a bit apprehensive to post this
mikepegg44
Posts: 3,353
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"
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"
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
speaking as a Canadian who has had same sex marriage legal for many years, i hope Americans follows suit.
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"
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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."
"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.
Plus, it will be good to get this behind us so people actually focus on issues that are actually debateable.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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:
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
?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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...
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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
They rid my state of common law marriages also, out of fear of "gay marriage."
but but but your filthy, successful, loving gay marriage means that my hetero REAL marriage that lasted only four years and was the absolute worst time of my life... it means that it wasn't... something... what was the question again?
Actually, neither.
You are on point about the Circuit Courts being used for tactical political gain. If you look at most of the cases that impact women’s reproductive rights, education, and basic equal or civil rights, you will see that Circuit 8 and Circuit 11 handle most of the rulings in these matters. These are also the two regional areas where Congress has stalled President Obama’s nominations for replacement of judges.
However, for the SAKE OF ARGUMENT, one could say that there already exists a state of equal rights on this issue. Currently, all people have the option of marrying someone from the opposite sex. We're all equal in that regard.
It gets to be a slippery slope when you say that it's not equal simply because you desire to marry someone of the same sex.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
hey pandora, your box is open.
I love a good slippery slope argument. and I would say that it is a slippery slope...but probably in the other way than you (for argument's sake) were meaning. Denying someone a legal marriage due to same sex status now could possibly turn into denying someone a marriage due to age, race, not having a high enough IQ, looking weird, having 6 fingers, giant foreheads, not being able to roll your tongue, or any other number of biological factors...all of these things...don't matter in the long run.
If someone wants to marry a carrot, a piece of celery, and a tutu...what is the problem...how does this hurt anyone who is in a loving, stable marriage? That is the part of the slippery slope here that I worry about. Marry 50 people if you want...if you are all happy and living your life the way you want...then it shouldn't be anyone else's worry what you do with your own life.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
And the crazier, is that the majority of it has been spent by the people against gay marriage. Imaging spending billions of dollars on something that will in no way ever affect your life? Don't these people have hobbies or their own families to worry about?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln