Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 76 of 759 (572576)
08-06-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2010 1:50 PM


This may be hard to believe, but sometimes I really do try to understand this whole moral high ground bullshit from a christian point of view. I really do. But the more I try, the more I find my head further up my ass.
Christians claim to have the moral high ground, yet they don't act like it at all.
And to preemptively strike at the "not all christians are like that" comments, it requires at least the majority to keep striking down gay marriage from state to state. You can't tell me the majority of christians are loving, christ-like. And you can't tell me there is such a thing as the silent majority.
When gay marriage are instituted via popular vote, then I'll back down on this. In the mean time, in my book christianity DOES NOT have the moral high ground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 1:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Stile, posted 08-06-2010 4:24 PM Taz has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 77 of 759 (572581)
08-06-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taz
08-06-2010 4:14 PM


Yup
Taz writes:
in my book christianity DOES NOT have the moral high ground.
I think that's been true since the OT was first penned...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taz, posted 08-06-2010 4:14 PM Taz has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 78 of 759 (572584)
08-06-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2010 1:50 PM


That would make Baby Jesus cry.
I like to picture Jesus in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says I want to be formal, but I'm here to party. Or, I like to think of Jesus like with giant eagles wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an angel band and I'm in the front row and I'm hammered drunk!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 1:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2010 4:53 PM onifre has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 79 of 759 (572586)
08-06-2010 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by onifre
08-06-2010 4:44 PM


Taladega Nights rocks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by onifre, posted 08-06-2010 4:44 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 08-06-2010 4:56 PM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 80 of 759 (572588)
08-06-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Huntard
08-06-2010 4:53 PM


Ricky Bobby!!! lol
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2010 4:53 PM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 759 (572599)
08-06-2010 5:33 PM


fundamental right to marry
One thing I will say:
A few years ago when gay marriage was being discussed in this forum, there were those who were insisting that marrying the person of your choice is not a fundamental right under US law.
Judge Walker's decision (if I understand it correctly) in this case is that, yes, marrying the person of your choice is a fundamental right under US law and custom. Except in cases where the state can show a compelling interest in restricting that right, it is protected under the 14th Amendment. Therefore, since the proponents for Prop 8 failed to show a compelling state interest in preventing gay marriage, gays do have a fundamental right to marry.
I'm bringing this up because it seems that a major argument (marriage not being a fundamental right) that some were using is invalidated, and I think it would be interesting to see the reaction of the anti-gay marriage crowd.
Edited by Chiroptera, : "forum" instead of "thead" in the first paragraph

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by subbie, posted 08-06-2010 5:59 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 82 of 759 (572604)
08-06-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Chiroptera
08-06-2010 5:33 PM


Re: fundamental right to marry
Judge Walker's decision (if I understand it correctly) in this case is that, yes, marrying the person of your choice is a fundamental right under US law and custom.
You are quite correct.
In summary, these are the holdings of the opinion:
quote:
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as the right to same-sex marriage would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
relationships for what they are: marriages.
quote:
California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-sex couples.
quote:
The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of
production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents stipulated that [t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage. Doc #159-2 at 6. Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
quote:
Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex.
quote:
The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation. FF 47. Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review.
quote:
The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies and do not amount to rational bases for Proposition 8.
quote:
Because the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.
quote:
None of the interests put forth by proponents relating to parents and children is advanced by Proposition 8; instead, the evidence shows Proposition 8 disadvantages families and their children.
quote:
Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children. See In re
Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 451-452. Californians are prevented from distinguishing between same-sex partners and opposite-sex spouses in public accommodations, as California antidiscrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite sex marriages. Koebke v Bernardo Heights Country Club, 115 P3d 1212, 1217-1218 (Cal 2005). The evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing other than eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. See FF 57, 62. Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.
quote:
rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California
law, exactly the same. FF 47-50. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. See FF 48, 76-80. The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.
quote:
Under precedents such as Craig v Boren, administrative ease and convenience are not important government objectives. 429 US 190, 198 (1976). Even assuming the state were to have an interest in administrative convenience, Proposition 8 actually creates an administrative burden on California because California must maintain a parallel institution for same-sex couples to provide the equivalent rights and benefits afforded to married couples. See FF 53. Domestic partnerships create an institutional scheme that must be regulated separately from marriage. Compare Cal Fam Code 297-299.6 with Cal Fam Code 300-536. California may determine whether to retain domestic partnerships or eliminate them in the absence of Proposition 8; the court presumes, however, that as long as Proposition 8 is in effect, domestic partnerships and the accompanying administrative burden will remain. Proposition 8 thus hinders rather than advances administrative convenience.
quote:
Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.
quote:
Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief
that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2010 5:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 759 (572609)
08-06-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2010 10:18 AM


