Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[ZQrn]

Then there you go! Post your proof.

http://www.coc.nl/dopage.pl?thema=any&pagina=viewartikel&artikel_id=3340

How good is your Dutch?

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

Again, my point is not that either way 'should' happen, my point is that this has nothing to do with 'equality' and not a matter of constitution. This just means that same sex marriage is getting more acceptable.

The same Dutch reading the same constitution 50 years back wouldn't have allowed it 50 years is not much for something people seem to consider a 'fundamental right'. This has nothing to do with a constitution, or an inalienable right, or 'equality', this is simply cultural shift. And the majority of people who advocate in favour today would advocate against if they were born only 60 years back.

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.

And you seriously believe if some one brought him the case 'Hey, can I marry anime characters?' he would say 'Yes, of course, all there in the equal protection act!'

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.

I am not interested in a debate about the rights of animals, I'm using a reductio ad absurdum.

I'm just pointing out that if this was about equality, then by the same principle people would be able to marry objects or anime characters or their own family and what-not. Since they cannot, this isn't about 'equality', this is about cultural shift. People become more and more accepting towards same sex unions, that's all that happened, this has nothing to do with fundamental rights or 'equality'.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I'm just pointing out that if this was about equality, then by the same principle people would be able to marry objects or anime characters or their own family and what-not.

Married people get benefits. Gays want those benefits. It's unequal if some people can receive those benefits and others cannot.
This is rocket science.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.coc.nl/dopage.pl?thema=any&pagina=viewartikel&artikel_id=3340

How good is your Dutch?

Non-existent, but running it through yahoo's translator gives that the article is about someone being denied communion. Not quite the hospital visitation smoking gun

 

[mgb_phys]

Married people get benefits. Gays want those benefits. It's unequal if some people can receive those benefits and others cannot.
This is rocket science.

Perhaps NOT rocket science?

At least in the UK the government is fairly liberal about interpreting same-sex relationships when it comes to them handing out money. You can't claim your boyfriend is your wife when it comes to paying tax - but they claim he is when it comes to paying you unemployment benefit.

 

[ZQrn]

Married people get benefits. Gays want those benefits. It's unequal if some people can receive those benefits and others cannot.
This is rocket science.

As I pointed out, you can always get those benefits where not related to love by just marrying a random female.

I think the term 'gay marriage' is nonsensical, gays have always been able to get married, and the marriage doesn't ask for your sexual orientation, the point is if two people of same sex can get married or not.

And those benefits can usually be arranged outside of marriage.

And office_shredder: hospital visitation works some what differently in the Netherlands.

 

[dpackard]

As I pointed out, you can always get those benefits where not related to love by just marrying a random female.

I think the term 'gay marriage' is nonsensical, gays have always been able to get married, and the marriage doesn't ask for your sexual orientation, the point is if two people of same sex can get married or not.

And those benefits can usually be arranged outside of marriage.

And office_shredder: hospital visitation works some what differently in the Netherlands.

Regardless of your feelings about state regulated marriage licenses, they exist, and the state cannot discriminate against gay couples by not allowing them to receive said licenses. Why should gay people have to arrange for all the benefits of marriage themselves? Why can't they just get the same certificate as everyone else?

I think "gay marriage" is a perfectly coherent term. You're being a bit nonsensical though.

 

[ZQrn]

Regardless of your feelings about state regulated marriage licenses, they exist, and the state cannot discriminate against gay couples by not allowing them to receive said licenses. Why should gay people have to arrange for all the benefits of marriage themselves? Why can't they just get the same certificate as everyone else?

Arranging for a marriage takes a lot longer than arranging for an 'all the legal consequences of marriage except not calling it 'married''. I think you can do these things on line these days here. Sadly this doesn't apply to stones, but with the press of a button I can indeed make first degree relatives legally equivalent to 'being married' to except the marriage label basically.

I think "gay marriage" is a perfectly coherent term. You're being a bit nonsensical though.

I think gay marriage is a repulsive term that implies that it's only open to gay people. Same sex marriage is far more descriptive and far more neutral. It describes exactly what it is, a marriage between [two] people of the same sex.

Gay marriage is also a terms which implies the human species to be neatly partitioned in 'straight' and 'gay' a thing not true of course, there are enough people that would both utilize other-sex marriage and same-sex marriage.

 

[mheslep]

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

Yes it does. The state requires a marriage to be performed by an authority it recognizes: Judge, minister, etc. The state sets up behavioural rules for gauging who wins what when the marriage ends.

I'm not interested here in the other govt./society/church comparisons, aside from this one at the moment:

- The government doesn't regulate the moral aspects of the marriage. Moral cannot be legislated.

Agreed, and to my mind marriage is largely a moral undertaking so the government should not be involved, at all.

The state recognized gay marriage in many places on Earth

Now here you lay importance again on state recognition of marriage, preceded by point after point about how the state "does not interfere in any way whatsoever" with marriage. Which is it?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I think you can do these things on line these days here. Sadly this doesn't apply to stones, but with the press of a button I can indeed make first degree relatives legally equivalent to 'being married' to except the marriage label basically.

I'm calling this obvious bluff. You cannot grant someone power of attorney in the event of incapacitation online. You cannot write someone into your will online with the click of a button. You're just making this up

And office_shredder: hospital visitation works some what differently in the Netherlands.

There are two possibilities here:
1) Hospital visitation is dependent on your ability to get communion
2) What you posted has nothing to do with hospital visitation rights

 

[Evo]

Agreed, and to my mind marriage is largely a moral undertaking so the government should not be involved, at all.

Marriage is all about the legal aspect, IMO. Two people can *morally* commit to each other without making it a legal obligation. Taking the step of getting "legally" married and recognized by the government is what the issue is about. I support same sex marriage so that the legal benefits are extended fairly.

 

[ZQrn]

I'm calling this obvious bluff. You cannot grant someone power of attorney in the event of incapacitation online. You cannot write someone into your will online with the click of a button. You're just making this up.

Well, it's a simplified version yeah, you request it online, get some paperwork sent to you, sign it et cetera..

There are two possibilities here:
1) Hospital visitation is dependent on your ability to get communion
2) What you posted has nothing to do with hospital visitation rights

I have no idea what you mean by this or how your logic went here, but feel free to fill me in where I missed it.

 

[Char. Limit]

I will say to Jack: this is NOT about gender discrimination. As I posted on page 1, a post you seem to have ignored... why would I say it again? Go look, it's on page 1.

 

[ZQrn]

I will say to Jack: this is NOT about gender discrimination. As I posted on page 1, a post you seem to have ignored... why would I say it again? Go look, it's on page 1.

In response to that though, people are discriminated on their preferences. Which are unconventional at best.

Let's say I have an unconventional preference in sports, I like to play cricket, there is probably not a single cricket club in this entire country, am I then discriminated against?

Or let's make it one further, say I have an unconventional taste in food, say I like to eat dog, apparently it's not legal in this country to eat or sell dog meat, I never got why, but are the people that like dog meat then discriminated against?

How about people that like reeeeaaaally violent films, those aren't, and may not, be shown on daytime television, in many countries not on TV at all, one has to rent then, in some countries they aren't even allowed to be possessed, are they discriminated against?

What if you like small breasts in Australia?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

I meant to say the prop 8 opponents are likely to lose; ie. the SC is not likely to take the gay rights stand.

To me this issue seems fairly clear cut. Laws against gay marriages are discrimination.

Perhaps all civil marriages [outside of a church] should just be called civil unions. Leave "marriage" to the churches. What makes me laugh is when righties try to talk about the sanctity of marriage, which is a purely religious concept. Interestingly, many people seem to think that by legalizing gay marriages, churches would be forced to marry gay couples, which is silly.

 

[Char. Limit]

In response to that though, people are discriminated on their preferences. Which are unconventional at best.

Let's say I have an unconventional preference in sports, I like to play cricket, there is probably not a single cricket club in this entire country, am I then discriminated against?

