a bit apprehensive to post this

mikepegg44

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns ... zF3ncUS1WI

let's keep the conversation civil. This is an FYI mostly. If you want to argue and banter insults at each other please start a different thread. you can entitle it "too immature to have a rational discussion on personal vs government vs state's rights"

Monster Rain

It'll be interesting to see if this ruling is appealed. I don't think gay marriage should be illegal anywhere. I'm generally in favor of states' rights, but not when it comes at the expense of civil rights.

fife

I still don't understand how a vote can take place on something that has to do with equal rights.

speaking as a Canadian who has had same sex marriage legal for many years, i hope Americans follows suit.

keeponrockin

Monster Rain wrote:

It'll be interesting to see if this ruling is appealed. I don't think gay marriage should be illegal anywhere. I'm generally in favor of states' rights, but not when it comes at the expense of civil rights.

This. That and I haven't heard a single logical argument AGAINST gay marriage.

mikepegg44

Monster Rain wrote:

It'll be interesting to see if this ruling is appealed. I don't think gay marriage should be illegal anywhere. I'm generally in favor of states' rights, but not when it comes at the expense of civil rights.

I think the judge's ruling said it best:
"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted"

JonnyPistachio

Monster Rain wrote:

It'll be interesting to see if this ruling is appealed. I don't think gay marriage should be illegal anywhere. I'm generally in favor of states' rights, but not when it comes at the expense of civil rights.

I agree.
Why not just let it go already? Isnt it obvious that its going to be legal everywhere one day? As long as there are gay people, they will fight for this until they get it. And its becoming easier for gays to comfortable with people knowing they're gay, so they will come out in full force in the future.

this was interesting:
"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states."

fife

just to quote something that was also written in teh article.

"The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his lower-court decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man. Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired.

Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside Walker's ruling on constitutional grounds and because of the judge's personal life. It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision. "

that last line just pisses me off.

cincybearcat

Good deal. States rights should not overrule civil rights.

Plus, it will be good to get this behind us so people actually focus on issues that are actually debateable.

gimmesometruth27

i don't think that the land of the free should be passing laws that make a certain group of people unequal in the eyes of the law than the other groups of people.

Go Beavers

I wonder how much of Romney's money funded the push for Prop 8? Woot?

puremagic

I would really like to see how much local, State and Federal money has been spent on the legal challenge of the word ‘marriage’.

I'd like to know if Church funds donated for the legal defense of marriage is tax deductible as marriages are a State function and does necessarily have to be performed in a church or by a priest or church official.

WaveRyder

Monster Rain wrote:

It'll be interesting to see if this ruling is appealed. I don't think gay marriage should be illegal anywhere. I'm generally in favor of states' rights, but not when it comes at the expense of civil rights.

this^

i hope courts start ruling with consistency and understand that just because a majority think something is ok, doesnt make it Ok.

We could apply the same standard to property rights and we wouldnt have things like smoking bans.

polaris_x

ultimately in canada ... gay marriage was made legal NOT because of some debate or vote ... it was made legal because if it wasn't - it would have violated our Canadian Charter of Rights ...

WaveRyder

The US Constitution doesnt define marriage and state constitutions dont either. This idea that gays shouldnt marry is an overreach by moral demogogues. Gay marriage is fine with me. It has nothing to do with me. Like Ron Paul says, gay marriage might not live up to my standard, but who am i to tell you what standard to live by. I certainly wouldnt want you forcing me to live by your standard.

I think the issue gets cloudy when you start talking about tax breaks for married couples and stuff. I personally dont think married couples of any sex should get tax breaks simply for tieing the knot anymore.

If you look back at why the tax breaks were offered in the first place, it has to do with producing tomorrow's tax payer.
So, we should give tax breaks for raising kids, not for being married. And yes, give those tax breaks to gay couples raising kids, too!

blueandwhite

If I understand the judgement correctly,the Appeals Court held that Proposition 8 violated the equality rights of a specific group of American citizens (gays and lesbians) by constructing a definition of the word "marriage" that unfairly limited the rights of the aforementioned group. The court's statement that Proposition 8 "served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California." really suggests the possibility that this could redefine marriage for all of the US if it eventually reaches the Supreme Court.

Still, as a Canadian I'm not that clear on how equality rights are defined under your constitution. In Canada, our Charter of Rights clearly defines what constitutes a violation of a person's equality rights. Is there a similar provision in the US Constitution or are equality rights defined by case law? If it's the latter, does anybody have the test which the courts apply to determine whether a person's right to equality has been violated? I'm really curious as to how this might play out in the higher courts.

brianlux

mikepegg44 wrote:

let's keep the conversation civil. This is an FYI mostly. If you want to argue and banter insults at each other please start a different thread. you can entitle it "too immature to have a rational discussion on personal vs government vs state's rights"

So far, so good, Mike!

If it weren't for that fact that I have to get back to work, I'd invite you all to the Lounge for a drink! Nice to see some civility here on the train. Catch you all later.

DriftingByTheStorm

blueandwhite wrote:

If I understand the judgement correctly,the Appeals Court held that Proposition 8 violated the equality rights of a specific group of American citizens (gays and lesbians) by constructing a definition of the word "marriage" that unfairly limited the rights of the aforementioned group. The court's statement that Proposition 8 "served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California." really suggests the possibility that this could redefine marriage for all of the US if it eventually reaches the Supreme Court.

Still, as a Canadian I'm not that clear on how equality rights are defined under your constitution. In Canada, our Charter of Rights clearly defines what constitutes a violation of a person's equality rights. Is there a similar provision in the US Constitution or are equality rights defined by case law? If it's the latter, does anybody have the test which the courts apply to determine whether a person's right to equality has been violated? I'm really curious as to how this might play out in the higher courts.

the only thing in the US Constitution that even mentions "equality" is the 14th Amendment, Section 1, which puts the following limitations on state power:

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.

That would be the sum total of direct from the horses mouth (Supreme Law of the Land) opining on gay marriage rights. From there, you start inferring and legalizing.

There is some interesting parallel here between the current ruling and the actual passage of the 14th Amendment itself, as follows:

First This Happened:
Dred Scott Decision ----> Supreme Court ruled that Blacks were not Citizens
-- BUT The "Free States" Had Allowed Them Citizenship
OR
Proposition 8 - made a rule saying "Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
-- BUT The State of California Had Allowed Them Marriage (4 months prior when the State Supreme Court struck down two previous ruling that had for ages previously limited marriage to man and woman)

Then This Happened:
14th Amendment ----Overturns----> Dred Scott Decision by Supreme Court
OR
US Circuit Court ---- Overturns ----> Proposition 8 - Popular Ballot

Its an odd yet fitting parallel. A replication for gays in California what it was for former African slaves in all of America by almost the same legal back and forths.

1. Old racist\bigoted long held ruling on the books
a. black are not citizens (in fact, were slaves)
b. marriage - man & woman (gays denied equal legal standing under law)

2. Renegade State Overturns Bigoted Ruling
a. Free States allowed black citizenship
b. California Supreme Court briefly upheld gay marriage rights

3. Some sort of Rescinding or Reversal of #2
a. US Supreme Court - Dred Scott Decision - Blacks Not Citizens
b. Proposition 8 - No Gay Marriage

4. Constitutionality of #3 Called In To Question & Reversed
a. Constitutional Amendment 14
b. US Circuit Court Strikes Down Prop. 8

I dunno.
Interesting how history SORT OF repeats itself
?

blueandwhite

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I dunno.
Interesting how history SORT OF repeats itself
?

Thanks for posting that. It's interesting to note that with the Dred Scott case it was the Court that overturned the legislative will of the Free States, whereas in this case it's the California Court of Appeals overturning a legislative proposition. If the Circuit Court upholds this judgement I wonder if it would open the possibility of a true Equal Rights Amendment.

Whether the resolution comes through the judiciary or the legislature, hopefully the final outcome is a positive one.

DriftingByTheStorm

blueandwhite wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I dunno.
Interesting how history SORT OF repeats itself
?

Thanks for posting that. It's interesting to note that with the Dred Scott case it was the Court that overturned the legislative will of the Free States, whereas in this case it's the California Court of Appeals overturning a legislative proposition. If the Circuit Court upholds this judgement I wonder if it would open the possibility of a true Equal Rights Amendment.

Whether the resolution comes through the judiciary or the legislature, hopefully the final outcome is a positive one.

Yes.
That was part of what i found "interesting", because it shows there are several paths both to and from these differing states of equality.

Just to clarify though (i think you said you were from Canada), the 9th Circuit Court is a Federal court.
look at the map for 9 on the right ... these are broad districts that hear the appellate cases for all federal district\trial courts in their geographic area. They are the intermediary step between the trial court and the supreme court.

In my opinion the Appeals Court is used as a tool by the establishment to deny direct access of appeal to the Supreme Court ... but I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have a deep understanding of our legal system.

Anywho...

Prince Of Dorkness

I've been legally married almost 4 years and with my husband for 20.

Kim Kardashian and Britney spears have been married for two years total to four different men.

Who is more of a threat to marriage?

ONCE DEVIDED

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I've been legally married almost 4 years and with my husband for 20.

Kim Kardashian and Britney spears have been married for two years total to four different men.

Who is more of a threat to marriage?

Exactly
People treating marriage as something to promote their careers is bad
Meanwhile two people who love each other are barred because they are of the same sex