I feel that this is justification enough in reference to the issue of Gay Marriage. If you can read the information beneath the heading and still think that what happened was a case of judicial activism or unconstitutional activity, then you simply cannot be reasoned with. I'm not saying you have to be a supporter of Gay Marriage or even homosexuality. It's just that in the face of such brutally well-defined logic, opposition to the ultimate decision to which the judge came is ludicrous.
@night templar
i dont give two shits what is a democracy and whats not, and it seems youve missed the point of that. if right now they said we would decide the presedent by making the two canidates kick eachother in the balls until one falls over and the other one is the winner, i would be totally fine with that, i would just hope it would be on tv. and john mcain was involved. but the idea that after a law has been passed by one power then another power who is not in charge of deciding whether prop 8 passed or not can come in after 2 years and say that its not allowed is retarded. if they were the ones to decide on the props then thats fucking fine but when they put someone else in charge of it then you cant come in and make up their mind for them.
So basically, this legal decision states that the government, not the law decides your rights, and if they can add rights as they please, eventually someone will remove rights as he, she, or they please.
Which is exactly what Proposition 8 did. The California Supreme Court determined that there was a right to same-sex marriage under the state Constitution. Proposition 8 amended the Constitution to eliminate that right.
I believe that gay married couples deserve to be treated the same as heterosexual married couples. If that means legalizing gay marriage, great. If that means eliminating the legal benefits surrounding marriage, just as well. If you want to replace marriage benefits with benefits for people who are raising children, more power to you. The important thing, at least for me, is that the law is applied equally on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
Wait, they amended the constitution, with a popular vote, not overruled, but amended, using a legal method, then the federal government claimed that it violated federal law, and overruled the ban?
The feds ignoring the 10th, claiming existence of a mythical 64th amendment, and then in response to a state voting to change a law?
This "mythical 64th amendment" you're referring to is actually known as the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause>Supremacy clause.
Datalord said:
The issue is that the 14th deals with citizens receiving the rights listed in the constitution, regardless of context. So every citizen can plead the 5th, or the 2cd, or the 15th and they receive the rights listed in the amendment, however, there is not an amendment that specifies the right to marry, and as such it is not defended by the 14th.
That's not what the 14th amendment says at all, and I'm not sure how you could possibly interpret it that narrowly. The freedom to marry has been as a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment for decades. Even if "gay marriage" isn't a fundamental right, Prop. 8 can still be overturned on the basis of there being no rational state interest in restricting it.
I'll just come right out with it. The founding fathers were, like it or not, Christians, and they would never have wanted this for our country. They would have shaken their head at it. So how is it unconstitutional? Now excuse me while I ready my defensive procedures.
Because of that whole "separation of church and state" thing everyone likes to ignore, making gay marriage or homosexuality illegal for religious reasons is unconstitutional. If you can find a good reason that has nothing to do with religion whatsoever why gay people shouldn't get married, I'd like to hear it.
P.S. And really think hard about your response because the overwhelming majority of reasons I've heard have roots in religion at the very least.
I guess it all goes back to moral choice then, and where you draw you moral line. Like in abortion, whether or not you think it is right to suck the brains out of a 7 month old baby in the womb or not. Morality would be easier if everyone saw everything the same way. I don't believe it is a natural function of the body to find other guys attractive. I know a guy who said that he used to have slightly gay feelings, but he just said no to them and then he hasn't felt any since. But ask a guy who likes girls to bring that under control now...
Yes but morals still have roots in religion. If religion didn't exist in the world our idea of "morals" would be drastically different. Anyway homosexuality isn't a uniquely human phenomenon, it occurs in the wild (nature) as well, so how is it that unnatural?
All of those are when one male animal thinks the other is a female and thus the boning begins...
And where would the world be if everyone just did what they wanted with no kind of ground hope for people? (AKA religion and relationships with God) it would all just be "We're all gunna die and go nowhere and there is no hope so just do whatever..." Morals such as good vs evil all come from religion yes, but in accounts of nations that didn't follow moral standards all fell and became corrupt, leading to their demise. Even if they do come from religion they are still very much a foundation for America.
So basically, this legal decision states that the government, not the law decides your rights, and if they can add rights as they please, eventually someone will remove rights as he, she, or they please.
Which is exactly what Proposition 8 did. The California Supreme Court determined that there was a right to same-sex marriage under the state Constitution. Proposition 8 amended the Constitution to eliminate that right.
Therumancer said:
What's more I do not see marriage as a "fundemental human right" anymore than religion is a fundemental human requirement.
Then do you disagree with Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia? It held that marriage was "a basic civil right of man" and a "fundamental freedom".
Therumancer said:
The point being that the legal recognition doesn't exist for reasons that apply to homosexuals. It's unnessicary other than in terms of goverment granted benefits. Great strides in the other areas have taken place, and will continue to, and all of this has happened without recognizing gay marriage and granting tax breaks.
I believe that gay married couples deserve to be treated the same as heterosexual married couples. If that means legalizing gay marriage, great. If that means eliminating the legal benefits surrounding marriage, just as well. If you want to replace marriage benefits with benefits for people who are raising children, more power to you. The important thing, at least for me, is that the law is applied equally on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
Let's just say there are plenty of cases I disagree with that established what I consider to be bad precedents. This is one of the reasons why I constantly caution people about the potential snowball effect of a ruling, and also about how what the law says is not nessicarly what it actually does anymore due to how precedents change pretty much everything including constitutional rights.
To put things into perspective one of the key rulings that a lot of MODERN civil liberties defenses are based on (in criminal cases) is "Mapp Vs. Ohio" which ended up limiting the scope of searches, and snowballed into a lot of other things. Whether Mrs. Mapp was right in that case or not is more or less irrelevent in the face of what it did to the legal system and the number of criminals who have gotten away on bureaucratic technicalities due to the limitations that wound up putting on building a case and establishing a chain of evidence. Of course like anything opinions DO vary.
-
Where I believe we disagree (and where I disagree with others) is that I do not consider the legal recognition of marriage to have anything to do with marriage itself. People can exchange vows and be married without the goverment agreeing to give them benefits, it all depends on the respect of the community.
I think a big part of the problem is ironically what the laws in question have been named, in actual practice they are a bureaucratic mechanism tied to goverment benefits and the attempt to regulate and prevent things like incest.
There would be a valid point if the goverment literally had to approve the exchange of oaths. Say arresting every priest, guru, ship captain, or cult leader who let two people declare their committment for each other in the eyes of whatever authority (divine or otherwise) they claim to represent. The goverment however does not do this, so it does not regulate marriage, all it does is put standards on what unions it's going to provide benefits to. The goverment is not a spiritual or theological authority and by and large does not regulate matters of faith like marriage ceremonies and community acceptance thereof, all it does is provide benefits which were intended entirely to help people raise families. Gays do not fit in with that logic.
Now yes, the terminology like the word "marriage" in the laws does confuse issues, it really should be adjusted to put more focus on what those benefits are for. It probably should be adjusted, but in doing so it still means that gays aren't going to be getting marriage liscences, which without benefits being attached to marriage itself will become totally irrelevent and might not even be issued anymore.
Let's just say there are plenty of cases I disagree with that established what I consider to be bad precedents. This is one of the reasons why I constantly caution people about the potential snowball effect of a ruling, and also about how what the law says is not nessicarly what it actually does anymore due to how precedents change pretty much everything including constitutional rights.
To put things into perspective one of the key rulings that a lot of MODERN civil liberties defenses are based on (in criminal cases) is "Mapp Vs. Ohio" which ended up limiting the scope of searches, and snowballed into a lot of other things. Whether Mrs. Mapp was right in that case or not is more or less irrelevent in the face of what it did to the legal system and the number of criminals who have gotten away on bureaucratic technicalities due to the limitations that wound up putting on building a case and establishing a chain of evidence. Of course like anything opinions DO vary.
Where I believe we disagree (and where I disagree with others) is that I do not consider the legal recognition of marriage to have anything to do with marriage itself. People can exchange vows and be married without the goverment agreeing to give them benefits, it all depends on the respect of the community.
I think a big part of the problem is ironically what the laws in question have been named, in actual practice they are a bureaucratic mechanism tied to goverment benefits and the attempt to regulate and prevent things like incest.
There would be a valid point if the goverment literally had to approve the exchange of oaths. Say arresting every priest, guru, ship captain, or cult leader who let two people declare their committment for each other in the eyes of whatever authority (divine or otherwise) they claim to represent. The goverment however does not do this, so it does not regulate marriage, all it does is put standards on what unions it's going to provide benefits to. The goverment is not a spiritual or theological authority and by and large does not regulate matters of faith like marriage ceremonies and community acceptance thereof, all it does is provide benefits which were intended entirely to help people raise families. Gays do not fit in with that logic.
Now yes, the terminology like the word "marriage" in the laws does confuse issues, it really should be adjusted to put more focus on what those benefits are for. It probably should be adjusted, but in doing so it still means that gays aren't going to be getting marriage liscences, which without benefits being attached to marriage itself will become totally irrelevent and might not even be issued anymore.
Actually i think we do agree on this point somewhat. My opposition to gay marriage bans is based on what I perceive as a violation of the 14th amendment, not anything having to do with the institution of marriage itself. (If gays were being denied boating licenses, I'd probably be about as upset.) i don't really care what the specific legal benefits attached to marriage are, as long as those benefits are provided to all married couples equally (including the legal term applied to them).
If the law was changed so that those benefits were attached directly to raising children, i wouldn't have a problem with that (so long as it applied to homosexuals raising children as well). If the benefits were instead given to couple who produced children, well, i think that would be an utterly stupid idea, but i don't think it would be unconstitutional.
All of those are when one male animal thinks the other is a female and thus the boning begins...
