DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Scheavo on February 07, 2012, 03:18:54 PM
-
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Actually some good news out of the government. I don't know how any can read the 14th amendment, and look at what kind of benefits being "married" (according to the State) gives a couple, and not come to this conclusion.
-
This makes me happy. It still isn't over, but its a good step... back to where they were before Prop 8... sigh
-
Hooray!
-
Great news.
-
Happy to see common sense win out. For now. Hopefully when this makes the inevitable march to the Supreme Court, they agree that it's a preposterous to deny gays this right.
-
I haven't read the decision, but my understanding is that they punted the bigger issue. What they decided was pretty narrowly crafted, and addressed the proposition itself, not the issue of gay marriage. For that reason, SCOTUS might well ignore the thing;who knows.
I didn't realize that they had hired Theodore Olson to represent them in the appeal. I don't much care for the guy's politics, but he's a remarkably good advocate.
-
I just don't get how people can think the discrimination of couples can be somehow built onto the foundation of the Constitution without an adjustment to it. It just seems such wasted time and effort. The only thing that would ever have a chance of success would be an amendment. That wouldn't stand much chance of course, but that's a different issue.
rumborak
-
If Prop 8 supporters are concerned about "marriage" being defiled, why can't marriage just be a religious institution if people so choose, and have the government simply recognize "civil unions" for all? Everyone gets treated the same and marriage is left untouched. Win win.
-
That's how other countries do it. And by definition, that is un-American.
rumborak
-
I've asked a few people who I know are against gay marriage about that, and they were still against the idea. I can't help but think it has little to do with 'protecting marriage' and more to do with just straight up homophilia/heterosexism (obviously not in all cases).
-
I read the other day that people are slowly realizing that absolutely nothing about their measly life changed, and so opposition is waning.
rumborak
-
If Prop 8 supporters are concerned about "marriage" being defiled, why can't marriage just be a religious institution if people so choose, and have the government simply recognize "civil unions" for all? Everyone gets treated the same and marriage is left untouched. Win win.
I wish it was that easy, but the term 'marriage' is cultural. People want to be able to 'marry' without being religious. Of course religious people are like "wut" but when it comes down to it, it's just definition of a term.
I don't know how someone could be against prop 8. It's one thing to be against homosexuality and another to be against the legality of it. If you're against the legalty of it, you've got a very nasty slippery slope on your hands, where your ideal nation is one that upholds God's law which, by the way, no one can follow perfectly and therefore everyone's a criminal. But if you take the other route and say we ought to have equal rights, and if someone wants to hurt themselves without infringing on the rights of others, then so be it.
By the way you have the right to not recognize a couple's marriage, even if it is legally recognized. You have the right to think whatever you'd like. Who cares what two people call themselves? They could invent a new word and call themselves a 'ewqfoiqjp'. It's just a word and doesn't change the reality of the situation.
-
Do you mean, you don't know how someone can be for Prop 8?
-
I was confused by that as well. Unless H is really saying he can't see why someone would be against discriminating a minority.
rumborak
-
I've asked a few people who I know are against gay marriage about that, and they were still against the idea. I can't help but think it has little to do with 'protecting marriage' and more to do with just straight up homophilia/heterosexism (obviously not in all cases).
One thing that I find interesting in this whole argument is that "marriage" is being defined by the "benefits" not by the "marriage". Marriage itself is not a state or government controlled event nor can it ever be as the very act itself has nothing to do with the government in general and is more an act of natural behavior and if you believe in God a supernatural behavior as marriages also tend to be sealed under an act of consecration through God. Civil Unions on the other hand are government controlled as they are almost always performed by a Justice of the peace represented by the state that is officially recognizing the marriage, sealed and consecrated through the state and national laws. If the general idea here that that homosexuals simply want to be "married", something that falls outside the sphere of government, then this is determined by the religious institution and not the state and for the state to force religions to marry homosexuals I find the same for religion to force the state to pass laws against it.
However I guess it depends on a person defines the word marriage as I do believe the definition itself has become something of a subjective issue. The Catholic church defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman who through the consecration of God becomes one flesh and is thus blessed to be fruitful and educate their offspring. This clearly cannot be applied to a homosexual marriage in that regard. Now I don't know what the laws are for civil unions but since it is a government law that defines it, then it's that law that needs amendment, not the definition of marriage.
-
I've asked a few people who I know are against gay marriage about that, and they were still against the idea. I can't help but think it has little to do with 'protecting marriage' and more to do with just straight up homophilia/heterosexism (obviously not in all cases).
One thing that I find interesting in this whole argument is that "marriage" is being defined by the "benefits" not by the "marriage". Marriage itself is not a state or government controlled event nor can it ever be as the very act itself has nothing to do with the government in general and is more an act of natural behavior and if you believe in God a supernatural behavior as marriages also tend to be sealed under an act of consecration through God. Civil Unions on the other hand are government controlled as they are almost always performed by a Justice of the peace represented by the state that is officially recognizing the marriage, sealed and consecrated through the state and national laws. If the general idea here that that homosexuals simply want to be "married", something that falls outside the sphere of government, then this is determined by the religious institution and not the state and for the state to force religions to marry homosexuals I find the same for religion to force the state to pass laws against it.
However I guess it depends on a person defines the word marriage as I do believe the definition itself has become something of a subjective issue. The Catholic church defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman who through the consecration of God becomes one flesh and is thus blessed to be fruitful and educate their offspring. This clearly cannot be applied to a homosexual marriage in that regard. Now I don't know what the laws are for civil unions but since it is a government law that defines it, then it's that law that needs amendment, not the definition of marriage.
I understand the point you're trying to make here, but essentially what they're trying to do is redefine marriage in a legal sense, not a religious sense. Churches will still be able to define marriage however they want. Churches do not hold a monopoly on marriage, nor are they the sole definers of what a marriage is.
-
(https://puu.sh/g9yK)
What rights are those, exactly?
-
You gotta fight, for your right, to discriiiiminate!
rumborak
-
The right to feel superior?
-
A nice analysis of the goings on. (https://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/10508135-418/experts-gay-marriage-bans-path-to-high-court-unclear.html)
. . . Yet legal experts seemed to think the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals struck down the voter-approved ban on Tuesday purposefully served up its 2-1 opinion in a narrow way and seasoned it with established holdings so the Supreme Court would be less tempted to bite.
The appeals court not only limited the scope of its decision to California, even though the 9th Circuit also has jurisdiction in eight other western states, but relied on the Supreme Court’s own 1996 decision overturning a Colorado measure that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people to argue that the voter-approved Proposition 8 violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
That approach makes it much less likely the high court would find it necessary to step in, as it might have if the 9th Circuit panel had concluded that any state laws or amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman run afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s promise of equal treatment, several analysts said.
“There is no reason to believe four justices on the Supreme Court, which is what it takes to grant (an appeal) petition, are champing at the bit to take this issue on,” University of Michigan law school professor Steve Sanders said. “The liberals on the court are going to recognize this was a sensible, sound decision that doesn’t get ahead of the national debate ... and I don’t think the decision would be so objectionable to the court’s conservatives that they would see a reason to reach out and smack the 9th Circuit.” . . .
-
(https://puu.sh/g9yK)
What rights are those, exactly?
Probably just as many had theirs stripped away when they passed Prop 8. Rick Santorum, please kindly go fuck yourself with a rake.
-
Santorum is the same guy who thinks that if his daughter were impregnated via rape that it would be a "Gift From God (https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/25/rick-santorum-rape-pregnancy)" :|
Here's the thing with Gay Marriage. If you're against gay marriage and you're a dude, don't marry a dude. It's pretty simple. If you're a girl, don't marry a girl. Problem solved. When Bob marries Joe it has absolutely ZERO impact on anyone's lives other than Bob's and Joe's. Period. People need to stay the fuck out of the personal business of others and mind their own.
