|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Stile writes:
quote: It means that there is a federal court case concerning a state issue. In the US, there is the state judicial system and the federal judicial system. States have their own laws and constitutions and in general, the federal system stays out of it. There are some points, however, where federal jurisdiction has a say regarding state matters. For example, the contract of marriage is governed by the states. Each state has their own laws regarding who can and cannot get married. However, those restrictions must be in accordance with the US Constitution. That is why state restrictions regarding interracial marriage were struck down in the Loving v. Virginia case: In the 60s, the Loving couple (yes, the last name was "Loving") lived in Virginia which had laws preventing a white and black couple from getting married. They went to Washington, DC (right next door) and got married there because DC did not have such restrictions. When they went back to Virginia, they were arrested. This resulted in a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court where, in a unanimous decision, it was decided that restricting marriage on the basis of race was a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which requires equal treatment under the law. While states have the ability to regulate certain aspects of marriage such as residency requirements, age restrictions, blood relationships, etc., but restriction on the basis of race is in violation of the Constitution. In this case, California voted to amend its constitution to define marriage as between only mixed-sex couples. This law is being fought in federal court as a violation of US Constitutional principles. A similar example happened in the 90s regarding Colorado. They had voted to amend the state constitution to disallow any laws that provide redress for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This was taken to the US Supreme Court where it was decided that this was a violation of the 14th Amendment right to equal treatment under the law: Gay people need to be able to petition the court for redress of grievances. This is in contrast to what happened in Hawaii in the 90s regarding same-sex marriage. At the time, the statutes regarding marriage in Hawaii did not mention the sex of the participants. Too, the Hawaii constitution specifically mentions equality on the basis of sex. Thus, a lawsuit was filed on the basis that the refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a violation of the Hawaii constitution. The decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court could not be taken to the US Supreme Court because the rights involved were unique to the Hawaii Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding equality on the basis of sex. The 14th Amendment simply refers to "citizens." If the HSC had determined that restricting marriage to mixed-sex couples was a violation of the Hawaii Constitution, there is nothing in the US Constitution to deny that and thus, no federal case. With Prop 8, however, the claim is that the restriction of marriage to mixed-sex couples is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
quote: On the most simplistic basis, yes. If the federal court rules that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution, then it will be repealed. Given that the previous ruling by the California Supreme Court was that marriage cannot be denied to same-sex couples, that would mean there would be equality in marriage in California.
quote: This is why I said "simplistic" above. No matter what the current court rules, it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
quote: That depends upon other trials. There is also a case in New Jersey regarding same-sex marriage. In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that denial of legal recognition of same-sex partnerships was unconstitutional. They left it to the legislature to decide how to handle it. The New Jersey Legislature then created "civil unions," attempting to do the "separate but equal" route. It seems that the legal contract created for same-sex couples is not equal to marriage (big surprise). Thus, the NJSC is hearing a new case that the NJL dropped the ball and that the only remedy is full marriage. The US Supreme Court may want to wait for the outcomes of the various trials so that it can combine them all into a single argument. This way, they only have to have a single ruling.
quote: This is a question of philosophy. Whatever the court says is what they're looking at will be "important." We may consider such questions to be ridiculous, but the court clearly doesn't and wants to hear arguments on those questions. In the Hawaii case, the question of the raising of children was brought up. However, the State's own witnesses (the State was defending the banning of marriage to same-sex couples) all said that there wasn't any evidence to support the claim of harm to children. The federal court apparently wants to run through it again. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Because they are engaging in public commerce and as such, are subject to anti-discrimination laws.
quote: Compared to other entities, they are. They are not the government.
quote: "Currently, marriage is defined as a union between people of the same race. I don't see how that, as defined, must be applied to interracial couples." If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Then why did you bring it up? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thanks for the input, I was hoping you would chime in as well.
(Timing of going to the Supreme Court) depends upon other trials. There is also a case in New Jersey regarding same-sex marriage. Interesting. Thanks for all the details. The decisions of the higher courts seem to be promising. If everything continues, equal rights may just be "a matter of time" (5 years perhaps). