things just aren't so black and white. There is always a larger agenda going on with either side that doesn't exactly stop with the simple ideals they project to the masses.

What's the larger agenda for Pro-gay marriage?

[Neverslip]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Very glad this was overturned. This thread has had some very interesting twists and turns. I learned alot about the thought process of ignorance, hate, and oppression. As much as I thank all the people with the very logical arguments as to why this law should not be upheld; I also thank the pro-prop8'ers for lifting the veil so that I might take a quick glimpse at exactly how ignorance and bigotry works in the human brain. It was a much more foreign thought process to me before.

There is no room in a society progressing forward with civility to base laws out of discrimination. However, H8er's will H8... it is their right and I wouldn't take that away from them either.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I learned alot about the thought process of ignorance, hate, and oppression.

Really? I'm still deeply confused.

[Murphie]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Except the only ones having anything imposed on them by this law would be gays. Straight people will go on living exactly the same as they've always been, but gay people are told they can't do stuff simply because they're gay.

For real. I saw all the "but mah rights" comments yesterday and wanted to comment but I was on my phone, and damn do I not like to type a lot on that thing. As Icemage so astutely pointed out, no one but gay people (and in this case, specifically gay people in California) are having their rights imposed upon. Separate but equal doesn't work, folks. We proved it with Loving v. Virginia, and I certainly hope it will be proven again, with regard to this issue.

If gay people start getting married, it doesn't make your marriage any less special. You're not part of a unique group, you're just the majority. If we allowed the majority to decide everything for everyone, then we'd live in a pretty shitty place, and I for one am sincerely glad we don't (not that it can't be shitty from time to time, but srsly).

What's the larger agenda for Pro-gay marriage?

I would also love to see the ridiculous answer to this one.

Over at Penny Arcade, someone there used this simple (and perhaps silly), but apt analogy:

"In our country, two wolves and a sheep don't vote on what's for dinner." Because it's not fucking fair, folks. I see people all over the place saying "The judge is ignoring the will of the majority. If gay people want gay marriage, they have to achieve a majority and vote on it!" Yeah, no. That's not how things work here. The judicial branch is well within their rights to say "Hey, you know that law you guys passed? Yeah, it's actually unjust. For real, guys."

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------

Really? I'm still deeply confused.

Basically, there is no process that doesn't involve religion, ignorance, or bigotry. As I said in my first post in the thread. No one is able to provide a reason to deny gay people marriage that doesn't include one of those. Because there is no logic to it.

[Tiponya]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

You're not part of a unique group, you're just the majority. If we allowed the majority to decide everything for everyone, then we'd live in a pretty shitty place, and I for one am sincerely glad we don't (not that it can't be shitty from time to time, but srsly).

Totally agree. It's not a bed of roses now, but I don't want to imagine what kind of FAIL we would live in if it were otherwise.

[hexx]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

My question is this: if civil unions are allowed, and are the legal equivalent of marriages, why the big stink about same sex unions being called marriages?

I've talked to a few gay friends that tell me all they really care about is the legal benefits that come with said union, i.e. health benefits, life decisions when it comes to long term care, child custody, and property distribution. They feel like some pro-gay marriage advocates seem to just want to stick it to the church by getting a homosexual civil union to be called a "marriage". Is this true in any way?

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Hexx, the biggest difference is that, if you get married in your state and move/travel to another state or country, your marriage will accepted as legally binding. This is not the case with civil unions, not all states/countries will recognize that union since they do not accept civil unions themselves. They also do not benefit from all the federal assistance for marriage. The state is only allowed to grant state rights.

[Mhurron]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

My question is this: if civil unions are allowed, and are the legal equivalent of marriages

They aren't legally equivalent, and as I had said, not all states allow same-sex civil unions either.

[hexx]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

They aren't legally equivalent, and as I had said, not all states allow same-sex civil unions either.

See that's what I was arguing. They're called different things because they ARE different. The argument I laugh at the most is the "perserve the sanctity of marriage" crap. If marriage was so sacrosanct, why the hell is the divorce rate the highest its ever been? Thanks for clearing that one up Mhurron, TGM ^^

[Aksannyi]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Okay, I'm not gay, but if I were and my only option were to get "civilly unified" instead of "married," I'd be a little annoyed.

"Hi, Mom, I'm just calling to let you know that Jane asked me to civilly unite with her!" -.- Sounds retarded. I couldn't call her my wife, just my partner (I think that's the term) and well, partner can mean a lot of things. But oh, can't call her a spouse, because that would intrude on what other people's views of us committing our entire lives to each other is just because we're same sex.

That's just retarded. I don't really know a better way to explain it, but if you're going strictly off the terminology, it is insulting in a way to be told that you can't call your wife a wife, or your husband a husband, because the courts don't see you as married, even though you've pledged your lives to each other the same as any hetero couple would. I can definitely see why gay people are against being told they can't marry.

[Vyuru]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I dunno, my take on it:

I am for and against gay marriage, purely based on language. Marriage to me means that it is a man and a woman getting married. IMO it is love that makes the union holy, if a man and another man, or 2x women love each other and wish to be married, then why would their union not be holy or sacred? However language is a changing dynamic, much like a fluid. If it is time that marriage means something else, just like the word 'gay' used to, then it is time for a change. I'd just be happier if a different word was used was all.

One thing that I am very set on is that if gay couples want to get married they should be able to do so, with all the rights, benefits, privileges, and whatever else is afforded to straight married couples. Regardless of how I feel about gay people, it is complete and utter BS to not give them the ability to get married. Who are we to say who can and cannot be married?

[Murphie]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

Well, apparently you, since you don't want them to use the word married for some completely vague and emotional reason.

[Ziero]

Re: Federal Judge finds against Prop 8, Logic wins

I learned alot about the thought process of ignorance, hate, and oppression.

Honestly, I wouldn't say anyone in this thread displayed any real signs of ignorance hate or oppression. Maybe some confusion (in regards to the order and meaning of the constitution) and certainly some uncomfortable-ness, which is understandable. I mean, tolerance doesn't mean you have to like something, just that you tolerate it. And there's plenty of people who "tolerate" the concept of gay marriage, they just don't "like" it. Which is perfectly within their rights to do.

Well, apparently you, since you don't want them to use the word married for some completely vague and emotional reason.

Again, it's more of uncomfortableness with the concept then an actual desire to fight against it. Vyuru even said if it was time for the meaning of the word "marriage" to change then so be it. They might not "like" the concept, but they'll accept it, which seems pretty fair to me. Vyuru's comments show they're willing to accept change, and even gay marriage, despite whatever uncomfortable feelings they have about it. I mean, what more can you really ask for other then people willing to accept change for the betterment of all citizens despite their personal misgivings?