As many are aware, a little more than 3 years ago (November 4, 2008, to be precise), California approved a constitutional amendment by a very narrow margin (52.3% for, 47.7% against) which ruled that california would only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. Needless to say, the amendment has been rather controversial, due in no small part to how its purpose was to strip existing legal recognition from a given group (Same-sex marriage had been officially recognized in California earlier that year), and it shouldn't be surprising that the ruling has been fought ever since. Today, it looks as though those efforts bore fruit.
Spoiler: Click to 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
Now of course the big question is whether or not that ruling will stick and whether or not this is a sign of things to come.
For those interested, the court documents can be found here
Once again the American courts secure a breathing room for the much needed justice and civility that is freedom from state sanctioned discrimination[1] and individual equality before the law, which the people itself is apparently notoriously incapable of respecting.
Since this topic already has replied I move that we make it the one we use to discuss the matter instead of another duplicate topic.
Now then with that out of the way, yes of course the same Circuit Court that found Prop 8 Unconstitutional earlier is going to find it unconstitutional again. It is interesting to note that it was a 2-1 decision and the 2 who voted yes were appointed by Democrats and the 1 who voted no was appointed by a Republican, interesting but not significant, a judge is a judge no matter who appointed them.
Now the issue will likely go to the Supreme Court where it may or may not be found unconstitutional and then finally California same-sex couples will be able to have their marriage legally recognized (whereas had they simply done a better job when Prop 8 came up for a vote they would be able to do that now). Prop 8 may very well be unconstitutional but if it had been voted on before the state law that defined marriage traditionally in California was voted on it would not be. As usual, California screws up. Thats why they are the state that allows PETA to sue Sea World over slavery on behalf of 5 Orcas (yes this is happening now and its going to court because legally in California there is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit).
j-e-f-f-e-r-s: How a state can have effectively legalised cannabis, yet remain opposed to gay marriage is a complete and utter mystery to me.
Religion, of course. Southern California is very Catholic, and for some reason there seem to be a lot of Mormons, too.
And of course supporters of Prop 8 weren't above scare tactics, either.
Yeah gee why are there a lot of Catholic's in California? Its not like California has a large predominately Catholic Latino population or anything. As for Mormons, find me Utah on a map in relation to California.
As for Prop 8 and scare tactics, I was freaking in California when the debate on it was going on leading up to the vote and more often than not it was the opponents of Prop 8 who were acting hysterical. Fortunately when I told them I was from Texas they tended to leave me alone, perhaps realizing that I wasnt going to listen to their nonsense. Now there are some sensible arguments for and against legally recognizing same-sex marriage but I was in the Los Angeles area...they don't know what sense is there.
Am I the only one, who when this was getting passed in the first place, and was watching the news, seeing a lot of people holding signs saying "Prop8 is good" and the like, shocked to see so many black people supporting it?
I mean hypocritical in the highest order. Not more than 50 years ago interracial marriage was against the law and carried jail time, and here are people who got their civil rights trying to deny them to others just because they are "different"?
Rkiver: Am I the only one, who when this was getting passed in the first place, and was watching the news, seeing a lot of people holding signs saying "Prop8 is good" and the like, shocked to see so many black people supporting it?
I mean hypocritical in the highest order. Not more than 50 years ago interracial marriage was against the law and carried jail time, and here are people who got their civil rights trying to deny them to others just because they are "different"?
I am disgusted at some peoples behaviour.
You shouldnt be, African-Americans overall tend to be more socially Conservative. Black Baptists for example tend to be actually anti-gay instead of just uncomfortable with the idea.
Its also a very different thing, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Same-sex unions are not illegal they are just not recognized as marriage. If these so called "gay marriage bans" actually did ban same-sex marriage then yes they would be unconstitutional, but thats not what they do.
Its only hypocritical to those who don't understand the differences between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage in the law.
Rkiver: Am I the only one, who when this was getting passed in the first place, and was watching the news, seeing a lot of people holding signs saying "Prop8 is good" and the like, shocked to see so many black people supporting it?
I mean hypocritical in the highest order. Not more than 50 years ago interracial marriage was against the law and carried jail time, and here are people who got their civil rights trying to deny them to others just because they are "different"?
I am disgusted at some peoples behaviour.
You shouldnt be, African-Americans overall tend to be more socially Conservative. Black Baptists for example tend to be actually anti-gay instead of just uncomfortable with the idea.
Its also a very different thing, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Same-sex unions are not illegal they are just not recognized as marriage. If these so called "gay marriage bans" actually did ban same-sex marriage then yes they would be unconstitutional, but thats not what they do.
Its only hypocritical to those who don't understand the differences between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage in the law.
You're right, everyone involved would of course just be happy if interracial marriage was just not legally recognized /sarcasm
Seekster: Now then with that out of the way, yes of course the same Circuit Court that found Prop 8 Unconstitutional earlier is going to find it unconstitutional again. It is interesting to note that it was a 2-1 decision and the 2 who voted yes were appointed by Democrats and the 1 who voted no was appointed by a Republican, interesting but not significant, a judge is a judge no matter who appointed them.
Much more significant than who was appointed by a Democrat and who was appointed by a Republican is that the dissenting judge is a Mormon, a parishioner of the organisation that bankrolled Proposition 8 in the first place. There are plenty of examples of Republican-appointed judges making pro-gay decisions in the past, one example would be Nixon appointee Joseph Tauro ruling DOMA unconstitional in Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. HHS.
