Another group of “Supremes” getting it wrong.. SIGH…

Judges have finally decided that people’s constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights trump private religious-based prejudices, especially when exercising those rights has virtually zero effect on them. They definitely got it right. They even were in agreement with the legislature. The state’s governor and religious zealots can’t hold us back into the stone age.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

eh, marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman…does the Cali supreme court really want to overturn several thousand years of precedent? A better solution would be full legal civil unions, or some alternate path that guarantees civil liberties, but doesnt fundamentally change the definition of marriage

this simply looks like judicial activism, the right way to do this would have been to hold some sort of statewide vote or plebecite, and let the public decide for themselves, instead of indirectly elected judges

Next thing you know they’ll give blacks their freedom and women the right to vote.

Go Barack! Go Hillary!

Jed Clampett

traditionally, religion allowed for the marriage of one man to many women, as long as he was able to appropiately care for them and the children. But we see that that tradition has been turned on it’s head as well.

This is good news. Whoever wants to protect the sanctity of marriage should be working toward banning divorce, rather than banning two people in love from marrying.

WOOT

it’s about time :]

Jed Clampett

If the intent is to protect the institution of marriage, and by implication the family unit, why is it that parents that abscond their duties are not imprisoned and deposed of their finances to give the children? why aren’t deadbeat dads acually ‘compelled’ to pay up, rather than pushed through the system in order to generate revenue in the form of fines and penalties? Why aren’t there more social services designed to help people cope with the realities of married life?

When a party shows me that they are about imposing their will on others by force of law or arms, I have to recognize that this party has been infiltrated and happily espouses the tactics and tecniques we have been warned are used to destroy civilizations, not protect them. They hate social programs that try to help the people, but wish to create more and more laws to help imprison and vilify them. Aren’t their actions contraty to their stated aims of LESS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION AND INVOLVEMENT IN OUR PERSONAL LIVES? Is it mere coincidence that so many of their friends are running private companies that have contracts for housing our population in ‘correctional institutions’?

(Somewhere In The Middle)

While I don’t think it is the place of California’s Supreme Court to rule on marriage, I’m glad that gays can now be joined in a union and be afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Marriage is, for all intents and purposes, a religious institution. It is the place of those religions to determine for themselves what constitutes a “marriage.” This whole issue of gay marriage could be easily resolved if all marriages (gay or straight) were recognized by the state as merely civil unions and leave the term marriage out of the legal aspect altogether. That way any couple, gay or straight, that is in a civil union would be granted the same rights and the religions can determine for themselves what they want to call “marriage.”

Finally the court does the right thing – marriage has always been a changing institution – it has never been only between one woman and a man for any substantial length of time – yet alone between only opposite sex.

Jed Clampett

SITM – the whole point is that it isn’t a strictly religious institution. If it was no one would want it, who want’s to be part of a religion that espouses understanding and compassion yet refuses gays because they don’t think or act like them. Seems totally contraty to the prophet’s message, no?

The whole intent is to afford the same legal rights to gay couples as to straight couples. Being able to make medical decisions in an emergency, being able to pursue redress on their behalf for injustices, etc etc.
Personally, it bothers me that there is a distinction made in law between a gay couple and me and my girlfriend of 5 years. They can get insurance through work as a couple even though they aren’t married, me and my girlfriend would be forced into marriage in order to get the same considertion.
Way I see it, if you are a couple, living together and forming a relationship deeper than just dating or screwing around, you should have the legal protections and rights that allow you to form a more perfect union. Period.

Traditionally people who work on the Sabbath are executed according to Exodus 35:2. You do not see politicians, religious leaders, police, military personnel, emergency workers, televangelists, or anyone else who works on the Sabbath killing themselves or being killed. Traditions change and evolve. Marriage is the same thing. Good for Americans standing up for their human rights! Go America!

Hmm…didn’t gay people already have the basic civil right to marry? Oh yeah, they did. Just not the people that they wanted to marry.

And homosexuality and marriage are both New Testament and Old Testament principals, so you are applying incomplete evidence when you ascribe changes from Old Testament covenant laws alone. It is also a bit of a categorical error to just say this is about marriage. It is about homosexual marriage. Plus, the New Testament is not for homesexual marriage. 1 Cor 7:2 says that “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife (or woman), and each woman is to have her own husband (or man).” That is pretty clear to me!

(Somewhere In The Middle)

Jed, I’m in total agreement with you. I am all for granting civil unions (including all legal rights) to couples (gay or hetero) and I don’t believe there should be any distinction made if it is a gay couple or a hetero couple. I think for legal purposes, these couples should be recognized by the state as a civil union, whether their ceremony took place in a church or a courtroom.
What I was trying to say is that the big hang-up seems to be on the word marriage. The loonies on the right seem to feel that by saying two guys are married to one another, that is somehow going to ruin their own marriage. Let the individual religions decide for themselves what they want to call “marriage,” but have the state provide legal rights (as you mentioned in your comment) to all civil unions.
Don’t even get me started on how religions contradict their prophet’s message. That is one of the main reason I’m agnostic.

and you think that marriage between a man and a woman prevents those immoralities?

Been clubbing lately? have you seen those MILF’s out there enjoying themselves and others while the husband is at home or work?

Jed Clampett

agreed. many espouse a particular religion without truly understanding it’s credo or how it’s message has been modified from it’s original intent.
There are many leaders in the theological structure that use their positions of influence to mislead, rather than help their congregation evolve and grow.
Unfortunately, there are many sheeple who are easily incensed by these leaders with a few slogans and key words. ‘the institution of marriage’ seems to be one of these. You get people taking quotes out of context to justify an absurd and patently unnatural position. They fight off any change to their status quo with brutal passion, yet when faced with their own transgressions they claim they ‘must be accepted as I am’ in accordance with their religious teachings. Unfortunate that their blindness would prevent them from noticing the hypocresy of their positions. Perhaps they can be helped to understand in the near future.

For all of you who say that the court got it wrong.
Your religion has NOTHING to do with other peoples relationships.
Marriage in the eyes of the state is a SECULAR contract between two people.
Marriage in the church is a stage play put on for happy feelings and legally means NOTHING.
If you don’t want same sex marriage, don’t marry some one of the same sex.
And keep YOUR religion out of OUR government.
Get used to it. We are NOT going away.
You have a great day.

“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife (or woman), and each woman is to have her own husband (or man).”

Interesting……Were those parenthesis in the Old Testament….??? Or, Or, Or, Or, could this be left up to interpretation? Meaning: A woman’s ‘other’ half is called a husband, and a man’s ‘other’ half is called a wife, regardless of gender?

Therein lies the problem with citing religious scripture…it’s left up to cherrypicking interpretation.

If marriage is such a sacred institution, then why do 50% of them end up in divorce? I bet the same-sexers don’t have that same percentage……

If two humans can engage in a loving relationship, why not three? Why can not the three musketeers get married and raise kids, and check ‘married’ on their tax returns? Since we can not duck that based on religion, what scientific reasons prevent such unions? Or is it merely prejudice? The logical solution, toward which we are advancing, is to get rid of the baggage of marriage altogether. It was emotional with the flower children generation. Now it is more. Eliminate the institution.

Jed Clampett

so, when their arguments have been thoroughly refuted one by one and they have nothing else to resort to… they go to extremes. if two, why not three, or four, throw in some animals, maybe a goat and some chickens? (is that a village?)
This is the kind of thinking that destroys communitites. This is the sort of distorted rationale that sends a security apparatus, with military force, into a community of peaceful people to tear it asunder and take away their children on the calumny of someone coherced by a sheriff and prosecutor intent on making a name for themselves on the national stage.
Aparently it is easier for these people to elicit a response by appealing to disturbed emotions rather than common sense or rationality. It’s sad to see how so many are manipulated in this fashion and respond willingly. It is even sadder to see that the security system is so skewed against the citizen that a group of armed thugs can cite their fear rather than their rational observations to justify excessive use of force on unarmed individuals trying to escape a situation caused by the officers irrational, emotional behaviour.

Easy Jed, sit down, put your head between your legs and breathe deeply for a few moments. You’ll be okay.

I believe your fellow annonymouse was being sarcastic, mostly. Even so, all he did was introduce the notion of polygamy, which isn’t, given current events, such a far-fetched one.

Jed Clampett

no he isn’t, the three musketeers reference is an attempt to ridicule and obfuscate sensible debate. This must be recognized and driven from public discourse in the same manner they have driven out common sense and rationality. By exposure of their aims, and prosecution of their indiscretions.

If you think I’m gonna sit-by quitely, smelling my own farts, while imbeciles are allowed to walk around destroying our world, then you have missed the point of my postings. Of course if you prefer to introduce your craneum to your rectum and believe those who have lied to you repeatedly without any resistance, then go right ahead. I imagine you’ll have a happy, long life. Enjoy.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Dennis– that is exactly the problem with this ruling…it wen above the California citizen’s heads, and worse it creates a slippery slope as to who can get married

who’s to say three people cant get married, or a person marrying an animal? Perhaps an adult and a minor? Or, like that guy in new jersey who was screwing his picnic table, how about a man and an inanimate object?

all of these cases, espescialy polygamists, now have some sort of precedence under the law, and that’s fundamentally dangerous as a slippery slope can be

the only danger in a slippery slope is from the morons that refuse to recognize it for what it is and send people over it in order to fight against the premise it opens up.

The issue of gay marriage is a no-brainer. So, of course, some people are going to miss the point.

The court defined the LEGAL definition of marriage not the religious definition. The courts are not telling you or your church that it’s alright to marry someone of your own gender. Stop worrying. Your bigotry is safe.

Honestly, I don’t have any problems with bigamy. Just as long as they are all consenting adults and aware of each other in the marriage. A person marrying different people who are unaware that he/she are married to someone else would be consider fraud.

Arguments about how legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing perverse/currently illegal coupling is a smokescreen by people who feel that faith is being threatened. They use that argument when they run out of logical couterpoints in this debate.

Merkwurdigliebe,

As usual you give the retard’s argument.

Mister “state’s rights” is now getting pissy about a state legalizing something he thinks conflicts with his incorrect understanding of his own religion.

Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t mean polygamy retard. It also doesn’t mean bestiality retard. It also doesn’t mean a slippery slope towards the above retard.

You have no argument. Sit down like I told you to after the last time I embarrassed you. Retard.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

helooo- oh, YOU embarrassed ME? lets do this dance again shall we?

how can you call this states rights, when FOUR judges overturned the will of about 60% of Californians? When one talks about states rights, they mean the will of the people, jackass, which obviously wasnt followed

also, because the judges found verbiage in the state constitution that isnt there, it opens up the door for what marriage is, and more importantly, how it is defined under the law…for polygamists espescially, how can you now legally not allow a man and two women to get married? do they not have the same legal rights under the california constitution? or is the court being semi0inclusive? this has nothing to do with “religion,” rather an activist court overruling states rights…

Its a badly worded precedent, because by tackling “marriage”, you go down a road you dont need to go down, civil unions for all are the better path

last time we tangled, i told you to walk you baby nuts around the block a few more times before you came at me, and looks like you didnt do it

try again retard

Marraige is between two people. Not three, four, and not five. A dog and a man, possibly. An elephant and a woman, possibly. But, two beings nonetheless…….

Your scenario doesn’t scare anybody Merk. And, even if what you’re saying DOES come to fruition, what’s the threat? Our way of life? I thought we were a free country?

This is not an argument of whether or not marriage should be between a man and a woman. It’s more of an argument realizing that some people don’t live their lives by the ‘code’ that says man/woman. Some of them are attracted to the same sex.

What is your answer? And don’t tell me to call their ‘marraige’ a civil union. That means all you’re worried about is a ‘label’.

voters across the country should be seriously concerned about this.

The people have voted, and a couple of liberals in black robes come along and dare to thwart democracy in action?!

The people of California have voted and it was a waste of time!

American votes are supposed to be sacred! The people have voted!!!

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Coach– the “threat” is twofold; one, the court based its decision on language that isnt found in the California constitution, i.e., they inferred into something that was not there, which makes it a dubious ruling already

Even more troubling, however, is that the will of the people of California was overuled by a mere four, unelected judges…This is a reversal of states rights, and it is a dangerous precedent, that the will of the people means little and that a judiciary is going to do what it wants, regardless of what the people want…A majority of Californian’s dont want to change the definition of marriage, and the proper thing to do would be to keep chipping away at the populace until they’re comfortable with the idea, ala Massachusetts

unfortunately , the ruling here is going to be counterproductive to the gay marriage cause…it looks like a back door attempt that was ram-rodded through by a handfull of judges, as opposed to the people, who will strike this down in november

And last time we tangled, I embarrassed you by winning every single argument we had. Walk your own baby nuts around the block before you get to the “short bus” stop retard (if you can call them “nuts“, effeminate absence of nuts would be more like it.)

Let’s try to enlighten an idiot:

“how can you call this states rights, when FOUR judges overturned the will of about 60% of Californians? When one talks about states rights, they mean the will of the people, jackass, which obviously wasnt followed”

You display a lack of knowledge about the American democratic process that is absolutely staggering. The INHERENT FUNCTION of a state supreme court is to review the laws the majority of the “people” (the CA legislature/voters) pass. It’s called “judicial review” and let me let you in on a little secret: IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME (why are you getting all emotional about this particular ruling, homophobe?) And state’s rights does not mean “the will of the people” it means the rights of states IMPLYING THE RIGHTS OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THOSE STATES moron.

“the court based its decision on language that isnt found in the California constitution,”

Wrong. The court based its decision on the equal protection clause in the California constitution. You’re only blathering incoherently about “states rights” because the entire reason for the term (opposition to black freedom) was based on opposition to the mere idea of an equal protection clause. You similarly are conjuring up “activist judges” to conjure up the tired and hypocritical conservative whine over roe v wade.

“because the judges found verbiage in the state constitution that isnt there, it opens up the door for what marriage is, and more importantly, how it is defined under the law…for polygamists espescially,”

Whu?? Again, the ruling WAS BASED ON THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IN THE CA CONSTITUTION. What weird sort of predilection do you have towards multiple wives and bestiality that you would so readily bring them up? Do you want to marry a pack of dogs? Neither bestiality nor polygamy have anything to do with the CA supreme court striking proposition 22 down. Get a clue retard.

You consistently display stupidity. You are like a geyser of idiocy whose expressed purpose seems to be to make every argument as annoyingly stale as is possible. Please don’t ever vote because it seems that vote would always be based on lack of intelligence (and hence go in the Republican column). Is there any worth you provide to the world at all?

>>Ideology and preferences aside!

The one true source of Democracy is the vote. Everyone across the country should be outraged.

Homosexuals who love democracy should be outraged as well.

Voting is sacred in this country; I feel that something very sinister is going on.

I’ll give this forum one more try. I’ve been gone a long while from RS forum, and when I came back and wrote a bit night before last, it never showed up, which was largely why I went away last year.

Ok, LC, you wrote, “The one true source of Democracy is the vote. Everyone across the country should be outraged.” No, LC, you don’t get it. The main point of an “equal” judicial branch is so they can review laws passed by the majority of voters and weigh whether these laws contradict the Constitution (state or federal), because the founding fathers knew that in crazy political climates the people tend to pass laws that are harmful. A very significant part of their job description is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority (Read Jefferson and others and you’ll see this exact premise eloquently stated.) All of you rightwing shills have obviuously NOT read the actual ruling to know what it does and does not say, and what Ca Supreme Court precedents it is based soundly on.

The rights of a minority are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON THE WHIM OF THE MAJORITY. We are a “federal republic” that uses elected representation to set its laws WITHIN the principles of the Constitution that we all abide by. Do you think the will of the people was unjustly abrogated when the Supreme Court struck down the bans on inter-racial marriage? The vast majority of the country’s citizens were adamantly for those bans at the time. Do you think that the court was usurping the will of the voters unjustly then? This is EXACTLY the same type of situation. The mass public DOES get it wrong (just look at Bush’s two terms!) And the courts are there to correct these situations. Equality IS the central theme to our Constitution (and California’s) and this court just told the Ca government that it has to apply the laws equally for two people in love who want to marry. Simple as that. Get over it.

UNCLE MAC!! Welcome Back!!