Or let's make it one further, say I have an unconventional taste in food, say I like to eat dog, apparently it's not legal in this country to eat or sell dog meat, I never got why, but are the people that like dog meat then discriminated against?

How about people that like reeeeaaaally violent films, those aren't, and may not, be shown on daytime television, in many countries not on TV at all, one has to rent then, in some countries they aren't even allowed to be possessed, are they discriminated against?

What if you like small breasts in Australia?

All I'm saying is that Prop 8 isn't sexism, as Jack seems to think it is. While it is homophobia, it's not sexism. Really, whenever someone claims sexism, I tend to join the opposite side of the argument. Call it the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. Gay marriage bans aren't sexist.

 

[ZQrn]

All I'm saying is that Prop 8 isn't sexism, as Jack seems to think it is. While it is homophobia, it's not sexism. Really, whenever someone claims sexism, I tend to join the opposite side of the argument. Call it the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. Gay marriage bans aren't sexist.

Hey I agree there. I also don't call it 'homophobia' per se. Hell, I talked to some homosexual people who feel that indeed from the early onset marriage is defined as a union between one man and one women as an incubator for children and that registered partnerships provide all they need and 'marriage' is simply a meaningless label nowadays and are therefore against same sex marriage as they feel you recognise the idiocity of marriage only more if you just want it for no reason.

I mean, there are more things like this, if you're being searched at the airport and you're a woman, they usually send a woman, some airports or nations make this a law, is this discrimination based on gender?

What about public bathrooms, males can't enter the ladies' room and ladies can't enter the men's room, same with dressing rooms at school for sports. I've often raised the argument that separate dressing rooms are absurd and basically assume that all students are heterosexual, you either have to give each student his/her own dressing room or lump them all together. No same sex marriage to me is the same thing.

 

[turbo]

Interestingly, many people seem to think that by legalizing gay marriages, churches would be forced to marry gay couples, which is silly.

One line of attack ads that went after the gay-marriage bill in Maine used this argument. Government can't make churches do much of anything, much less violate their own religious beliefs. Still the anti-gay movement (spearheaded by the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland and funded by millions in out-of-state donations) convinced many people that their churches would have to marry gay couples. A church ceremony is just that - a ceremony. It does not result in a legally-recognized marriage without a marriage license, duly notarized and filed with governmental entities. If gay people in Maine wanted a ceremony with religious trappings, I'm pretty sure they would be quite welcome at the local Unitarian churches. No need to corrupt a Baptist or Catholic church with gay cooties.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One line of attack ads that went after the gay-marriage bill in Maine used this argument. Government can't make churches do much of anything, much less violate their own religious beliefs. Still the anti-gay movement (spearheaded by the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland and funded by millions in out-of-state donations) convinced many people that their churches would have to marry gay couples. A church ceremony is just that - a ceremony. It does not result in a legally-recognized marriage without a marriage license, duly notarized and filed with governmental entities. If gay people in Maine wanted a ceremony with religious trappings, I'm pretty sure they would be quite welcome at the local Unitarian churches. No need to corrupt a Baptist or Catholic church with gay cooties.

Too bad. I can understand the Catholic's position on illegal immigration as that is [viewed as] a human rights issues, but I don't understand them leading the charge on this one.

Interestingly, my oldest friend in life [since age 1], who is also a devout Catholic, is gay.

 

[ZQrn]

Too bad. I can understand the Catholic's position on illegal immigration as that is [viewed as] a human rights issues, but I don't understand them leading the charge on this one.

Interestingly, my oldest friend in life [since age 1], who is also a devout Catholic, is gay.

Because being a devout Catholic and being gay is soooooo unusual?

[PLAIN]http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/default/files/images/2010/6/priest.jpg

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Because being a devout Catholic and being gay is soooooo unusual?

Is that guy supposed to be gay or something?

People should be in awe of most Catholic priests. They are incredible people.

Well, I guess it was interesting to me. He was raised about as Catholic as one can get [I hated to stay at his house because we had to study the Bible for one hour each night - we already went to church every day before our classes in a Catholic school], but he still was able to admit his sexuality. So much for the nonsense about how the Catholics brainwash people.

 

[ZQrn]

Is that guy supposed to be gay or something?

No, a priest.

People should be in awe of most Catholic priests. They are incredible people.

I never met one to be honest, or at least, not in function, you never know of course.

Well, I guess it was interesting to me. He was raised about as Catholic as one can get [I hated to stay at his house because we had study the Bible for one hour each night - we already went to church every day before our classes in a Catholic school], but he still was able to admit his sexuality.

How did his parents take it?

I also know a lesbian Muslim, parents do not like it.

So much for the nonsense about how the Catholics brainwash people.

Because we all know one counter example is enough, after all, smoking isn't bad for you health as my grandfather lived to be 95 and smoked all day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How did his parents take it?

I also know a lesbian Muslim, parents do not like it.

They adjusted. They love their son.

Because we all know one counter example is enough,

And because I know the church intimately. We were also taught to think for ourselves. We were taught science - a heavy emphasis on science. We were taught about evolution as early as the 1960s. Even then I was taught that evolution was a scientific fact. We also received a far better education than did the public school kids, which is why my mother wanted us in a Catholic school.

 

[turbo]

It sounds like you went to a parochial school affiliated with the Jesuits - good emphasis on sciences, math, etc in those. In Maine, the equivalent are schools run by Maronite sisters - Lebanese Catholics that came here when Lebanese emigrated to work in spinning and weaving mills along the rivers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, that is a movie priest, not a Catholic priest!

If one were to believe the movies, priests and nuns haven't changed their clothes in five centuries.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It sounds like you went to a parochial school affiliated with the Jesuits - good emphasis on sciences, math, etc in those.

Yes, I had forgotten that distinction. Good point.

Still, we had exposure to plenty of orders within the church. It's not like we saw radical differences, but there have always been a few backwards orders - people would sort of roll their eyes when some where mentioned.

 

[Char. Limit]

btw, that is a movie priest, not a Catholic priest!

If one were to believe the movies, priests and nuns haven't changed their clothes in five centuries.

You mean they have?

 

[Office_Shredder]

btw, that is a movie priest, not a Catholic priest!

I'm pretty sure that's a Halloween costume, only because that's the only context in which you see people with a white background wearing costumes

 

[DanP]

Yes it does. The state requires a marriage to be performed by an authority it recognizes: Judge, minister, etc. The state sets up behavioural rules for gauging who wins what when the marriage ends.

Actually, no. The issue when marriage ends is completely different by the one of getting married. EVen if the church gets the power to marry 2 ppl, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE to not
have the legal system involved at divorce. Why ? Because humans have the fundamental right to access justice, and in the case of a divorce, more often than not, amiable splitting is not possible.

This is not state regulating marriage, this is divorce / legal separation legislation, which is a very different animal than marriage.

The fact that state requires an authority to perform a marriage does not means it interferes in any way with marriage. Should somehow the authority to perform marriages return to church, the priest will be the new authority required to perform a marriage.

There is no use in breaking the status quo. It works perfectly, much better than the times when church refused to marry 2 ppl from thousand of motives. Like, sex, color, different confessions and so on. Such a move would also create chaos since its very possible that different confessions and groups will institute different & idiotic rules for marriage, and very possible not recognize the marriages performed by others than themselves.

I'm not interested here in the other govt./society/church comparisons, aside from this one at the moment:
Agreed, and to my mind marriage is largely a moral undertaking so the government should not be involved, at all.

No, it's not a moral undertaking. Legally is just a form of civil contract.

Now here you lay importance again on state recognition of marriage, preceded by point after point about how the state "does not interfere in any way whatsoever" with marriage. Which is it?

Which is what ? Recognition does not mean interference.

 

[turbo]

I meant to say the prop 8 opponents are likely to lose; ie. the SC is not likely to take the gay rights stand.