I should be happier but I'm disappointed that this ruling has such a narrow scope. On one hand it's good for Californians considering that a narrow ruling like that Prop 8's unconstitutionality hinges primarily on the fact that Prop 8 was taking away a right that was already granted is probably a lot more likely to be successful on appeal, I can't really see how Perry v. Schwarzenegger/Brown could any longer be a catalyst for getting the courts to recognise the right of gay couples to marry nationwide, or a federal right to same-sex marriage. Judge Walker's original ruling in Perry would have made it hard for the Supreme Court to rule on the case and not also rule on DOMA at the same time, whereas now, if the matter is primarily about taking away an already existing right, this leaves open the door that Prop 8 isn't constitutional but DOMA is, or just leave DOMA unaddressed, which is on the other hand bad for Californians because they could still be denied federal marriage privileges for a long time to come.
Seekster: Its also a very different thing, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Same-sex unions are not illegal they are just not recognized as marriage. If these so called "gay marriage bans" actually did ban same-sex marriage then yes they would be unconstitutional, but thats not what they do.
Until 2003 it was ILLEGAL for gays to even be in relationships with each other in fourteen states. We've been through this before, Seekster. Not only that, but:
In Wisconsin, not only is same-sex marriage forbidden, but a statute already on the books before the passage of the 2006 amendment provides that residents who go out of state to contract a marriage that would be prohibited within Wisconsin can be fined up to $10,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 9 months.
I haven't checked up on the individual marriage laws of 50+ states and territories but in at least one state it is actually ILLEGAL for gays to marry. There are more similarities than you'd like to admit.
Rkiver: Well then I am corrected and have learnt something new today. Thanks Seekster. Any day I learn something new is never a day wasted.
Indeed I agree with you there. If a man thinks he knows everything how can he learn anything? I apply this standard to myself as well. Never be too proud to admit you don't know something when you don't know something.
Rkiver: Am I the only one, who when this was getting passed in the first place, and was watching the news, seeing a lot of people holding signs saying "Prop8 is good" and the like, shocked to see so many black people supporting it?
I mean hypocritical in the highest order. Not more than 50 years ago interracial marriage was against the law and carried jail time, and here are people who got their civil rights trying to deny them to others just because they are "different"?
I am disgusted at some peoples behaviour.
You shouldnt be, African-Americans overall tend to be more socially Conservative. Black Baptists for example tend to be actually anti-gay instead of just uncomfortable with the idea.
Its also a very different thing, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Same-sex unions are not illegal they are just not recognized as marriage. If these so called "gay marriage bans" actually did ban same-sex marriage then yes they would be unconstitutional, but thats not what they do.
Its only hypocritical to those who don't understand the differences between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage in the law.
You're right, everyone involved would of course just be happy if interracial marriage was just not legally recognized /sarcasm
Sarcasm aside, no I can understand why same-sex couples arent happy, they have no reason to be happy. They are being denied rights that they are entitled to. The rights they are entitled to are the benefits and rights given to married couples, not the non-existent right to have their union called a marriage if it doesnt meet the legal definition of marriage. So long as government is in the business of legally defining marriage you have to respect the legal definition of marriage however it is defined. Seek to change it if you wish but until it is changed, if it is changed, you have to respect the law as it is, not as you want it to be.
You shouldnt be, African-Americans overall tend to be more socially Conservative. Black Baptists for example tend to be actually anti-gay instead of just uncomfortable with the idea.
Its also a very different thing, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Same-sex unions are not illegal they are just not recognized as marriage. If these so called "gay marriage bans" actually did ban same-sex marriage then yes they would be unconstitutional, but thats not what they do.
Its only hypocritical to those who don't understand the differences between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage in the law.
You're right, everyone involved would of course just be happy if interracial marriage was just not legally recognized /sarcasm
Sarcasm aside, no I can understand why same-sex couples arent happy, they have no reason to be happy. They are being denied rights that they are entitled to. The rights they are entitled to are the benefits and rights given to married couples, not the non-existent right to have their union called a marriage if it doesnt meet the legal definition of marriage. So long as government is in the business of legally defining marriage you have to respect the legal definition of marriage however it is defined. Seek to change it if you wish but until it is changed, if it is changed, you have to respect the law as it is, not as you want it to be.
Well sorry, but according to some courts it seems that the law is unconstitutional so your argument kinda fails. You can't say 'Oh don't complain it's the legal definition of marriage!' when that legal definition is itself ignoring higher laws. Automatically fails. Unless of course you think I'm suppose to just take your word over the judgment of the court? So hey, go ahead and try to amend the Constitution, but until it is, you need to stop with this unconstitutional 'legal definition' crap and respect the law as it is, not how you want it to be ;D
Its also a very different thing, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Same-sex unions are not illegal they are just not recognized as marriage. If these so called "gay marriage bans" actually did ban same-sex marriage then yes they would be unconstitutional, but thats not what they do.
That's some wicked doublethink right there. There's really no difference between "Whites only" and "No Niggers."
Seekster: Now then with that out of the way, yes of course the same Circuit Court that found Prop 8 Unconstitutional earlier is going to find it unconstitutional again. It is interesting to note that it was a 2-1 decision and the 2 who voted yes were appointed by Democrats and the 1 who voted no was appointed by a Republican, interesting but not significant, a judge is a judge no matter who appointed them.