And the next time I hear pious jerk whining about how we have to "preserve the sanctity" of an institution whose ceremony you can have performed by an Elvis impersonator in a damned drive-through window on the Vegas strip, I think I'm going to puke.
-
Rick Santorum also wants states to have the ability to ban birth control.
-
Besides, marriage long predates Christianity. For the longest time there was no involvement from any outside body, just the agreement of the two parties involved.
rumborak
-
The interesting thing about the decision according to some legal expert (I want to say Jeffery Toobin) was that the judges decision was worded in a way so that it only applies to the California law, which has two consequences: 1) It makes it less likely that SCOTUS will look at the case, and ruling will stand and Prop 8 will be repealed/removed/whatever the proper term is; and 2) makes it hard for future cases to lean on this decision as precident.
Either way its nice to see that people are protected from the so called "will of the people".
-
If Prop 8 supporters are concerned about "marriage" being defiled, why can't marriage just be a religious institution if people so choose, and have the government simply recognize "civil unions" for all? Everyone gets treated the same and marriage is left untouched. Win win.
This.
Many Republicans will continue to put words in the mouth of and make claims for their version of god and while ignoring the many things that the God they profess faith in cares about most deeply.
-
To preface... I know next to nothing about the law, or the Constitution...
Does the 14 Amendment distinguish between a person and a 'group?' Meaning... if taken as individuals, doesn't each and every person have the same marriage "rights", namely to marry someone of the opposite gender; but taken as a group, gays cannot marry each other, while heterosexuals can? I am not trying to justify anything; I am just trying to understand the legal implications here.
-
Rick Santorum also wants states to have the ability to ban birth control.
Yet he doesn't want the states to be able to regulate abortion, or gay marriage. He is a jelly fish. Basically he wants liberty as long as he agrees with how you use it.
I actually agree with him on the states having the ability to ban birth control (although I detest the idea of that happening). I also believe the federal courts shouldn't interfere with Proposition 8. But I also believe that marriage is a function of the church, but free adults should be able to enter into any contract they want (civil unions, whatever). Tax deductions shouldn't be just given to married couples, but to everyone (in other words, lower everyone's tax burden).
-
To preface... I know next to nothing about the law, or the Constitution...
Does the 14 Amendment distinguish between a person and a 'group?' Meaning... if taken as individuals, doesn't each and every person have the same marriage "rights", namely to marry someone of the opposite gender; but taken as a group, gays cannot marry each other, while heterosexuals can? I am not trying to justify anything; I am just trying to understand the legal implications here.
Due process issues make my brain hurt.
I believe that classes of people are afforded the exact same protections as the individual. You can't really separate the two. By denying the rights to a group of people, there's invariably an individual who's getting hosed, and he's going to be the one to file a case. In this instance, I believe there were two people who filed cases.
As it pertains here, what these two justices decided was that for a hundred and twenty some odd days, gay marriage was legal according to the state of California, and this amendment was designed solely to strip away previously held rights from a segment of the population. That's what makes it such a nifty decision. The court ignored the issue of whether or not gay marriage was cool or not, and only ruled that denying a right that had already been established is not. The conventional wisdom is that the SCOTUS will probably have to back them up on this, despite it's ideological disposition towards the right.
-
A nice analysis of the goings on. (https://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/10508135-418/experts-gay-marriage-bans-path-to-high-court-unclear.html)
. . . Yet legal experts seemed to think the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals struck down the voter-approved ban on Tuesday purposefully served up its 2-1 opinion in a narrow way and seasoned it with established holdings so the Supreme Court would be less tempted to bite.
The appeals court not only limited the scope of its decision to California, even though the 9th Circuit also has jurisdiction in eight other western states, but relied on the Supreme Court’s own 1996 decision overturning a Colorado measure that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people to argue that the voter-approved Proposition 8 violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
That approach makes it much less likely the high court would find it necessary to step in, as it might have if the 9th Circuit panel had concluded that any state laws or amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman run afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s promise of equal treatment, several analysts said.