I don't know. Although there is a preponderance of Catholic justices on the court, one of them (Kennedy) is fairly libertarian in his views. If the court is fairly split, I'd count on him to break the split and write the decision for the majority.

I think the gay-marriage proponents have a fairly good shot at prevailing at the SC. The neo-cons would have a hard time finding legal justification for discriminating against gays due to their sexual orientation. The Constitution is silent on that issue, so there would have to be some pretty creative "legislating from the bench" before the SC could uphold Prop 8 as the law of the land. In doing so, they would put in jeopardy all the state laws that allow or recognize same-sex marriage. That's not an attractive prospect. Better to deal with the case one time and done - which favors a strike-down of Prop 8 IMO.

 

[talk2glenn]

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.

I think the error here is in your assumption that marriage is a fundamental liberty or right. It is not, under the US constitution as interpreted by the courts.

Equal protection under the law is a fundamental human right, as enumerated in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

The state is not denying liberty in restricting who can marry (and indeed the state provides many restrictions on marraige priveledges that are not the subject of debate - minors, immediate relatives, etc, if marriage were a "right" these would be untenable). To the extent that the state is argued to be denying the liberty of equal protection in marriage license discrimination, the plaintiff must establish that there is no rational basis for the restriction, unless it is based on the protected class of race and gender, which are presumed illegal unless in the case of gender the state proves a public interest.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not involve race and gender. Therefore, again, if we assume that the state has a rational basis for its discrimination, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. I am not arguing here about what ought to be, but about what is, under existing federal law.

I would imagine that the other sides rational basis for denying homosexual couples marriage licenses has to do with perceived instability of homosexual relationships, the lack of social advantage from homosexual marriage, and the developmental disadvantage of children of homosexual couples. To the extent that these arguments are compelling enough to be plausible even in the absence of conclusive evidence, the plaintiff would have to show in court that they were irrational (ie, directly contradicted by available evidence).

 

[edward]

Lets cut to the chase. To a great extent this about using the word marriage. Eliminate the word marriage from the gay union (or whatever you want to call it) and religious opposition would disappear.

 

[Jack21222]

Lets cut to the chase. To a great extent this about using the word marriage. Eliminate the word marriage from the gay union (or whatever you want to call it) and religious opposition would disappear.

Separate but equal is never equal. You'd have to remove the word "marriage" from straight couples too.

 

[turbo]

Lets cut to the chase. To a great extent this about using the word marriage. Eliminate the word marriage from the gay union (or whatever you want to call it) and religious opposition would disappear.

I'm not so sure. The anti-gay steamroller that ran through this little state proclaimed very loudly that allowing gays to enjoy the same civil rights as straight people would destroy the "sanctity" of marriage. We were hammered with that illogical crap on the TV and radio constantly. Coming soon to a theater near you (probably). Homophobic people are primarily religious, as far as I can see.

I happen to know (and have as a fan of my music) the national enforcer of a very large 1%-er biker gang. He is a decent mild-mannered guy, and he always bought rounds for the band and made requests, which we were happy to supply, since he wanted to hear our cover versions of songs that were common to our lives. When some biker-posers showed up one day on matching brand-new Harley Springers to show their asses and make a lot of noise, he got out of his chair and told them just what the hog weighed. They left. Is he gay? Does a bear **** in the woods? Yes, there are huge scary-looking bikers that are gay. Most are pretty good people.

My biker buddy might not want or need the word "marriage" included on the certificate, and he might not even want a certificate at all, but if his partner couldn't visit him in intensive care during a serious illness or after a crash, I would consider him ill-served by our government. Our country needs a RESET in this regard, IMO.

 

[Hurkyl]

Separate but equal is never equal. You'd have to remove the word "marriage" from straight couples too.

Then let's do away with the terms "woman" and "man", and stop teaching the concepts of "female" and "male" in the schools.

 

[edward]

Then let's do away with the terms "woman" and "man", and stop teaching the concepts of "female" and "male" in the schools.

Yep, and children should be called human moppets.