Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[DanP]

That is my point though. There is no legal issue. There would need to be a victim and the victim would need to bring suit. A car can not bring suit, not for any legal reason but simply as a fact of reality.

Irrelevant. We can recognize the right of a man to marry a car without anthropomorphizing the car itself and recognize it the the right to bring a suit. It;s a simple issue of changing the definition of marriage. And this requires legal changes.

We do not cater to the rights of the car here, we cater to the right of the variant human who believes it will make him happy to marry a car.

From a legal point of view, what you said happened before. But back-wise. It happened with women. The law did not recognized them the right to inheritance, right to bring suits and many other rights. It was irrelevant that the women was physically able to exercise those rights in the eventuality they would be granted. From the point of *view of law*, there was no major difference between a car and women. Fortunately, law changed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Corporations are non-human legal entities that can enter into contracts, be sued, etc.
They were invented because the same view existed in the middle ages - that only a person could make a contract.

They are a legal fiction representing the interests of people.

Irrelevant. We can recognize the right of a man to marry a car without anthropomorphizing the car itself and recognize it the the right to bring a suit. It;s a simple issue of changing the definition of marriage. And this requires legal changes.

We do not cater to the rights of the car here, we cater to the right of the variant human who believes it will make him happy to marry a car.

From a legal point of view, what you said happened before. But back-wise. It happened with women. The law did not recognized them the right to inheritance, right to bring suits and many other rights. It was irrelevant that the women was physically able to exercise those rights in the eventuality they would be granted. From the point of *view of law*, there was no major difference between a car and women. Fortunately, law changed.

And as I already pointed out that "variant human" can "marry" their car if they wish. No legal issues will arise.

A car can theoretically bring legal action. The point is that it doesn't. When you find Kitt from Knight Rider we can discuss this again.

 

[DanP]

They are a legal fiction representing the interests of people.

So we can create other legal fictions to allow a human to marry a robot or a car.

And as I already pointed out that "variant human" can "marry" their car if they wish. No legal issues will arise.

You are mistaken. A human cannot marry at current time a car. The law does not recognize such a marriage. Gay ppl can "marry" in California even now. Nothing to stop them. But they don't want to "marry" they want to **marry**.

A car can theoretically bring legal action. The point is that it doesn't. When you find Kitt from Knight Rider we can discuss this again.

Irrelevant. You insist on anthropomorphizing a car. But it's not required. All that is required are legal changes regarding marriage dealing with sentient-non sentient unions.

 

[Office_Shredder]

A person can't enter into any kind of contract with a car. Why are we singling out marriage here? The same applies for other proposed instances: you can't enter into a contract with a dog, or a 12 year old kid (certainly not one that would be binding)

 

[turbo]

C'mon Dan! Let's confine this to basic human rights. The right-wingers in my state fought same-sex marriages by dragging out all kinds of "deviant" behavior that would "ruin our society" if gay marriage was allowed, including child molestation. Ironic, in the sense that the biggest in-state supporter of the repeal movement was the Roman Catholic Church, which denied and covered up case after case of child molestation by their clergymen for decades.

Consider the rights of human adults and leave it at that. Is that too much to ask? It's off-topic to stray far from that standard, IMO.

 

[DanP]

C'mon Dan! Let's confine this to basic human rights. The right-wingers in my state fought same-sex marriages by dragging out all kinds of "deviant" behavior that would "ruin our society" if gay marriage was allowed, including child molestation. Ironic, in the sense that the biggest in-state supporter of the repeal movement was the Roman Catholic Church, which denied and covered up case after case of child molestation by their clergymen for decades.

Oh, don't even get me started with the church

Consider the rights of human adults and leave it at that. Is that too much to ask? It's off-topic to stray far from that standard, IMO.

Sure Turbo. You are right.

 

[turbo]

Sure Turbo. You are right.

Thanks, Dan. This cause is near to my heart because it has the potential for positively impacting the lives of some people that I care for.

 

[mheslep]

I'd like the see the government get completely out of the marriage business. Let government issue partnership agreements that take into account tax qualifications and property, which it already does, and no more. Let government issued 'marriage' certificates cease to exist. Let the traditional instruments of society like the church handle marriage along with the societal and moral promises that marriage traditionally entails. I believe most of this conflict has come about from an ever increasing and misplaced reliance on government to sanction moral couplings between people.

 

[Char. Limit]

Just a question, is it too early to have accurate statistics on the gay divorce rate? Because based on intuition, I think it would be lower than the straight divorce rate, but I can't confirm it.

 

[DanP]

Let the traditional instruments of society like the church handle marriage along with the societal and moral promises that marriage traditionally entails. I believe most of this conflict has come about from an ever increasing and misplaced reliance on government to sanction moral couplings between people.

You can't do that. How would you marry humans which would never step into a church because they have no religious believes, or couples which the church would never marry, like the gay couples we talk about in this thread ?

We must recognize the right to marry to gay and atheists and to all other ppl which the church won't marry, or they don't want to have anything in common with the church.

 

[vela]

You can't do that. How would you marry humans which would never step into a church because they have no religious believes, or couples which the church would never marry, like the gay couples we talk about in this thread ?

mheslep didn't say only churches can take care of marrying individuals but that marriage can be handled by non-governmental institutions, a church being one example.

 

[mheslep]

You can't do that. How would you marry humans which would never step into a church because they have no religious believes, or couples which the church would never marry, like the gay couples we talk about in this thread ?

We must recognize the right to marry to gay and atheists and to all other ppl which the church won't marry, or they don't want to have anything in common with the church.

We <> the government. I said societal institutions like the church. What does it mean to have a Judge marry a couple? Why not a plumber?

All the government really need add is a legal sanction saying the partners have group tax recognition and group property rights - which civil partnerships already do - for atheists and everyone else. So why does the government ever need to utter the word 'marriage'? What, beyond legal tax and property rights, do you imagine the government confers in a marriage ceremony?

 

[DanP]

mheslep didn't say only churches can take care of marrying individuals but that marriage can be handled by non-governmental institutions, a church being one example.

Church is the only important "traditional" institution who married ppl (ship captains and likes not included) was church. To create new entities to deal with marriage would be unpractical.

The institutions we have are perfectly able to marry ppl. We need nothing else.

 

[DanP]

What, beyond legal tax and property rights, do you imagine the government confers in a marriage ceremony?

What, beyond empty words, do you think the a societal institution like the church confers in a marriage ceremony ? If the state needs to sanction what the church does, (tax, property reasons, whatever) why don't let the state handle it and eliminate superfluous involvement of societal institutions ?

Its efficient as it is.

 

[turbo]

mheslep didn't say only churches can take care of marrying individuals but that marriage can be handled by non-governmental institutions, a church being one example.

In the US, a church can perform the ceremony, but you are not "married" until the church officials file the paperwork with the civil authorities. My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace ~35 years ago. The JOP was a friend of ours, and we both had our own best friends as best man and maid of honor. The JOP wore a nice matching skirt and jacket. The rest of us were in jeans and T-shirts, and we drank our celebratory cheap champagne out of a variety of mismatched glasses and cups.

It has been traditional for governmentally-sanctioned officials at all levels to be responsible for performing weddings. I don't think we should roll that tradition back or weaken it.

 

[DanP]

My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace ~35 years ago. The JOP was a friend of ours, and we both had our own best friends as best man and maid of honor. The JOP wore a nice matching skirt and jacket. The rest of us were in jeans and T-shirts, and we drank our celebratory cheap champagne out of a variety of mismatched glasses and cups.

And your marriage is a great story of "happily ever after", Turbo. It's in the partners IMO, not in the "ceremony" ,old traditions and religious mystique.

 

[turbo]

And your marriage is a great story of "happily ever after", Turbo. It's in the partners IMO, not in the "ceremony" ,old traditions and religious mystique.

I feel blessed (though not in any mystical sense). When we married, my wife and I had nothing. She had lost her job at the veneer mill and was behind on her rent, and I was in the process of losing my job as that mill closed down. We got square on the rent and started chasing jobs - me in construction and her in textiles/shoe production - and we got by just fine. We couldn't have afforded to rent a church, hire a priest, etc, even if we were so inclined (we weren't). Our families were quite miffed that we got married in our apartment without giving them a chance to do something for us, so they put on a pot-luck "reception" for us in the hall over the fire-station (traditionally rent-free for town residents - just leave the place clean). I wouldn't change a thing!

 

[vela]

In the US, a church can perform the ceremony, but you are not "married" until the church officials file the paperwork with the civil authorities. My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace ~35 years ago. The JOP was a friend of ours, and we both had our own best friends as best man and maid of honor. The JOP wore a nice matching skirt and jacket. The rest of us were in jeans and T-shirts, and we drank our celebratory cheap champagne out of a variety of mismatched glasses and cups.

It has been traditional for governmentally-sanctioned officials at all levels to be responsible for performing weddings. I don't think we should roll that tradition back or weaken it.

Why should the government have to sanction a marriage?

It's one thing if the government keeps track of marriages for practical purposes. Having an official registry of who's married would be useful should questions of inheritance, next of kin, visitation, etc. arise. So if two individuals get married, they may wish to file the necessary paperwork with the state so there is some official record of their marriage. That's a far cry from having the government telling individuals that they can or can not marry until the government says they can.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep didn't say only churches can take care of marrying individuals but that marriage can be handled by non-governmental institutions, a church being one example.

Exactly.

 

[Alfi]

My Wife and I got 'married' to each other by holding hands and stepping over a broom laying on the floor.
It was SO romantic for US. *big grin* - It's been a great twenty+ years so far.
We are agreed that our commitment to each other is no concern of anyone else.
The 'law' ( Canada) says we are married for tax purposes just because we have lived together for some arbitrary length of time.

 

[mheslep]

What, beyond empty words, do you think the a societal institution like the church confers in a marriage ceremony ?

Personally I don't believe the words are empty, but whatever the church (or other like institution) confers need not concern the government. Anyway, what do you believe constitutes a marriage, beyond the legal recognitions already conferred by a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union" ?

If the state needs to sanction what the church does, (tax, property reasons, whatever) why don't let the state handle it and eliminate superfluous involvement of societal institutions ?

I suggest the government sanction nothing regarding marriage done by either a church or Uncle Elmo the elder tribal leader.

 

[mgb_phys]

I suggest the government sanction nothing regarding marriage done by either a church or Uncle Elmo the elder tribal leader.

You mean the government shouldn't recognize church marriages?
I thought they didn't - you still need to register with whatever justice peace/registrar etc your local government requires.

To speed up the process many priests/rabbis/druids/keepers of sacred groves, are also registered to do the government paperwork.

 

[talk2glenn]

To the contrary, it is only when the debate is essentially over that one can argue the existence of a rational basis (either for or against). If the current state of the science is inconclusive, there there is, by definition, no rational basis (against blah).

I think the onus should be on those that wish to deny a right to demonstrate the existence of a well-established scientific position (i.e., saying "this is debatable" is not strong enough grounds to argue for the elimination of a freedom). This argument probably has little legal strength. Legally, I imagine the onus is on the side that wishes to overturn precedent (or somesuch), if such a clear identification can be made.

This would not be the case in a due process civil case.

A rational basis would be, "is the states basis for discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation sufficiently compelling that a rational individual, having no other understanding of the issues, would find it plausible?"

The onus, then, is on the plaintiff to establish that the states reasoning is indeed irrational, if we assume that the state offered into evidence some reasonably compelling basis for the discrimination.

The reason for this is simple. When the state believes that there is a threat to society, it has broad powers to mitigate the potential risk, even when causal certainity hasn't been established. The regulation need only be plausible given the evidence, not certain. Consider a building safety inspector. Would you expect it to be proven to him that a construction was dangerous before he could condemn it? Of course not; the burden is the building to establish it is sound, not the other way around.

 

[Gokul43201]

The reason for this is simple. When the state believes that there is a threat to society, it has broad powers to mitigate the potential risk, even when causal certainity hasn't been established. The regulation need only be plausible given the evidence, not certain.

I guess I find myself on the other end of the liberty vs security spectrum from you on this issue (i.e., closer to Ben Franklin's end of it). I would demand stronger evidence from the side that wishes to deny a liberty than from the side that might potentially weaken security.

On a separate note, most arguments that I have heard from the other side (FRC, and suchtypes - nothing peer reviewed) have not convinced me of their soundness. But I am interested to look at any studies that you are aware of from which one could make a case for a plausible security risk.

 

[mheslep]

You mean the government shouldn't recognize church marriages? [...]

I mean the government should have nothing to do with the social, ceremonial, or moral aspects of marriage, as I know it, in any form no matter what other institution hosts the marriage ceremony. The government would issue some certificate recognizing the legal aspects of partnership that concern the state - taxes, property, etc, - much as it does now - and no more.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The reason for this is simple. When the state believes that there is a threat to society, it has broad powers to mitigate the potential risk, even when causal certainity hasn't been established. The regulation need only be plausible given the evidence, not certain. Consider a building safety inspector. Would you expect it to be proven to him that a construction was dangerous before he could condemn it? Of course not; the burden is the building to establish it is sound, not the other way around.

The inspector has to document what violations are occurring so they can be fixed. He can't just declare something unsafe and leave it up to the architect to figure out what the hell he's talking about

 

[Char. Limit]

In a rather terrible attempt at irony...

Thank God for the removal of the gay marriage ban!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In a rather terrible attempt at irony...

Thank God for the removal of the gay marriage ban!

From what I hear, the prop 8 proponents are worried about this going to the SC because they will probably lose.

I don't know if this is true or not [that they would lose]. Frankly, I would expect just the opposite, but that is based on my understanding of the Constitution and not my understanding of this particular court.

 

[DanP]

I mean the government should have nothing to do with the social, ceremonial, or moral aspects of marriage, as I know it, in any form no matter what other institution hosts the marriage ceremony. The government would issue some certificate recognizing the legal aspects of partnership that concern the state - taxes, property, etc, - much as it does now - and no more.

But the government doesn't have anything to do with the social , ceremonial or moral aspects of the marriage even today.

- The government doesn't tell you you can only marry within your confession. The church does.
- The government doesn't tell you you should only marry ppl of a certain group color. Social group pressure does.
- The government doesn't enforce any kind of ceremonial aspect on you other than registration. You are still free to make whatever ceremony you want for your wedding.
- The government doesn't regulate the moral aspects of the marriage. Moral cannot be legislated.
- The state, for better or worst, is a progressive institution. The church is stuck somewhere in the middle ages.

The government has no involvement in marriage save for registration, and the requirement of some superfluous health tests in some cases. So yes, the state does not interfere in any way whatsoever with your marriage.

If we talk about gay marriage, the opposition is mainly social and religious. Its the church and societal institutions which lobby the state to not allow gay marriages. It's the fear of humans of what's different of them, their fear of out-groups which hits into the gay community. And in the front of the movement against gay marriage is the church and the traditionalists who love a constipated society .

The state recognized gay marriage in many places on Earth way before societal institutions like the church where even willing to speak about it.

 

[ZQrn]

Marriage has nothing to do with love, but rather with certain rights, benefits and privileges gained by the partner. An object cannot inherit an estate. An object can't be granted visitation rights in a hospital. An object doesn't gain health insurance benefits. An object cannot consent to marriage. An object can't sign the papers.

I'm annoyed at myself that I'm drawn into even debating this red herring, but this is two people now insisting that "what about people that want to marry inanimate objects?" is a valid argument.

Then why have same sex marriage? All these things can already be arranged outside of marriage?

Why have marriage anyway, in fact?

Which was my point.

When there was debate some 100 years ago about whether women should have the right to vote, did anyone ever bring up the "What if my cat wants to vote?" argument? Of course not.

Source?

I find it not to unlikely that some people didn't raise that argument at that point.

We're talking about *human* rights here

And even if being 'human' supposedly gives one more rights (the same was said about male once, and the same was said about being white, about being noble, about being wealthy, about owning land et cetera). It still doesn't defeat the argument of first degree relatives or poly-amorous marriages and a whole ot more.

fundamental human rights.

So now the right to marry a single adult you are not related to which means nothing more than some tax advantage and paperwork nowadays is 'a fundamental human right'?

Show me an authority which recognizes this as a fundamental human right. A lot of cultures don't even have a concept of marriage.

Stop the silly, silly talk of people wanting to marry "things" should gay marriage ever become legal.

I'm not even going to dignify this dogmatic argument from assertion with a response.

 

[Jack21222]

Then why have same sex marriage? All these things can already be arranged outside of marriage?

Why have marriage anyway, in fact?

Which was my point.

NO THEY CANNOT. There have been numerous cases where people have TRIED to arrange this outside of marriage, only to have their wills disregarded and hospital visitation rights denied.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

There are a couple stories in that link where hospital visitation was denied, although paperwork was signed.

It still doesn't defeat the argument of first degree relatives or poly-amorous marriages and a whole ot more.

Again, that's completely off topic, and if you keep posting off topic discussions, somebody's going to lock this thread. This thread is specifically about same sex marriage. If you want to start a debate about sibling marriage, start another thread.

The judge in this case DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION to legalize what you mention. This lawsuit was about proposition 8 in California, which singled out same-sex marriage. That's all the judge can rule on.

So now the right to marry a single adult you are not related to which means nothing more than some tax advantage and paperwork nowadays is 'a fundamental human right'?

Show me an authority which recognizes this as a fundamental human right. A lot of cultures don't even have a concept of marriage.

The right to NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST based on gender is a fundamental human right.

I'm not even going to dignify this dogmatic argument from assertion with a response.

That's not dogmatic, that's axiomatic. Most people will agree to that premise axiomatically. Don't blame us if you're one of the few people in the world that can't agree to the axiom "objects don't have rights."

 

[ZQrn]

NO THEY CANNOT. There have been numerous cases where people have TRIED to arrange this outside of marriage, only to have their wills disregarded and hospital visitation rights denied.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html

There are a couple stories in that link where hospital visitation was denied, although paperwork was signed.

There will be cases too if they are married. You said it yourself, it was in the will, the paperwork was signed. This is simply a hospital breaking the law basically, and the hospital would probably do same if they were married and not recognize it as a marriage.

Again, that's completely off topic, and if you keep posting off topic discussions, somebody's going to lock this thread. This thread is specifically about same sex marriage. If you want to start a debate about sibling marriage, start another thread.

Learn to appreciate the idea of logical implication.

Again, my argument is that this has nothing to do with equality, if it was about equality, then those other cases would have to be included. This is perfectly on topic, this is an argument to consistency demonstrating that even though the judge supposedly ruled from equal protection, it's hardly about equal protection.

The judge in this case DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION to legalize what you mention. This lawsuit was about proposition 8 in California, which singled out same-sex marriage. That's all the judge can rule on.

A judge can also rule unconstitutional any law which says that marriage is between two human beings, or 'two x', has it been done?

The right to NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST based on gender is a fundamental human right.

So fundamental that it's 40 years old?

So what you say is that EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY violates fundamental human rights on a daily basis? Discrimination on sexes is real and it happens as we speak. This is human nature, sadly, discrimination based on sexes happens and happens on the subconscious level.