(I feel like Gump talking to Lt. Dan.)

Things aren’t so good here. But someone has to stay and provide reason. Drop me a line @ dirtydennis at exite dot com and I’ll bring you up to date.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Hellooo– YOU won every argument we had? You might just be legally retarded, or incredibly vain, I’m not sure which. All your posts were basic liberal tripe, bitching about massive disenfranchisement, a collapse of democray among those who were poor and urban, etc. Yet that didnt come to pass, and you resorted to name calling to cover your ass. Then you demonstrated an alarming lack of basic economic and subsidies knowledge. When called out on that, you resorted to baseless claims of calling me a racist (and now a homophobe)…you whole lot of posts was a mass of twisted words, and when actually proven wrong, you resorted to name calling, which is why I honestly cant stand most liberals, any debate devolves into hyperbolic, frothing at the mouth name calling

YOUR lack of knowledge about the democratic system is highly supect…judicial review only applies in extreme cases of suspect constitutionality, of which, under present law, the California propositon was not in express violation. No immediate rights were being violated by the proposition, as civil unions filled in any rights abuses…so, already, there is no abject justiciable controversy…as to my knowledge there was no egregious rights abuses as a result of the California proposition, so why the ruling?

The court (4 judges) BROADLY interpreted the “equal protection clause,” WHICH MENTIONS NOTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE…the Court’s ruling did not sufficiently prove that there was such a tantamount abuse of citizens rights that the will of 60% of Californians had to be overturned…the clause merely provides equal protection under the law, which one recieves anyway regardless of race, color, creed, or orientation

So, if a ruling can be made on the subject of marriage, a subject not directly mentioned, nontheless covered, under the equal protection clause, what stops any other forms of marriage from being carried out? You legally cant stop more forms of marriage, as the flood gates are now open…if the court can literally make up a ruling using vague pretenses with no real justiciable controversy, why not?

so my critique is not based in “religion” or homophobia, or Roe V. Wade, or whatever you want to try and pin on me…my problem was that this was too broad a measure based on too vague constitutional grounds…such a precedent as this will have much broader implications beyond gay marriage. The ’states rights’ issue was already voted on…the state (people, not judiciary) of CA alreayd decided that they didnt want to change the definition of marriage, and the court has yet to provide some sort of explicit constitutional basis for overturning the decision…what protection under the law was still violated, even with civil unions?

and states rights is inherently based on the will of the people within said states, no matter how you want to spin it…it is based on the right of the state, under the 10th Amendment, to use powers not expressly delegated to them by Washington, not fear of blacks (the term existed long before there was such a fear, whether real or imagined)

i’m totally fine with a state having same-sex marriage, but I want it done right. MA has proven that it can work, but it did so without the piss-poor verbiage and legal standing that the CA ruling is based on, which is why it will easily be struck down in november

but come on son, more name calling? I await your next enlightening post with baited breath…but dont try to tack me as some conservative republican, all of my views have been consistent wiht a libertarian ethos

Jed Clampett

He/she has put you to shame since started posting. In fact, I venture to say the only reason she started posting was to shut up your stupid ramblings. Frankly, seems to be doing quite well. Everytime you open you mouth, she sticks your own foot in it. But of course you would have trouble seeing that… considering how difficult it is to discern anything with your cranium firmly entrenched in your rectum, I’m surprised you can muster enough breath to have a coherent thought.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Kind of like your incoherent ramblings about evil spirits and aliens? The ones that aimlessly wander with no coherent point? thats kind of the pot calling the kettle black, but i’ve got real bone to pick with jed, as of yet

all of my posts have voiced legitimate concerns with the ruling, yet i was derided with name calling, and hellooo’s points have been at best twisted truths, and at worst, blatantly wrong

Why is there a debate over state rights when a state supreme court made the ruling? Have anyone noticed that conservatives complain about activist judges when a court rule against what they believe in? Yet, these same people have no problem when activist judges openly violates state and federal constitutions in their favor. Examples: 2000 Presidential election and an Alabama Supreme Court Justice who installed a granite display of the Ten Commandments on state property.

The US Constitution is about guaranteeing rights of all citizens. So, when a majority puts into law something that violates the rights of a group of people. It’s the responsibility of the courts to correct the mistake. It’s called Checks and Balances. Like I said in a previous post, this issue is a no-brainer.

So why then did anybody bother to vote?!

Why did the state allow voters to the polls in the first place if this was going to happen?

What the people vote for shouldn’t be thwarted by any court.

Power to the people!

What your advocating, Classic Lib, is power of the majority to oppress the minority.

When people mention the “slippery slope” of allowing gay people to be legally married. I think about the slippery slope of passing laws that restricts the rights of people. To follow your argument that it’s acceptable to deny gay people the right to be legally married. We have legal precedent to ban any group of people the majority deem unsuitable to get married: Interracial coupling, handicap, criminals, atheists/agnostics, anyone who’s not Christian, etc. Also, if we can restrict the rights of certain group of people to get married, what other rights can we restrict? Don’t say that won’t happen in the US, because these things have already happened in the past.

Which is worse: Getting ecked out of seeing a legally married gay couple walking down the street or having a majority of people putting restrictions on your personal rights because you are not with the majority?

Allowing gays to get married is “oppressing” to the voters who overwhelmingly voted against it. To a lesser extent, it is “oppressing” to Tradition and morality, which is why so many people voted against it.

Truly “oppressing” them would to not allow them to have any relations with each other; to not allow them to parade around decent peoples’ streets and homes; to not allow them any rights what so ever – that is oppression.

Marriage is defined as being between a man and woman.

When you defy that, you defy decency; you defy the voters.

Jed Clampett

It’s really sad when people can only recognize opression when it has reached an extreme rather than when it is first being born. I guess a couple of hundred years of history teaches nothing. When you wait for the opression to reach levels where they won’t even let you leave your home, you are already lost.

BTW – Marriage between a single individual man and a single individual woman is not as traditional as you might think, unless you want to throw away several thousand years of history before christianity was invaded and taken over.

Hey Dennis,
I sent a letter to you at: dirtydennis@exite.com and it came back, twice. Is exite a .net or is it spelled excite?

JP, yes, the right screams “Activist judges!” as a mantra and a slogan, while judges like Scalia and his buttboy Thomas are the real activist judges because they refuse to deal with reality and changing times. The founding fathers were neither stupid nor shortsighted. They knew that no document could cover all future developments and political exigencies, so they set a framework, with the court system on an equal footing with the other two branches, so that in the future, reasonable men (and later, women) would weigh the arguments on any issue and decide what laws were just or unconstitutional, with the underlying premise of the entire American philosophy of equal representation and fairness at the core of every decision.

So-called “strict Constitutionists”, like Scalia, are being treasonous to the spirit of the Constitution when they refuse to acknowledge present day realities by saying these, or ANY, issues do not deserve consideration because they were not explicitly addressed in the Constitution.

Merck wrote: “The court (4 judges) BROADLY interpreted the “equal protection clause,” WHICH MENTIONS NOTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE…the Court’s ruling did not sufficiently prove that there was such a tantamount abuse of citizens rights that the will of 60% of Californians had to be overturned…the clause merely provides equal protection under the law, which one recieves anyway regardless of race, color, creed, or orientation”

Merk, Merk, Merk, do you even read over what you’ve written before you post it? More importantly, did you read the ruling itself? Equal protection permeates every aspect of law in the US. Every law must be vetted for its equal protection aspects. And you finish the paragraph with a statement that defies common sense. If that were true, we would not have needed a Civil Rights Act; we would not need to cover race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. in laws from city to state to federal. If you read the ruling, you would see that gays meet this “suspect class” (which means that laws affecting them require the strictest judicial review to prove the state’s compelling interest) in the eyes of the justices, 6 out of 7 of whom are Republicans themselves and were appointed by Republican governors.

Now get real here; do you think that these Republican judges just thought, “What the hell, let’s say they’re covered and let them get married.” ??? The ruling is 122 pages! They took many months of research and deliberation, knowing full well how controversial this ruling would be– either way, but especially if it was in favor of the plaintifs.

And you cite the Mass court ruling as one where they got it right, while you still decry “activist judges”. The problem you and all antigay marriage folks have is that it’s pretty near impossible to deny gays’ right to marry under fairness, logic and equal protection nomenclature. You all have to fall back on the Bible— which, by the way, does not say that two men or two women cannot get married— and “tradition”, even though marriage is older than the Bible and it HAS NOT been static as only one man and one woman over its history. It is in fact documented that both Greek and Russian Orthodox priests married male partners as late as the 14th century (no, not a common practice, but it did happen a few times.)

So the antigay marriage folks have only one argument: tradition. They hate it when we remind them that slavery and miscegenation were tradition and that the Bible was used by “good Christians” to justify these things intelligent people found morally repugnant as well. Jefferson and others knew and wrote about the dangers of religion in government. Not one person has been able to put forth even ONE reasonable and logical negative effect gay marriage has had or will have on str8 marriage. Not one, period.

Allowing gay people to marry only affects one group of people and no one else. So, having a group of heterosexual people complaining that they are being oppressed, because a court overturned a bigoted law that they voted for is pointless whining. I’m with some people here in wanting gay marriage be legal by people voting for it. Sometimes social change have to come by the court system.

I guess the frustrating thing about this debate. This ruling doesn’t affect me either way. This ruling also doesn’t affect 90% of the population. (If you believe in the one study that 10% of people are gay.) If a majority of gay people were against marriage being legal for them, I would have no trouble about this outcry against the ruling.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Mac– in all those cases you mentioned, there was an egregious abuse of civil rights, of which, to my knowledge, were not documented in the 122 page judicial explanation to warrant its dictation(though in all fairness, i may have missed it)

so if no specific justiciable controversy existed, why the ruling? If you can provide explicit, widespread examples of rights abuses that warranted this judgment, please illuminate them. The Civil Rights acts grew out of horrendous civil rights abuses, but to my knowledge gays were, with same-sex civil unions, privy to all normal protections under CA and Federal law, and legally, a civil union was in the same legal standing as a religiously ordained marriage

also troubling is the ’suspect class’ clarification, normally reserved for race…once you change that definition, its now open to too broad an interpretation, making the whole ’suspect class’ label too elastic to have any real meaning…the MA ruling worked because that state has an entirely different set-up for dealing with and applying the law, a climate that allowed same-sex marriage to foster, conditions that CA, with its proposition based system, does not have

as a libertarian, i care little if someone of the same sex wants to get married. Its their personal decision. But at the same time, states rights and the will of the people has to be considered, and I think the court did so poorly when they ruled…their intentions may have been good, but they went about it the wrong way

Anonymous:

I think you seriously should consider that:

1.) There is a legal distinction made between a civil marriage and a religious marriage.

2.) Having simply the word “marriage” accords 1000+ rights, and only the word “marriage” has international recoginition. Only two other countries in the world recognize “civil unions” from other nations, even if they have such unions (called by other names) in their country.

3.) Creating a separate category creates a social stigma and places a burden on the children raised by such couples. Is there a rational basis for this burden, or is it merely based on your prejudice and desire to be considered separate from “those people”? This is more than just some hypothetical, this is human rights and people’s lives we’re talking about.

4.) What version of the Bible are you reading. I’m have a Greek New Testament and a Hebrew Bible. I can nowhere find the 19th century words “homosexual” or “homosexuality”, although I do see lots of words that have historically be associated with male-male prostitution and pederasty, neither of which was considered “homosexual” by the cultures at the times in which they were present.

5.) I think you should read up on John Rawls’ conception of justice in a free society and John Stuart Mill’s conception of the liberty and its limits. Be a true American and learn what philosophical traditions made this nation.

Anonymous (cont.)

6.) Finally, would YOU trade your right to marry for a “civil union” or “domestic partnership” and the limits that they carry. Even if all black-letter legal inequalities were eliminated, all of the social and intangible benefits would most definitely not be the same. Most people would probably frown on your relationship and consider it a version of “marriage-lite” and would ask why on earth would you settle for that when you can be married. Any serious person when asked acknowledges that marriage is something more, even when it may be that they are asking gay and lesbian people to settle for less just to satisfy their utterly selfish and personal feelings of discomfort, whatever detriment they may inflict on others who have zero affect whatsoever on them.

Merkwurdigliebe,

Dude, what are you even arguing about now? The Calif supreme court was doing its job declaring prop 22 unconstitutional (not being “activist”) and none of this is a “state’s rights” issue because the federal government is not involved. Get a clue and try (it’s futile I know) to add some IQ points to that pathetic grey mass above your mouth you like to call a brain: READ SOMETHING.

“judicial review only applies in extreme cases of suspect constitutionality, of which, under present law, the California propositon was not in express violation. No immediate rights were being violated by the proposition, as civil unions filled in any rights abuses…”

Yawn. Once again you’re wrong. Gay people’s “right to marry” was being violated by proposition 22. Prop 22 violated the equal protection clause of the Calif. Constitution by treating gays and straights unequally. Not so hard to understand (even for a conservative…and I KNOW how we have to handicap you conservatives…)

Also, “Civil Union” rights are unrelated to this argument, as civil rights under the California constitution are not restricted to economic rights. Simply put, a “civil union” is not a “marriage.” I doubt you’d disagree.

And judicial review does not apply only in “extreme” cases of suspect constitutionality. It applies in ALL cases of suspect constitutionality. Get a clue moron.

“The court (4 judges) BROADLY interpreted the “equal protection clause,” WHICH MENTIONS NOTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE”

That is THE POINT of the equal protection clause you numbskull: to ensure all laws NOT MENTIONED THEREIN are upheld equally.

“the Court’s ruling did not sufficiently prove that there was such a tantamount abuse of citizens rights that the will of 60% of Californians had to be overturned”

“Tantamount abuse of citizens rights” as not a requirement for the judiciary exercising judicial review. The requirement is that a law-whether it‘s supported by the will of 60% of Californians (in 2000) or not-is not consistent with the constitution. Get a clue moron.

“So, if a ruling can be made on the subject of marriage, a subject not directly mentioned, nontheless covered, under the equal protection clause, what stops any other forms of marriage from being carried out?”

The COURT does you idiot. What polygamist or bestiality-practitioner has been blessed by the CA supreme court? Gay marriage is TOTALLY UNRELATED legally to any “other“ marriage you‘re talking about. It is an uninteresting conservative talking point to try to whip up fears of polygamous animal marriages whenever the issue of gay marriage comes up.

“and states rights is inherently based on the will of the people within said states, no matter how you want to spin it…it is based on the right of the state, under the 10th Amendment, to use powers not expressly delegated to them by Washington, not fear of blacks (the term existed long before there was such a fear, whether real or imagined)”

Come on dude. THINK for once in your life. We are talking about CALIFORNIA STATE whose justices were appointed by officials ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Washington had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS RULING. This is not a “state’s rights” issue. I cannot believe you can’t understand this.

If you’re trying to say that “state’s rights” is not modern code for racism then you are obviously living under a rock: George Wallace, the Alabama governor, who famously declared in his (1962) inaugural address, “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!”, later remarked that he should have said, “States’ rights now! States’ rights tomorrow! States’ rights forever!”

“you whole lot of posts was a mass of twisted words, and when actually proven wrong, you resorted to name calling,”

I STARTED OUT by calling you an idiot, moron. And you never proved me wrong, you simply display your lack of intelligence by referring to arguments you don’t understand as a “mass of twisted words.” )

I rest my case. You are a complete idiot. And a complete waste of my time.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

hellooo- there never has been a “right” to marry, and again, UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW CIVIL UNIONS AND MARRIAGES HAD THE EXACT SAME LEGAL STANDING AND THUS PROTECTION, therefore, you loathsome @sshole, where was the unequal treatment? The court “claimed” there was, but then did not, in its lengthy statment, ruled entirely on hypotheticals, and not one supporter of the court’s decision has been able to bring up a single abuse of rights that would warrant the decision…if you can do, please do

your inherently wrong about judicial review, as it ONLY APPLIES TO LAWS THAT HAVE SOME SORT OF EGREGIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE TO THEM. Otherwise, laws would be struck down all the time for unconstitutionality…the practice grew out of Marbury v. Madison, and was intended to be applied sparingly. moron.