And where would the world be if everyone just did what they wanted with no kind of ground hope for people? (AKA religion and relationships with God) it would all just be "We're all gunna die and go nowhere and there is no hope so just do whatever..." Morals such as good vs evil all come from religion yes, but in accounts of nations that didn't follow moral standards all fell and became corrupt, leading to their demise. Even if they do come from religion they are still very much a foundation for America.
You should read this: [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals[/link]
So basically you're saying something like "if homosexuality/homosexual marriage was allowed, our civilization would collapse." You know what else is considered immoral and still allowed to run rampant? Pornography, pre-marital sex, political corruption, drinking (more specifically getting drunk), using drugs, bullying, racism, sexism... I can keep going if you'd like, your argument is flawed in more than one way but I want to go eat, so I'll only mention that one for now.
The point is, you can hide behind that paper-thin "morality" argument, but what you're really doing is picking and choosing what to enforce "morality" on.
Edit: You also have yet to provide a reason without roots in religion.
homosexual behavior is unusually prevalent among mallards, a species where the two genders are distinctly colored. In other species of birds, male coupls will engage in nesting behavior.
AMMO Kid said:
And where would the world be if everyone just did what they wanted with no kind of ground hope for people? (AKA religion and relationships with God) it would all just be "We're all gunna die and go nowhere and there is no hope so just do whatever..." Morals such as good vs evil all come from religion yes, but in accounts of nations that didn't follow moral standards all fell and became corrupt, leading to their demise. Even if they do come from religion they are still very much a foundation for America.
Without getting to far off-topic, morals can exist independently of religion. While you are correct that the historical basis for morality consists of religious beliefs, there's no reason every one of those beliefs should be enforced by law.
EDIT: wrote a reply to this, lost it, and by the time i rewrote it, it got ninjaed. ;_;
While I'm not for a gay marriage ban (I'm a Christian, but our beliefs [and it's not that clear cut, by the way] shouldn't be made law), the fact that a judge can overturn a majority-voted policy bothers me. Have majorities been wrong in the past? Hell yes. But it's one of the core principles of American democracy. A judge (or a few judges) shouldn't override the majority.
America isn't actually a democracy, as many here have already pointed out. It's a Republic. The constitution exists to ensure that all people are protected, even those not in the majority. The civil rights movement was hugely unpopular with the majority of voters, but that doesn't mean that black rights were bad. If the majority had been allowed to continue the segregation and oppression of blacks, you'd have what's called a tyranny of the many, in which the rights of the minority are effectively ignored. That's precisely what happened when prop 8 was voted into law, and it's that sort of thing that the constitution is supposed to prevent.
Oh. I was unaware. I'm kind of maxed out on the political apathy scale. Well, I'm happy for the homosexual peoples of California. Hoo-ray for the gays!
Actually i think we do agree on this point somewhat. My opposition to gay marriage bans is based on what I perceive as a violation of the 14th amendment, not anything having to do with the institution of marriage itself. (If gays were being denied boating licenses, I'd probably be about as upset.) i don't really care what the specific legal benefits attached to marriage are, as long as those benefits are provided to all married couples equally (including the legal term applied to them).
If the law was changed so that those benefits were attached directly to raising children, i wouldn't have a problem with that (so long as it applied to homosexuals raising children as well). If the benefits were instead given to couple who produced children, well, i think that would be an utterly stupid idea, but i don't think it would be unconstitutional.
Well, the law can be a somewhat complicated thing. In this paticular case I do believe that these laws and specific tax benefits should only apply to those who produce children. The reason being that for people who are simply raising someone else's kids there are other alternative benefits already awarded. The goverment will pay people who take in foster kids to assist with their care and feeding and such, something that isn't done for those who have children naturally. Now the whole foster care/adoption system is a mess as there are plenty of people who take in kids to use for slaves, and don't use that money as it's intended, plenty has been said about it over the years.
The whole issue of gay adoption is a touchy one that I'm not going to get into to avoid derailing the discussion, however if you accept it as being fine, the system as it stands now already covers this.
To put things into perspective if one was to give gays both the tax breaks and benefits for being married, AND money from the goverment for adopting, well that would not be fair to people who get either one or the other.
When you go in the simple direction of "raising children" it's a bogus arguement as there are systems unrelated to the marriage laws already in place for that. Oh sure we could argue about that system and how it works, and about the issue of gay adoption in general, but that would get way off topic.
But I'd heard Australians were such nice, accepting, politically correct, educated types.
I shouldn't joke. Canadians get enough of a bad rap from Americans. And no country is perfect for the whole equality thing. I'm part Native American and I'm just white enough to hear all the jokes that people say when nobody's around to hear it so they can be edgy.
Politically correct, hah. Aussies my age tend to be about as politically correct as... things I probably can't say on this forum without getting Moderated.
The flaw in the logic you're using is that you said that being religious doesn't mean people can't let that influence them. All the anti-gay arguments come from religion and religion is the only reason there is a debate.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