Much more significant than who was appointed by a Democrat and who was appointed by a Republican is that the dissenting judge is a Mormon, a parishioner of the organisation that bankrolled Proposition 8 in the first place. There are plenty of examples of Republican-appointed judges making pro-gay decisions in the past, one example would be Nixon appointee Joseph Tauro ruling DOMA unconstitional in Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. HHS.
I should be happier but I'm disappointed that this ruling has such a narrow scope. On one hand it's good for Californians considering that a narrow ruling like that Prop 8's unconstitutionality hinges primarily on the fact that Prop 8 was taking away a right that was already granted is probably a lot more likely to be successful on appeal, I can't really see how Perry v. Schwarzenegger/Brown could any longer be a catalyst for getting the courts to recognise the right of gay couples to marry nationwide, or a federal right to same-sex marriage. Judge Walker's original ruling in Perry would have made it hard for the Supreme Court to rule on the case and not also rule on DOMA at the same time, whereas now, if the matter is primarily about taking away an already existing right, this leaves open the door that Prop 8 isn't constitutional but DOMA is, or just leave DOMA unaddressed, which is on the other hand bad for Californians because they could still be denied federal marriage privileges for a long time to come.
I know that, thats why I said its interesting but not significant. A good judge should be able to rise above their own personal biases so in some ways its more interesting for a judge to rule along with their biases than against them. In any case its hardly worth fixating on and no the religion of one of the judges is irrelevant. Bill Clinton was Baptist and it was his administration that got gays into the military with DADT (which I remind you was a huge improvement for homosexuals at the time). Baptists have a reputation as being one of the least sympathetic of all denominations to homosexuals. I am an oddity in that regard (I am southern baptist but support equal rights for homosexuals, I just disagree with some people on whether or not the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage counts as equal rights). My point is that religion is no more significant than political ideology in a judicial decision like this because a good judge can rise above their own biases.
As for your second part, I do remember telling people for months that the Prop 8 case didnt mean much for the other states and that the issue was California essentially gave homosexual couples a right and then took it away. I must say it is somewhat satisfying to be vindicated in that assertion. I do have some good news for you though, word is there is an attempt to put an initative on the ballot in California that would define marriage in a way that would include same-sex unions. If the people of California approve that it would not only preclude the argument that the judges are taking power away from the people and violating the right of self-determination but it would also make the result of the Prop-8 case academic and same-sex marriage in California could be legally recognized even while Prop 8 continues its voyage through the wide Ocean of the court system. I always thought California would be one of the 15 or so states that will eventually decide to legally recognize same-sex marriage on their own thats why it was interesting when California actually voted against doing so.
Seekster: Its also a very different thing, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Same-sex unions are not illegal they are just not recognized as marriage. If these so called "gay marriage bans" actually did ban same-sex marriage then yes they would be unconstitutional, but thats not what they do.
Until 2003 it was ILLEGAL for gays to even be in relationships with each other in fourteen states. We've been through this before, Seekster. Not only that, but:
In Wisconsin, not only is same-sex marriage forbidden, but a statute already on the books before the passage of the 2006 amendment provides that residents who go out of state to contract a marriage that would be prohibited within Wisconsin can be fined up to $10,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 9 months.
I haven't checked up on the individual marriage laws of 50+ states and territories but in at least one state it is actually ILLEGAL for gays to marry. There are more similarities than you'd like to admit.
I don't have a law degree but even I can see that Wisconsin law is unconstitutional. However there is a funny thing about laws, you can't sue over them unless someone tries to enforce that law. If the law is not enforced you can't claim your rights are being violated. For example in multiple states there are laws that says the Governor has to be a Christian or something like that. I think one of the Carolinas actually tried to keep an atheist from running for governor and got sued over that. There are all sorts of obscure state laws that arent enforced and are only on the books because nobody has bothered to remove them (for example I know in at least some parts of Texas its technically illegal to own a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica because it contains recipes for making certain alcoholic beverages. I own a copy and to date the state has never sent me a fine or tried to take my copy. Also I understand its illegal to try and milk another man's cow.
By the way I predict that the next great question on the issue of same-sex marriage will be getting other states to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. That one will get interesting because I don't think one state has the right to impose its laws on another state.
Its also a very different thing, interracial marriage was ILLEGAL. Same-sex unions are not illegal they are just not recognized as marriage. If these so called "gay marriage bans" actually did ban same-sex marriage then yes they would be unconstitutional, but thats not what they do.
That's some wicked doublethink right there. There's really no difference between "Whites only" and "No Niggers."
Of course not, but there is a difference between, "you can't get married and we will arrest you if you try to or if we catch you being married" and "we won't recognize your union as a marriage because it doesnt fit the legal definition of marriage." No police officer is going to raid the home of a gay couple living in Vermont and haul them off to jail for being married. With interracial marriage that actually happened and in fact thats how the lawsuit that led to Loving got started.
You're right, everyone involved would of course just be happy if interracial marriage was just not legally recognized /sarcasm
Sarcasm aside, no I can understand why same-sex couples arent happy, they have no reason to be happy. They are being denied rights that they are entitled to. The rights they are entitled to are the benefits and rights given to married couples, not the non-existent right to have their union called a marriage if it doesnt meet the legal definition of marriage. So long as government is in the business of legally defining marriage you have to respect the legal definition of marriage however it is defined. Seek to change it if you wish but until it is changed, if it is changed, you have to respect the law as it is, not as you want it to be.
Well sorry, but according to some courts it seems that the law is unconstitutional so your argument kinda fails. You can't say 'Oh don't complain it's the legal definition of marriage!' when that legal definition is itself ignoring higher laws. Automatically fails. Unless of course you think I'm suppose to just take your word over the judgment of the court? So hey, go ahead and try to amend the Constitution, but until it is, you need to stop with this unconstitutional 'legal definition' crap and respect the law as it is, not how you want it to be ;D
"We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts," Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins wrote in the majority opinion.
"For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class."
Emphasis on the word "strip" and the bit about how the right was given to same-sex couples. Its not one that they had before the state law was found to violate the California constitution. Why do you think the Prop 8 case only applies really to California? It is as I have said all along, Calfironia screwed up when it tried to do with most of the rest of the country did with relative easy, typical.
*Bows like Edgeworth*
And that is that, you want to argue with the judge be my guest.
Sarcasm aside, no I can understand why same-sex couples arent happy, they have no reason to be happy. They are being denied rights that they are entitled to. The rights they are entitled to are the benefits and rights given to married couples, not the non-existent right to have their union called a marriage if it doesnt meet the legal definition of marriage. So long as government is in the business of legally defining marriage you have to respect the legal definition of marriage however it is defined. Seek to change it if you wish but until it is changed, if it is changed, you have to respect the law as it is, not as you want it to be.
Well sorry, but according to some courts it seems that the law is unconstitutional so your argument kinda fails. You can't say 'Oh don't complain it's the legal definition of marriage!' when that legal definition is itself ignoring higher laws. Automatically fails. Unless of course you think I'm suppose to just take your word over the judgment of the court? So hey, go ahead and try to amend the Constitution, but until it is, you need to stop with this unconstitutional 'legal definition' crap and respect the law as it is, not how you want it to be ;D
"We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts," Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins wrote in the majority opinion.
"For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class."
Emphasis on the word "strip" and the bit about how the right was given to same-sex couples. Its not one that they had before the state law was found to violate the California constitution. Why do you think the Prop 8 case only applies really to California? It is as I have said all along, Calfironia screwed up when it tried to do with most of the rest of the country did with relative easy, typical.
Oh the mental acrobatics you must make... No, it isn't important that it was 'stripped'. That only matters if it leads to a state that is itself problematic. There is nothing that says "Oh you can discriminate... but only if you didn't at one point stop" But really we know you just like to support the rights of gays being denied because it supports your absurd social values and bizarre mystical importance you place on a word that you feel needs to be government endorsed.
CrazyGirl17: Good for them, hopefully this one will stick... I get the feeling there's gonna be some controversy...
It will stick but thats not the issue, same-sex marriage can't be recognized in California until either a separate law or initiatives is approved providing for it, today's decision is not repealed (it will be) or until the Supreme Court decides on the matter (which it may not as this is a state matter meaning that the ruling of lower courts would stand and same-sex marriage would be legally recognized in California).
Well sorry, but according to some courts it seems that the law is unconstitutional so your argument kinda fails. You can't say 'Oh don't complain it's the legal definition of marriage!' when that legal definition is itself ignoring higher laws. Automatically fails. Unless of course you think I'm suppose to just take your word over the judgment of the court? So hey, go ahead and try to amend the Constitution, but until it is, you need to stop with this unconstitutional 'legal definition' crap and respect the law as it is, not how you want it to be ;D
"We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts," Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins wrote in the majority opinion.
"For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class."
Emphasis on the word "strip" and the bit about how the right was given to same-sex couples. Its not one that they had before the state law was found to violate the California constitution. Why do you think the Prop 8 case only applies really to California? It is as I have said all along, Calfironia screwed up when it tried to do with most of the rest of the country did with relative easy, typical.
Oh the mental acrobatics you must make... No, it isn't important that it was 'stripped'. That only matters if it leads to a state that is itself problematic. There is nothing that says "Oh you can discriminate... but only if you didn't at one point stop" But really we know you just like to support the rights of gays being denied because it supports your absurd social values and bizarre mystical importance you place on a word that you feel needs to be government endorsed.
In my experience "mental acrobatics" or "mental gymnastics" is code for "I don't understand what you said but I disagree with it anyway".
Let me make this very simple, I win. (I don't often declare victory in a debate because I consider it bad form to think of a debate in terms of winning and losing rather than in terms of learning something...but in this case I feel its appropriate given how long I have been arguing a point that was validated again in today's ruling).
I don't support the rights of gays being denied, I honestly think its tragic that activists decided to go for broke on the marriage issue and now its become even harder for same-sex couples to get the rights which they are entitled for because a bunch of activists tried to claim a right that nobody is entitled to (namely the right to have your union recognized as a marriage by the government when it doesnt fit the legal definition of marriage).
By the way if the word "marriage" has no importance then why spend all the time and go through all the hardship to pursue that word?
Oh and California is very much a state that is problematic (I know what you meant but I saw an opportunity for a joke and took it).
In my experience "mental acrobatics" or "mental gymnastics" is code for "I don't understand what you said but I disagree with it anyway".
Let me make this very simple, I win. (I don't often declare victory in a debate but in this case I feel its appropriate).
Because you made as stupid unsupported claim? Well pat yourself on the back then. I didn't expect anything intelligent from you.
I don't support the rights of gays being denied, I honestly think its tragic that activists decided to go for broke on the marriage issue and now its become even harder for same-sex couples to get the rights which they are entitled for because a bunch of activists tried to claim a right that nobody is entitled to (namely the right to have your union recognized as a marriage by the government when it doesnt fit the legal definition of marriage).
"I'm so sad that it's all their fault because then I can ignore that the kind of bigotry that a lot of Christians are spewing is the real cause"
By the way if the word "marriage" has no importance then why spend all the time and go through all the hardship to pursue that word?
Well we can call Christians 'second class citizens' then. We'll let them have the same rights, words don't matter right? I mean you're totally not trying to keep a little bigoted foothold in there.
Oh and California is very much a state that is problematic (I know what you meant but I saw an opportunity for a joke and took it).
Well thankfully CA's governor doesn't proudly proclaim how many people he killed.
In my experience "mental acrobatics" or "mental gymnastics" is code for "I don't understand what you said but I disagree with it anyway".
Let me make this very simple, I win. (I don't often declare victory in a debate but in this case I feel its appropriate).
Because you made as stupid unsupported claim? Well pat yourself on the back then. I didn't expect anything intelligent from you.
My apologies, it was insensitive of me to go over your head like that.
I made a claim that I have been making for months the ruling today is decisive support for that claim. Namely that the California case is unique because it involves taking away rights that have been given. Furthermore my acknowledging this difference the court acknowledges that there is no universal right to having your union recognized legally as a marriage unless that state gives you that right. Otherwise their ruling wouldnt just apply to California. In short it reaffirms the findings of Baker v Nelson, that simply defining marriage as between one man and one woman is constitutional. The reason Prop 8 is unconstitutional is because it took away a right that at the time of passage had already been given to same-sex couples.
I don't support the rights of gays being denied, I honestly think its tragic that activists decided to go for broke on the marriage issue and now its become even harder for same-sex couples to get the rights which they are entitled for because a bunch of activists tried to claim a right that nobody is entitled to (namely the right to have your union recognized as a marriage by the government when it doesnt fit the legal definition of marriage).
"I'm so sad that it's all their fault because then I can ignore that the kind of bigotry that a lot of Christians are spewing is the real cause"
Now now don't be a sore loser and start spewing paranoid nonsense like that. Look on the bright side, California will eventually recognize same-sex marriage pretty much no matter what now, your side of the argument got something out of this ruling too.
By the way if the word "marriage" has no importance then why spend all the time and go through all the hardship to pursue that word?
Well we can call Christians 'second class citizens' then. We'll let them have the same rights, words don't matter right? I mean you're totally not trying to keep a little bigoted foothold in there.
Now you are just not making any sense. I would make a smart ass comment but at this point I would just feel bad about rubbing it in.
Oh and California is very much a state that is problematic (I know what you meant but I saw an opportunity for a joke and took it).
Well thankfully CA's governor doesn't proudly proclaim how many people he killed.
Yeah maybe if they actually USED the death penalty in California they wouldnt have so many problems with jails overflowing and them having to just release prisoners because they cant house them anywhere. Oh thats right California bankrupted itself, it probably can't even afford to execute people...thats really just sad considering California has the highest GDP in the country. What a waste of potential.
I do wonder what would happen if it reached the Supreme Court. Either side is going to lose a LOT if it goes there. If Prop 8 is declared unconsitutional, than they may overturn the ban on ALL gay marriage. On the other hand, if ruled consitutional, than any other ban would just have to reference this case and be thrown out on appeal instantly.
In my experience "mental acrobatics" or "mental gymnastics" is code for "I don't understand what you said but I disagree with it anyway".
Let me make this very simple, I win. (I don't often declare victory in a debate but in this case I feel its appropriate).
Because you made as stupid unsupported claim? Well pat yourself on the back then. I didn't expect anything intelligent from you.
My apologies, it was insensitive of me to go over your head like that.
You think you can? Really?
I made a claim that I have been making for months the ruling today is decisive support for that claim. Namely that the California case is unique because it involves taking away rights that have been given. Furthermore my acknowledging this difference the court acknowledges that there is no universal right to having your union recognized legally as a marriage unless that state gives you that right. Otherwise their ruling wouldnt just apply to California. In short it reaffirms the findings of Baker v Nelson, that simply defining marriage as between one man and one woman is constitutional. The reason Prop 8 is unconstitutional is because it took away a right that at the time of passage had already been given to same-sex couples.
You're interpreting it that way. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there is a difference between taking it away now and never giving it to them.
I don't support the rights of gays being denied, I honestly think its tragic that activists decided to go for broke on the marriage issue and now its become even harder for same-sex couples to get the rights which they are entitled for because a bunch of activists tried to claim a right that nobody is entitled to (namely the right to have your union recognized as a marriage by the government when it doesnt fit the legal definition of marriage).
"I'm so sad that it's all their fault because then I can ignore that the kind of bigotry that a lot of Christians are spewing is the real cause"
Now now don't be a sore loser and start spewing paranoid nonsense like that. Look on the bright side, California will eventually recognize same-sex marriage pretty much no matter what now, your side of the argument got something out of this ruling too.