the equal protection clause merely means that one is equal under the law. Which, with civil unions, gays were. period. no reason for the ruling. moron. Simply by not calling a joining of two people a “marriage” is not a tantamount abuse of rights, when the only difference between a marriage and a union is the sex and the legal term– THEIR RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS UNDER CA LAW WERE EXACTLY THE SAME. f*cktard.

and states rights, sorry to break it to your ranting and dfooling liberal waste of genetic material, is not a code for racism. Wallace spoke those words damn near 50 years ago, and a lot has changed. Only the most hardcore racist even know who Wallace is nowadays. States rights has, and always has, been based on the 10th Amdendment. And its the concept that the PEOPLE of the state, not unelected judges, decide whats best for them. YOU may not like their choices, but too damn bad, So stick it where the sun dont shine.

now here’s were the breadth of your ignorance is astounding. now that marriage has been changed in its legal definition, the ruling CAN NOW BE APPLIED TO OTHER GROUPS WHO WANT TO MARRY. Stay with me here, cuz i know your idiocy has a tendency to reduce your argument to mush. With this ruling in CA, LEGALLY, all kinds of groups now have precedent, under the law, to get married. Are not polygamists protected under the equal rights clause? Arent their rights just as important as same sex marriages? Hell, even same sex marriages had civil unions first. By changing the law in such a vague way, it opens the door to too many other options. This case can now be used for other groups, whomever they are, to get married. And with the changing of “suspect class,” in CA, those groups legally have ground to stand on.

So IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE (though i’ve pleaded this before, and it didnt work), I could CARE LESS if gays are allowed to marry. But dont go about in such a roundabout way that shi*ts all over existing law to do it, with no express violation of rights…the equal protection clause was only meant to ensure that each citizen’s rights were respected under the law (which they were), so again, if you can dredge up rights infringement that justifies changing CA law, then by all means, please do

if not, please go play in traffic, and finish the job the busted condom didnt do…good day

Dude you are just getting annoying. You have obviously lost this argument and are just being pissy because I smacked up your ego so bad. Get an education and stop spewing your irrational crap all over the place.

You wrote:
“your inherently wrong about judicial review, as it ONLY APPLIES TO LAWS THAT HAVE SOME SORT OF EGREGIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE TO THEM.”

Prop 22 WAS in violation of the Calif. Constitution. That’s why it was struck down you wet fart of a thought. You haven’t even made an intelligent argument that prop22 DIDN’T violate the constitution which is the only real thing we CAN argue about. Your only remaining lame ass arguments are that the “equal protection clause” doesn’t explicitly mention marriage which I torpedoed in my last post and that being unable to marry doesn’t constitute a “tantamount abuse of rights,” which an unconstitutional law necessarily does. Let’s be honest. You have nothing to argue about dude. You lost. Go lick your wounds somewhere else (preferably in front of a speeding trash truck.)

There is a history of courts using the equal protection clause to afford the “right to marry” to couples. The California supreme court was the first to recognize interracial marriage (Perez v. Sharp. (1948)) This next bit invalidates almost all your arguments so I suggest you pay close attention: In Perez v. Sharp “The court held that marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice. The court held that restrictions due to discrimination violated the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.”

The Calif supreme court’s ruling on gay marriage relied on Perez v. Sharp as precedent. Read that and weep you idiotic sh#t for brains loser.

Here is more history for your semi-literate b#tch as$: Interracial couples were granted the right to marry in (Loving v Virginia (1967), the right to marry of couples who had previous child support obligations (Zablocki v Redhail (1978)-in which the U.S. supreme court reasoned that “marriage was “a fundamental right” The “right to marry” of Inmates was upheld in (Turner v Safley (1987), etc…

“States rights has, and always has, been based on the 10th Amdendment. And its the concept that the PEOPLE of the state, not unelected judges, decide whats best for them”

F#cktard, UNELECTED STATE JUDGES ARE PART OF THE STATE. What don’t you understand about this? Seriously why is this even an issue for you? Are you arguing against the concept of both a state AND federal judiciary because judges are unelected? If so why don’t you say that and acknowledge that that is totally unrelated to what we‘re talking about?

“the equal protection clause merely means that one is equal under the law. Which, with civil unions, gays were.”

Once again, a civil union is not a marriage, legally or otherwise. That was one of the main points of the ruling. If you read the decision the judges described the status of civil unions being “separate but equal” to the institution of marriage as inherently unequal and thus invalid by previous rulings:

“retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.”

Not only that, “civil unions” are not equal to marriage at all:

“The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government’s General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.”

I love this because it not only disproves your idiotic contention that “civil unions” and “marriages” are exactly the same -even when you’re recommending a different classification for the two- it completely twists your “state’s rights” non-argument around to bite you in your worthless ass. By not recognizing the “civil union” rights a state confers upon its citizens and forcing those citizens to pay a tax, the federal government IS ACTING CONTRARY TO THE LEGAL DECISIONS OF THAT STATE. Essentially the Federal government is telling the state what it can and cannot do. That is in direct contradiction to your beloved “state’s rights” principles: if the State of California decides its citizens are married and deserve all the benefits married couples are entitled to, who is the federal government to tax those couples as if they weren’t married?

“now here’s were the breadth of your ignorance is astounding. now that marriage has been changed in its legal definition, the ruling CAN NOW BE APPLIED TO OTHER GROUPS WHO WANT TO MARRY.”

Shut the f#ck up b#tch (a.k.a.: Calif Chief Justice Ronald M. George: the decision did
“not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.”)