“There is no reason to believe four justices on the Supreme Court, which is what it takes to grant (an appeal) petition, are champing at the bit to take this issue on,” University of Michigan law school professor Steve Sanders said. “The liberals on the court are going to recognize this was a sensible, sound decision that doesn’t get ahead of the national debate ... and I don’t think the decision would be so objectionable to the court’s conservatives that they would see a reason to reach out and smack the 9th Circuit.” . . .
I also saw one of the winning lawyers think the decision was fairly broad, all the same. It does say you have to allow for equal rights to citizens, gay or straight, even if in a coveted way. De factor or de jure, laws prohibiting gays from equal tax breaks, equal legal rights, and other things which the states, and society in general is against the Constitution.
There's still the Defense of Marriage Act, which apparently has a better chance at this anyways.
-
I also saw one of the winning lawyers think the decision was fairly broad, all the same. It does say you have to allow for equal rights to citizens, gay or straight, even if in a coveted way. De factor or de jure, laws prohibiting gays from equal tax breaks, equal legal rights, and other things which the states, and society in general is against the Constitution.
I'm just thinking out loud here, but shouldn't that apply to married vs non-married people? Some people just can't attract a mate. Shouldn't a married and non-married person have equal rights?
-
If Prop 8 supporters are concerned about "marriage" being defiled, why can't marriage just be a religious institution if people so choose, and have the government simply recognize "civil unions" for all? Everyone gets treated the same and marriage is left untouched. Win win.
That sounds like a great idea. :tup
-
I also saw one of the winning lawyers think the decision was fairly broad, all the same. It does say you have to allow for equal rights to citizens, gay or straight, even if in a coveted way. De factor or de jure, laws prohibiting gays from equal tax breaks, equal legal rights, and other things which the states, and society in general is against the Constitution.
I'm just thinking out loud here, but shouldn't that apply to married vs non-married people? Some people just can't attract a mate. Shouldn't a married and non-married person have equal rights?
This is a very shallow answer. There are some rights that only are conceivable for a married couple. Child custody? Bed side visitations? There are some things which being married does which isn't "denied" to a a single person, because they simply do not apply.
As for taxes, I mostly agree with you, except that being married and raising kids is more burdensome than being single.
-
Having kids and being married have nothing to do with each other tax wise. There are credits and deductions for children, and they dont rely on being married. Those tax breaks are there for married and single parents.
Also, one could state that it can be more difficult for a single person than a married couple. Housing costs per person go down when there are two people and two incomes. Same with things like insurance and utilities.
-
It still blows my mind that in today's day and age, people are still upset with the idea of gay marriage. People thinking they have the right to say who can marry who disgusts me. Let people be happy. I don't understand why religous fanatics are so up tight about it. Plenty of non religuos people do plenty of other things against their beliefs, and they don't get all bent out of shape about those things.
I'm not trying to cause trouble, but I am about to say how I feel.
Religions in America are seeing their validity slowly slip away, and many are afraid of considering that they have been living a lie their entire life. Allowing gay marriage would be one more thread pulled out of their sweater of beliefs. I think a big part of it is that science has identified the gay gene. This has been found in many species, not just humans. Not wanting to acknowledge another scientific discovery that throws salt in their beliefs, they just keep opposing it and raising hell in attempt to preserve their faith in an afterlife.
I also believe that many people are just completely uncomfortable with gays, let alone the idea of them getting married. Being uneducated, these people fear that they will convince others (although it is genetic) that it is completely acceptable to be gay. Lots of people are very uncomfortable with the idea of gays raising children, it is assumed that the child is doomed from the start and will surely be molested at some point. This notion is absolutely rediculous. Look at many of the children today. They are out of control, mainly because of shit parenting skills, as well as a 50+% divorce rate. Obviously the chemistry of a male and female figure raising a child doesn't have the best track record. I have known two gay couples with children, and they are honestly some of the best parents I know. They would die for their child just so they wouldn't feel the least bit of sadness or that they not being loved.