It's not paranoid. A lot of Christians spew anti-gay bigotry. You seem to favor them.
By the way if the word "marriage" has no importance then why spend all the time and go through all the hardship to pursue that word?
Well we can call Christians 'second class citizens' then. We'll let them have the same rights, words don't matter right? I mean you're totally not trying to keep a little bigoted foothold in there.
Now you are just not making any sense. I would make a smart ass comment but at this point I would just feel bad about rubbing it in.
No, makes perfect sense. Terms don't matter, right?
Oh and California is very much a state that is problematic (I know what you meant but I saw an opportunity for a joke and took it).
Well thankfully CA's governor doesn't proudly proclaim how many people he killed.
Yeah maybe if they actually USED the death penalty in California they wouldnt have so many problems with jails overflowing and them having to just release prisoners because they cant house them anywhere. Oh thats right California bankrupted itself, it probably can't even afford to execute people...thats really just sad considering California has the highest GDP in the country. What a waste of potential.
Yes, because if we look at the numbers... oh wait the numbers don't support that idea. In fact numbers say that the death penalty is more expensive and not an effective deterrent. Oops.
Seekster: As for your second part, I do remember telling people for months that the Prop 8 case didnt mean much for the other states and that the issue was California essentially gave homosexual couples a right and then took it away. I must say it is somewhat satisfying to be vindicated in that assertion. I do have some good news for you though, word is there is an attempt to put an initative on the ballot in California that would define marriage in a way that would include same-sex unions. If the people of California approve that it would not only preclude the argument that the judges are taking power away from the people and violating the right of self-determination but it would also make the result of the Prop-8 case academic and same-sex marriage in California could be legally recognized even while Prop 8 continues its voyage through the wide Ocean of the court system. I always thought California would be one of the 15 or so states that will eventually decide to legally recognize same-sex marriage on their own thats why it was interesting when California actually voted against doing so.
Well, this isn't really good news for me. Perhaps in a very broad sense, if I looked at the symbolism of it, that every expansion of gay rights in America is a symbolic step towards gay couples having their relationships federally recognised it's good news, but neither I nor my partner are Californian and even if one of us was, we're not allowed to live in the US together because of federal law anyway. It would be an excellent and significant mark of progress and I would sincerely be happy for the gay Californians who would once again be allowed to marry, but it won't help my family out.
After today's decision it looks even more likely that Prop 8 will be decisively overturned by the courts anyway, and in the mean time Californians can still have their registered partnerships.
Seekster: I don't have a law degree but even I can see that Wisconsin law is unconstitutional. However there is a funny thing about laws, you can't sue over them unless someone tries to enforce that law. If the law is not enforced you can't claim your rights are being violated. For example in multiple states there are laws that says the Governor has to be a Christian or something like that. I think one of the Carolinas actually tried to keep an atheist from running for governor and got sued over that. There are all sorts of obscure state laws that arent enforced and are only on the books because nobody has bothered to remove them (for example I know in at least some parts of Texas its technically illegal to own a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica because it contains recipes for making certain alcoholic beverages. I own a copy and to date the state has never sent me a fine or tried to take my copy. Also I understand its illegal to try and milk another man's cow.
Come on, you're shifting the goalposts. I'm sure that many of the states where gay sex was still banned before Lawrence v. Texas hadn't enforced those laws in years either, but it's not just about enforcing the laws, it's about the government enshrining into society that you are immoral, disgusting and your deviant behaviour will forever force you to live outside of the law and respectable society. I'm sure that a lot of interracial couples married where it was legal and got away with it by not trying to claim marriage benefits in their home states, but it's not just about that, it's about the government telling you that you are sick and wrong.
Gay Wisconsinites who marry interstate still live in fear that the law may be enforced at some point, or be intimidated into settling for their state's insufficient domestic partnership scheme instead. To someone who'll never know what it's like to have no legal authority, no endorsement from the government that governs you to be able to refer to the person you love most in the entire world and the person you're sharing your life with as your husband or wife, and that you have nothing to call your union, nothing to officially bind you together, it is so much more degrading and dehumanising than I think you realise. Judge Reinhardt summed it up beautifully, I thought.
Judge Reinhardt: By emphasizing Proposition 8's limited effect, we do not mean to minimize the harm that this change in the law caused to same-sex couples and their families. To the contrary, we emphasize the extraordinary importance because 'marriage' is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of 'registered domestic partnership' does not. The word 'marriage' is singular in connoting "a harmony in living," "a bilateral loyalty" and "a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). As Proponents have admitted, "the word 'marriage' has a unique meaning," and "there is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage." It is the designation of 'marriage' itself that expresses validation, by the state and the community, and that serves as a symbol, like a wedding ceremony or a wedding ring, of something profoundly important. See id. at 971. ... The name 'marriage' signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships. See Knight v. Super. Ct., 128 Cal. App. 4th 14, 31 (2005) ("[M]arriage is considered a more substantial relationship and is accorded a greater stature than a domestic partnership.")
Being denied this causes harm, which is one of the main reasons why there is such a fight to prevent gays from getting it. Marriage being just a word is bullshit, because if it was then the religious right would not be fighting tooth and nail to prevent gay couples from ever officially being able to call their relationships that.
Seekster: By the way I predict that the next great question on the issue of same-sex marriage will be getting other states to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. That one will get interesting because I don't think one state has the right to impose its laws on another state.
This will most likely be taken on after the section of DOMA that bans the federal government from recognising gay marriages is dealt with. I believe that Mexico's Supreme Court ruled that the full faith and credit clause of that country's constitution meant that gay marriages performed in Mexico City must be recognised by the federal government and all other states, but this is a different country with a different constitution and Mexico doesn't have the additional problem of state constitutional bans to deal with. It's an important question but not as important as federal recognition, in my opinion.
You're interpreting it that way. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there is a difference between taking it away now and never giving it to them.
Yes it does and that was the ruling. The constitution says you cannot take away a right without a good reason. Simply not extending giving rights is not the same as taking them away. Today's ruling reaffirms that there is no universal right to have your union recognized as a marriage. If you dont believe me at this stage then go around and read. Might I suggest the Associated Press story on the matter.
Yes, because if we look at the numbers... oh wait the numbers don't support that idea. In fact numbers say that the death penalty is more expensive and not an effective deterrent. Oops.
Yes the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison (which doesnt make any sense and there has got to be a way to save money somewhere) and it doesnt seem to act as a deterrent, except of course to the guy being executed. So what is your point?
You're interpreting it that way. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there is a difference between taking it away now and never giving it to them.
Yes it does and that was the ruling. The constitution says you cannot take away a right without a good reason. Simply not extending giving rights is not the same as taking them away. Today's ruling reaffirms that there is no universal right to have your union recognized as a marriage. If you dont believe me at this stage then go around and read. Might I suggest the Associated Press story on the matter.
You keep repeating your interpretation as if that makes it true. Oh well who can expect sense from you.
Yes, because if we look at the numbers... oh wait the numbers don't support that idea. In fact numbers say that the death penalty is more expensive and not an effective deterrent. Oops.
Yes the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison (which doesnt make any sense and there has got to be a way to save money somewhere) and it doesnt seem to act as a deterrent, except of course to the guy being executed. So what is your point?
I'm sorry, did someone hit you in the head repeatedly since your last reply or are you just playing stupid? You acted as thought the death penalty ought to help. Considering it is more expensive and not enough people actually get executed to fix the problem of overflowing prisons...
Arsen: Separation of Church and State anyone? Note: I am not arguing for gay marriage here.
What exactly are you trying to argue? Because I have no idea what your post is supposed to mean in relation to the thread.
Probably he's trying to express that marriage has nothing to do with churchers. Marriage is a formal recognition of the state of a relationship.
That's relevant, because the only reason to try and restrict marriage to only a man and a woman is the clerical idea of relationships. Clerical marriage however is just an empty ritual with no meaning, and thus can't stand model for actual marriage.
The homophobes sow terrible confusion in this kind of discussion because they argue based on their meaningless religious ritual and call it marriage, and everybody else thinks of actual marriage. Drily pointing out the separation of church and state is a good attempt at ending that confusion in a hurry.
Seekster: As for your second part, I do remember telling people for months that the Prop 8 case didnt mean much for the other states and that the issue was California essentially gave homosexual couples a right and then took it away. I must say it is somewhat satisfying to be vindicated in that assertion. I do have some good news for you though, word is there is an attempt to put an initative on the ballot in California that would define marriage in a way that would include same-sex unions. If the people of California approve that it would not only preclude the argument that the judges are taking power away from the people and violating the right of self-determination but it would also make the result of the Prop-8 case academic and same-sex marriage in California could be legally recognized even while Prop 8 continues its voyage through the wide Ocean of the court system. I always thought California would be one of the 15 or so states that will eventually decide to legally recognize same-sex marriage on their own thats why it was interesting when California actually voted against doing so.
Well, this isn't really good news for me. Perhaps in a very broad sense, if I looked at the symbolism of it, that every expansion of gay rights in America is a symbolic step towards gay couples having their relationships federally recognised it's good news, but neither I nor my partner are Californian and even if one of us was, we're not allowed to live in the US together because of federal law anyway. It would be an excellent and significant mark of progress and I would sincerely be happy for the gay Californians who would once again be allowed to marry, but it won't help my family out.
After today's decision it looks even more likely that Prop 8 will be decisively overturned by the courts anyway, and in the mean time Californians can still have their registered partnerships.
Wait a minute, you aren't ALLOWED to live together in the USA? That statement needs to be explained.
Seekster: I don't have a law degree but even I can see that Wisconsin law is unconstitutional. However there is a funny thing about laws, you can't sue over them unless someone tries to enforce that law. If the law is not enforced you can't claim your rights are being violated. For example in multiple states there are laws that says the Governor has to be a Christian or something like that. I think one of the Carolinas actually tried to keep an atheist from running for governor and got sued over that. There are all sorts of obscure state laws that arent enforced and are only on the books because nobody has bothered to remove them (for example I know in at least some parts of Texas its technically illegal to own a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica because it contains recipes for making certain alcoholic beverages. I own a copy and to date the state has never sent me a fine or tried to take my copy. Also I understand its illegal to try and milk another man's cow.
Come on, you're shifting the goalposts. I'm sure that many of the states where gay sex was still banned before Lawrence v. Texas hadn't enforced those laws in years either, but it's not just about enforcing the laws, it's about the government enshrining into society that you are immoral, disgusting and your deviant behaviour will forever force you to live outside of the law and respectable society. I'm sure that a lot of interracial couples married where it was legal and got away with it by not trying to claim marriage benefits in their home states, but it's not just about that, it's about the government telling you that you are sick and wrong.