There. Which other arguments to you want me to kick you a$$ over?

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Hellooo– those rulings you mentioned pertained to interacial marriage, something at the time it was expressly forbidden and punishable by law to do, and was A TANTAMOUNT ABUSE OF CIVIL RIGHTS. THATs WHY THOSE RULING WERE PASSED. It was a crime for two different races to mingle openly. Not so for gays. They dont have separate water fountains, and they dont have to give their seat to a strait person and walk to the back of the bus. Marriage was an “innate right” reserved for a man/woman relationship, which is what the people of CA decided a marriage should be…yet you didnt find an abuse of rights that would justify overturning the will of 60% of Californians, and neither did the court

the Court’s ruling was based all in hypotheticals…

“a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples MAY well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who MAY, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.”

Notice the key words: MAY well, or MAY be treated differently. In order to overturn a law, it has to be expressly in violation of whatever Constitution it’s under, not that it “may” somewhere down the road…if this was a reasonable application of judicial review, then there would be NO law left overturned, as ALL laws THEORETICALLY can violate someone’s rights.

And all of those benefits you named, under civil unions were provided by the state of CA, or by an employer, so you’re point is moot. In one way or another, those in civil unions recieved the same rights as a married couple…but you still havent ansered my fundamental question: i asked you to dredge up a concrete case of rights abuse that would justify the ruling, and you have yet to do so…also, the federal government taxes unequally…by your logic, the rich are descriminated against tax wise because the make too much, and are thus taxed unfairly…this is a tax reform issue, not a civil rights issue

and no matter what the judge may say, legally, any group who wants to get married can now appeal to do so, as they now have precedent under the law to do so…if being “gay” is now a suspect class, then the definition of what a suspect class is not open to broad interpretation, and you’re a fool to think otherwise…The Miller test was supposed give limited protection to just some types of expression, but has been broadly interpreted to include everything under the sun, regardless of what the test stipulates.

in any case, this is a long dead argument…I’m not against gay marriage, but I’m against bad law…but we’ll see who’s proven right come November

Would it be wrong if I believed that homosexuals should be slaughtered by the masses? Not by myself, of course, But rather myself just getting up one mourning, fetching the newspaper and then just reading about how it all went down. That wouldn’t make me “homophobic” would it?

“but we’ll see who’s proven right come November”

GOD YOU CONSTANTLY MISS THE POINT. What’s on the ballot in November is an AMENDMENT to the constitution put to the voters. It is literally a change in the constitution that wasn’t there at the time the court struck prop 22 down. Therefore it has nothing to do with “bad law:” whether the court was correctly interpreting the CA constitution in this ruling and has no bearing on who is right or wrong in this argument.

I have consistently proven your arguments WRONG. That is why I WON this argument long ago. Again, you realize this and the only reason you’ve continued to this point is that I have blasted your ego to hell.

“Hellooo– those rulings you mentioned pertained to interacial marriage, something at the time it was expressly forbidden and punishable by law to do, and was A TANTAMOUNT ABUSE OF CIVIL RIGHTS. THATs WHY THOSE RULING WERE PASSED.”

“you still havent ansered my fundamental question: i asked you to dredge up a concrete case of rights abuse that would justify the ruling, and you have yet to do so”

I‘ve answered this so many times it‘s just frustrating. Now YOU have answered it for me: you write that “expressly forbidding marriage” is an abuse of civil rights. “Expressly forbidding” interracial marriage is the same thing as “expressly forbidding” gay marriage. The resulting abuse of rights is exactly the reason Prop 22 was struck down and exactly the “evidence“ you’re looking for of civil rights abuse. Congratulations, you just screwed your own argument.

Once again, here is language from the decision: “the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.”

Denying the right to marry is a case of denying a person’s civil rights. I won. Let it go.

Oh yeah and the fact that black and white people drank from different fountains in the south, or that Rosa Parks didn’t give up her bus seat in Alabama, or that there were southern Jim Crow laws oppressing black people IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

“the Court’s ruling was based all in hypotheticals…”

Nope. The ruling was based on Perez v. Sharp. which found that “marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice.” Again, the problem is that civil unions are not marriage. That the court used the word “may” is irrelevant: the entire notion of civil unions is prejudiced since it is not marriage. That the federal government taxes civil union couples at different rates than they do married ones is just one non-hypothetical example of prejudice.

“if being “gay” is now a suspect class, then the definition of what a suspect class is not open to broad interpretation,”

The court never defined polygamists, first cousins or any other minority other than gays as a “suspect class.” Once again you screwed your own argument.

“federal government taxes unequally…by your logic, the rich are descriminated against tax wise because the make too much, and are thus taxed unfairly…this is a tax reform issue, not a civil rights issue”

Wrong. Taxing people different amounts simply because they are minorities is a civil rights issue (we don‘t tax people because they‘re black). The difference between being born a minority or gay and not is not the same thing as the difference between being rich and poor. That is the whole point of the “suspect class” designation. Here are the requirements of being considered a suspect class-a classification of groups which meet a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. (the group must meet ALL criteria not just one and rich people obviously don‘t.)

1. The groups’ characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
2. The group shares a history of discrimination.
3. The group is politically impotent.
4. The group is a discrete and insular minority. (see U.S. v. Carolene Products)

“and no matter what the judge may say, legally, any group who wants to get married can now appeal to do so, as they now have precedent”

They ALREADY had precedent to appeal the state’s invalidating their marriage in both Perez v. Sharp AND Loving v. Virginia. People are not going to start marrying farm animals. Get over it.