It really saddends me that I live in a world where people are willing to deny others of happiness because of their own fucked up/ignorant thought processes.
-
Having kids and being married have nothing to do with each other tax wise. There are credits and deductions for children, and they dont rely on being married. Those tax breaks are there for married and single parents.
Also, one could state that it can be more difficult for a single person than a married couple. Housing costs per person go down when there are two people and two incomes. Same with things like insurance and utilities.
Unless, ya know, it's two people and one income.
But since you bring up insurance, there's another issue where "being married" can bring some benefits. It allows you to get your partner on your same health insurance plan, which can bring savings and other benefits.
-
(https://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9223/imagedza.jpg)
-
Wow, so much for not setting the cause back several steps. :lol
-
Louis C.K. seems to hint where the issue lies but misses the mark completely. It is a "social" issue that has had a few generations to fully encapsulate itself into the world and be accepted only because two people are in love and not how we got there in the first place. It's easy to dismiss the past by making excuses for the present, especially when the current generation isn't bothered to look into the past to understand the present. There is a reason why the traditional family is on the decline and single mothers or single parent families are on the rise. (https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6542031.stm). Because it "is" a social development. A development that now sees the rise of homosexuality as some kind of a solution perhaps. But the solution comes without an understanding of why we need a solution, only as a "it's better because it is".
-
If Prop 8 supporters are concerned about "marriage" being defiled, why can't marriage just be a religious institution if people so choose, and have the government simply recognize "civil unions" for all? Everyone gets treated the same and marriage is left untouched. Win win.
That sounds like a great idea. :tup
I thought that's implied. The people bashing same sex marriage are trying to say it's religious custom, not Christian but everywhere. Now, what the gays want is Civil Union, the same benefits from the govt. Unless they want the fairytale wedding. But they should understand, it won't happen until the world accepts our differences to unite.
-
Because it "is" a social development. A development that now sees the rise of homosexuality as some kind of a solution perhaps.
I'm sorry, but that is such ludicrous statement :lol Did you not even stop yourself when writing this?!
Nobody, absolutely nobody sees homosexual marriage as a "solution" to the social trend of faltering marriages. Our point is simply and solely, if you (in plural) can't get your shit together with the regular marriages, then don't get on the high horse and deprive other people from it.
I'm sorry, Vivace, but your statement was mind-boggingly ludicrous.
rumborak
-
Because it "is" a social development. A development that now sees the rise of homosexuality as some kind of a solution perhaps.
I'm sorry, but that is such ludicrous statement :lol Did you not even stop yourself when writing this?!
Nobody, absolutely nobody sees homosexual marriage as a "solution" to the social trend of faltering marriages. Our point is simply and solely, if you (in plural) can't get your shit together with the regular marriages, then don't get on the high horse and deprive other people from it.
I'm sorry, Vivace, but your statement was mind-boggingly ludicrous.
rumborak
Uh, going to have to go with rumborak here.
-
Because it "is" a social development. A development that now sees the rise of homosexuality as some kind of a solution perhaps.
I'm sorry, but that is such ludicrous statement :lol Did you not even stop yourself when writing this?!
Nobody, absolutely nobody sees homosexual marriage as a "solution" to the social trend of faltering marriages. Our point is simply and solely, if you (in plural) can't get your shit together with the regular marriages, then don't get on the high horse and deprive other people from it.
I'm sorry, Vivace, but your statement was mind-boggingly ludicrous.
rumborak
Uh, going to have to go with rumborak here.
Yup
-
I agree with everyone in this thread who thinks its ridiculous that gay people still can't get married everywhere in this country.
-
I support the notion of removing "marriage" from the state and allow for civil unions. Let the various faiths bicker among themselves about "marriage." When they decide, then they go to get a civil union.