Gay Wisconsinites who marry interstate still live in fear that the law may be enforced at some point, or be intimidated into settling for their state's insufficient domestic partnership scheme instead. To someone who'll never know what it's like to have no legal authority, no endorsement from the government that governs you to be able to refer to the person you love most in the entire world and the person you're sharing your life with as your husband or wife, and that you have nothing to call your union, nothing to officially bind you together, it is so much more degrading and dehumanising than I think you realise. Judge Reinhardt summed it up beautifully, I thought.
I am not shifting anything, a law cannot be challenged unless you attempt to enforce it. And you are being paranoid at the whole deviant behavior bit. Most Americans are more tolerant of homosexual now, even if they may not support the idea of legally recognizing same-sex marriages.
Ha ha if anything those who oppose same-sex marriage in Wisconsin live in fear that some idiot may actually try and enforce that law. If I were them I would make a point to do away with it because if its challenged there is a risk that a judge could force Wisconsin to recognize same-sex marriages.
Judge Reinhardt: By emphasizing Proposition 8's limited effect, we do not mean to minimize the harm that this change in the law caused to same-sex couples and their families. To the contrary, we emphasize the extraordinary importance because 'marriage' is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of 'registered domestic partnership' does not. The word 'marriage' is singular in connoting "a harmony in living," "a bilateral loyalty" and "a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). As Proponents have admitted, "the word 'marriage' has a unique meaning," and "there is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage." It is the designation of 'marriage' itself that expresses validation, by the state and the community, and that serves as a symbol, like a wedding ceremony or a wedding ring, of something profoundly important. See id. at 971. ... The name 'marriage' signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships. See Knight v. Super. Ct., 128 Cal. App. 4th 14, 31 (2005) ("[M]arriage is considered a more substantial relationship and is accorded a greater stature than a domestic partnership.")
Being denied this causes harm, which is one of the main reasons why there is such a fight to prevent gays from getting it. Marriage being just a word is bullshit, because if it was then the religious right would not be fighting tooth and nail to prevent gay couples from ever officially being able to call their relationships that.
Its debatable whether not being allowed to force the state to call your union a marriage causes harm. You can call your union marriage if you want but your rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of others.
As I said, homosexual activists opened this pandora's box way too early and went after marriage when they should have gone after equal rights. Now things have become far more difficult for those activists. Hopefully now things will shift towards a drive for equal rights and let marriage come when it may.
Seekster: By the way I predict that the next great question on the issue of same-sex marriage will be getting other states to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. That one will get interesting because I don't think one state has the right to impose its laws on another state.
This will most likely be taken on after the section of DOMA that bans the federal government from recognising gay marriages is dealt with. I believe that Mexico's Supreme Court ruled that the full faith and credit clause of that country's constitution meant that gay marriages performed in Mexico City must be recognised by the federal government and all other states, but this is a different country with a different constitution and Mexico doesn't have the additional problem of state constitutional bans to deal with. It's an important question but not as important as federal recognition, in my opinion.
The federal government should recognize any couple with a state marriage license as being married. It doesnt matter if that couple is from Vermont or Arkansas they have to recognize it no matter the sex of the couple in that marriage. That is what I believe.
You're interpreting it that way. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that there is a difference between taking it away now and never giving it to them.
Yes it does and that was the ruling. The constitution says you cannot take away a right without a good reason. Simply not extending giving rights is not the same as taking them away. Today's ruling reaffirms that there is no universal right to have your union recognized as a marriage. If you dont believe me at this stage then go around and read. Might I suggest the Associated Press story on the matter.
You keep repeating your interpretation as if that makes it true. Oh well who can expect sense from you.
Yes, because if we look at the numbers... oh wait the numbers don't support that idea. In fact numbers say that the death penalty is more expensive and not an effective deterrent. Oops.
Yes the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison (which doesnt make any sense and there has got to be a way to save money somewhere) and it doesnt seem to act as a deterrent, except of course to the guy being executed. So what is your point?
I'm sorry, did someone hit you in the head repeatedly since your last reply or are you just playing stupid? You acted as thought the death penalty ought to help. Considering it is more expensive and not enough people actually get executed to fix the problem of overflowing prisons...
It doesnt matter if you realize it or not. I don't declare victory in a debate unless I really have won.
Ah you misunderstand me, I was poking fun at how California has so many self-inflicted problems and has squandered its wealth. I don't want to get into a death penalty debate right now because it would draw us off topic.
"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the court said.
Couldn't say it any better myself. It's pure discrimination. Nothing less.
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Exploding Barrels
Loading Time
No Right Explanation
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
As many are aware, a little more than 3 years ago (November 4, 2008, to be precise), California approved a constitutional amendment by a very narrow margin (52.3% for, 47.7% against) which ruled that california would only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. Needless to say, the amendment has been rather controversial, due in no small part to how its purpose was to strip existing legal recognition from a given group (Same-sex marriage had been officially recognized in California earlier that year), and it shouldn't be surprising that the ruling has been fought ever since. Today, it looks as though those efforts bore fruit.
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html
Spoiler: Click to View
Now of course the big question is whether or not that ruling will stick and whether or not this is a sign of things to come.
For those interested, the court documents can be found here
Edit: Fixed first link