That's not dogmatic, that's axiomatic. Most people will agree to that premise axiomatically. Don't blame us if you're one of the few people in the world that can't agree to the axiom "objects don't have rights."

The difference between an axiom and a dogma is that an axiom is only assumed for sake of argument, whereas a dogma is simply said to be true without any proof, and also expected from others to believe it.

Also, it was a sentence in the imperative mood, not the indicative. It was an ought, not an is.

 

[Jack21222]

There will be cases too if they are married. You said it yourself, it was in the will, the paperwork was signed. This is simply a hospital breaking the law basically, and the hospital would probably do same if they were married and not recognize it as a marriage.

It's up to you to prove that.

A judge can also rule unconstitutional any law which says that marriage is between two human beings, or 'two x', has it been done?

Not in this case, he cannot! A different lawsuit will need to be filed, and so far, it hasn't. Until one is, stop making off topic posts.

So fundamental that it's 40 years old?

Yes

So what you say is that EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY violates fundamental human rights on a daily basis?

Almost certainly, yes.

Discrimination on sexes is real and it happens as we speak. This is human nature, sadly, discrimination based on sexes happens and happens on the subconscious level.

And?

The difference between an axiom and a dogma is that an axiom is only assumed for sake of argument, whereas a dogma is simply said to be true without any proof, and also expected from others to believe it.

Also, it was a sentence in the imperative mood, not the indicative. It was an ought, not an is.

I don't expect you to believe it, I just refuse to debate under any set of rules where your opinion about marrying objects is valid. Most others in the thread agree with me.

 

[ZQrn]

It's up to you to prove that.

It's up to you to prove that the world doesn't blow up into flames if you don't get me some milk and cookies on the double!

I can't prove that no, but it's reasonably likely that some fringe groups will ignore these marriages, hell, it even happened in the Netherlands.

Not in this case, he cannot! A different lawsuit will need to be filed, and so far, it hasn't.

I doubt any judge would even consider if it you filed it for objects or anime characters

Until one is, stop making off topic posts.

Oh the difficulty people have with the concept of 'implication'.

All I'm saying is, 'you can't have only one, you need to have both', I'm in favour of having all of course. I'm even in favour of 'asymetric marriages', that I am married to you, but you not to me, because you refused. You can visit me in the hospital, but not the other way around.

Yes



Almost certainly, yes.

That's a bit of inflation of the term 'fundamental right' then.

So, who should we punish for violating / not providing these fundamental rights?

And?

Well, if you say 'and?' to this, then how can you use it as an argument for same sex marriages.

The only argument I see in favour of them is generally letting people do what they want to do, and this also includes letting them marry to anime characters and what-not, and I'm cool with that.

I just don't feel that same sex marriage has anything to do with 'equality'

I don't expect you to believe it, I just refuse to debate under any set of rules where your opinion about marrying objects is valid. Most others in the thread agree with me.

Or you could truly to convince me with an argument that it's 'silly', of course, we'd need a working definition of that. I think marriage is a 'silly' concept on itself, but hey, if people want to do that, I'm not stopping them, if they want to marry an object then I'm okay with that too.

 

[Jack21222]

hell, it even happened in the Netherlands.

Then there you go! Post your proof.

I doubt any judge would even consider if it you filed it for objects or anime characters
Oh the difficulty people have with the concept of 'implication'.

Start a new thread about it, preferably in the philosophy forum.

All I'm saying is, 'you can't have only one, you need to have both',

Based on what? Certainly you can have one. At least one at a time. In fact, you can ONLY have one at a time in a case like this. Once again, the judge in this case DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to do whatever he wants. He must only rule on the case brought before him.

Or you could truly to convince me with an argument that it's 'silly', of course, we'd need a working definition of that.

No. Once again, that would be off topic. I don't know why you persist in this. If you really want to have a philosophical debate about the rights of inanimate objects, post a thread in the philosophy forum.