The California Constitution says that homosexuals can marry. Pastors licensed in California have to comply with the State.
So now they will be legally obligate to do something that violates their religion.
This is addressed in point 62 of Judge Walker's findings of fact:
62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.
a. In re Marriage Cases, 189 P3d at 451-452 ([A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.) (Citing Cal Const Art I, 4)
b. Tr 194:24-196:21 (Cott: Civil law, not religious custom, is supreme in defining and regulating marriage in the United States.);
c. Cal Fam Code 400, 420.
Any couple foolish enough to want to compel a ceremony from an unwilling pastor would have an uphill legal battle, since that would involve challenging a (rather crucial, IMHO) finding of fact in the very decision that acknowledged their right to marry in the first place. Legally, they'd be sawing off the leg they were standing on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2010 10:18 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 12:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 84 of 759 (573184)
08-10-2010 10:14 AM


More homophobic Republicans!
Down her in Florida, we had an amendment 2 which like Prop 8 in CA, banned gay marriages. Gays are also not allowed to adopt children but strangely enough they are allowed to be foster parents, at least for now. The two Republican canidates for Governor are now against even that and one, McCollum is calling for a ban on it!
I hope we can get a strong Democratic or independent canidate to keep Florida from sliding further into the past!

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 759 (573209)
08-10-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2010 7:05 PM


no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs
An excellent provision. Thanks for finding the verbiage

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2010 7:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 12:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 86 of 759 (573213)
08-10-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 12:29 PM


Hyro, no offense but are you still listening to those liars who lie right through their teeth for jesus? This pastors'-rights-are-violated bullshit have been bullshit ever since the beginning. Yet, here you are still repeating this bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 12:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:15 PM Taz has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 759 (573222)
08-10-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taz
08-10-2010 12:46 PM


Hyro, no offense but are you still listening to those liars who lie right through their teeth for jesus? This pastors'-rights-are-violated bullshit have been bullshit ever since the beginning. Yet, here you are still repeating this bullshit.
If you'll go back and read what I've been writing for the last three pages, you'll see that Subbie cleared that issue up for me. Now that I know there is a provision that equally protects religion and homosexuals, I no longer have no objections, and haven't for several pages.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 12:46 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 1:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 91 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 1:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 759 (573223)
08-10-2010 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 1:15 PM


Now that I know there is a provision that equally protects religion and homosexuals
But why should religious people be protected to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, yet no other person(s) or business would be protected in the same manner?
Why does religion get a pass? And this has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 08-10-2010 1:33 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:41 PM onifre has replied
 Message 94 by subbie, posted 08-10-2010 3:09 PM onifre has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 759 (573229)
08-10-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by onifre
08-10-2010 1:23 PM


Aren't people protected?
Isn't it legal to not associate with a subset of folk?
Are religions being treated any differently then individuals?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 1:23 PM onifre has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 759 (573232)
08-10-2010 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by onifre
08-10-2010 1:23 PM


But why should religious people be protected to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, yet no other person(s) or business would be protected in the same manner?
Ask yourself the same question in reverse. If religion isn't allowed to dictate why homosexuals can or can't marry, why would/should the opposite be true?
It's not right for religionists to say that homosexuals shouldn't marry in secular society (it's not their place), and by the same token it's not right for the state to dictate that a religion goes against its own beliefs.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 1:23 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 1:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 5:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024