Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

quote:

---

This will require rewriting literally tens of thousands of laws across federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions. All currently "married" couples will need to be relicensed as the contracts refer to "marriage," not "civil union." Too, this will mean that no federally recognized contract will be recognized outside of the United States because other countries recognize "marriage," not "civil union." If you were to try to provide your old "marriage" license, you would be engaging in fraud because you no longer have a "marriage" contract.

---

I hate to pick nits because you and I are of one mind on this issue, but it actually wouldn't be that difficult to implement a change from marriage to civil union, and even easier to grandfather previous marriages into the new statutory scheme.Other than that, you're ten out of the in this thread.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Again, I really am quite puzzled how you people could say you support gay rights but then would propose something so ridiculous as civil union.

---

Taz, take a deep breath and calm yourself. Then, please show me where you think I have ever said anything to suggest that I'm not 100% in favor of gay marriage.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

The only sane solution is to do for sexual orientation what we did for race: Keep the entire structure in place and recognize that it applies to gay people as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

With this I agree without reservation. As for the rest of it, our disagreement isn't particularly important, and I'd hate to run the risk of Taz giving me another tongue lashing, so I'm content to agree to disagree.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Any way you cut it, without adhering to my proposal somebody's rights are going to be infringed upon.

---

quote:

---

The heart of the matter for me is the maximization of rights in accordance with the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

I am attempting to give everyone the rights they wish.

---

You are going to have to explain to me whose rights are violated, and how, by calling gay marriage "marriage." Please use small words, because I've asked this question of lots of people and not one of them has given an answer that comes close to making sense.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The clear implication of this statement is that you think changing the law to allow gays to marry is unconstitutional. Please spell out exactly why you think this is so. If this isn't what you meant to say, you need to be more clear about what you think would be unconstitutional.Also, I'm still waiting to hear whose rights are violated by calling gay marriage "marriage."

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

As interesting as all of that is, and I may respond to particular points later, none of that has anything at all to do with anyone's rights being violated, which was the specific question I asked. Do you have anything responsive to that question?

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

How does society discriminate against religion by allowing gays to marry?

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This is simply wrong.The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What that means is that all laws in all states are subject to being struck down if they do not comport with the Constitution.Among the provisions of the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment. One part of that Amendment is called the Equal Protection Clause. That Clause says, "no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Equal Protection jurisprudence is somewhat complex, but basically settled. There are three different levels of scrutiny that courts use in evaluating whether a challenged state action may stand; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.Here is Wiki's brief and relatively accurate description of the three different levels of scrutiny:

quote:

---

The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:

​

* Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
* Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest. Note that in past decisions "sex" generally has meant gender.
* Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

---

To put to rest the notion that the states are free to craft marriage laws regardless of the Constitution, one need look no further than Loving vs. Virginia, decided in 1967. There, a unanimous Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law because it relied on a racial classification in restricting who may marry whom.Now, the Equal Protection analysis from Loving is not directly applicable to the question of gay marriage, because that involved a classification based on gender, not race, and the level of scrutiny is lower for gender-based classifications. Thus, we have to see how the analysis proceeds under intermediate scrutiny.To pass intermediate scrutiny, the law must be "'substantially related' to an 'important' government interest." Of course, this means that the first step is to identify the government interest. Probably the most frequently cited purpose behind gay marriage bans is to "protect" or "preserve" traditional marriage. The problem with this, as I see it, is that nobody has been able to explain exactly how allowing gay marriage would change traditional marriage in any way. Thus, even if we assume that protecting and preserving traditional marriage is an important government interest, I just can't see how a gay marriage ban is even slightly related to that interest, much less substantially related.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If anyone were to try to force a church to sanctify a gay marriage against its tenets, I would agree with you 100%.If gay marriage is legalized with the proviso that no church shall be compelled to perform any gay marriage, would you then agree that there is no discrimination?

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Marriage in fact is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. See Loving vs. Virginia.DOMA was nothing more than political pandering. There was no need to say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to acts from other states that are against the public policy of the recognizing state. Irrelevant and immaterial. The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to give Equal Protection to all people in all areas. There's no need to specify each and every possible individual application.Please, if you're going to make claims about what the Constitution means, give authority. I'm not interested in what you think the Constitution means, I'm interested in what Courts say it means. An interesting fact about the Supreme Court; it can only decide cases that are brought to it.Another interesting fact about the Supreme Court; it doesn't have to hear any case brought to it.The fact that the Supreme Court hasn't heard the case yet is irrelevant and immaterial. But, reasoning from prior cases that the Supreme Court has heard can provide us with a framework for deciding this issue.Another interesting fact about the Supreme Court; some of the Justices seem inclined to decide cases based on their personal jurisprudence instead of precedent. Thus, I'm not predicting that the Supreme Court will decide the case that way if it gets there. I'm just saying that prior Supreme Court precedent more than supports the argument that gay marriage is a right under the Constitution.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It appears his only issue is that churches not be compelled to sanctify gay marriages, at least as far as his "discrimination" and "rights" argument goes.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You know, given that there are rather militant elements in the gay rights movement, it might not be a bad idea to make it clear that they can't force it on religions that don't accept it yet. In addition to the element of comforting the squeamish.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I actually addressed all of the arguments you laid out here in my message 56 above. In essence, all you did was say, "nuh uh!" If you're going to ignore what I say, there's little point in my participating.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

What, exactly does this mean?

---

See my thread, Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California for some discussion of this. It truly is a remarkable case in many respects.

quote:

---

If the gay-side wins... then Proposition 8 would be immediately repealed (gays would be able to marry in San Franciso)?

---

It's virtually inevitable that whatever side loses will appeal. If the judge strikes the gay marriage ban, either he or an appeals court could stay that ruling pending appeal. If the ruling is stayed, gay marriages would still not be allowed until the appeal process runs its course.

quote:

---

Regardless of which side wins... how likely is it that things will move to the Supreme Court next? Any ballpark figures on how long that would be?

---

The first appeal will be to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. From there, the next step would be the Supreme Court. The Supremes would have the option not to hear the appeal, but I think that's unlikely.I saw an esitmate of 2-3 weeks for the trial. After that, it would probably take the judge anywhere from a month to several months to issue a decision. I know very little about appeal times in the Ninth Circuit, but would guess that would take between 6-18 months. I would guess that an appeal to the Supreme Court might take 1-3 years beyond that. I know these figures are very broad, but I'm really just giving a ballpark guesstimate. I tried to give extremes that outline the shortest and longest likely times.

quote:

---

I don't, specifically, see how the Judge's focal points come down on the larger issue (Pizer quote). Do I just not speak legaleze very well? Or is this court already not really looking at the important aspects?

---

Based on what I've seen, I don't think that the judge is focusing on those issues. Instead, it looks like he understands that these are factual issues that often arise in the gay marriage debate and thinks that a ruling on those questions based on evidence, instead of rhetoric, prejudice and anecdote, might be important.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

So even a court ruling against the ban will not go into effect immediately because it was (obviously) done in the court system and therefore can be appealed.

---

Actually, I've done a bit more reading on the case, and it's far from clear that a ruling striking Prop 8 would be applicable to all bans on gay marriage nationwide. There are some facts unique to California that could conceivably provide grounds for striking the Prop that would not apply to any other state. In that case, a victory for the plaintiffs would not result in lifting the ban in other states. However, it could be a crack in the dam that might eventually lead to the abolition of all bans.

quote:

---

I see. In a way, the judge may be looking forward and seeing that nailing down some definitions would be helpful for further clarification of the issues.

---

Yes, but more than that. Plaintiffs are basing one argument on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in particular the Equal Protection Clause. That requires that courts to analyze challenged state actions depending on the nature of the classification that the state is making. The answers to some of the questions that the judge has asked may determine what level of scrutiny the judge will use.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat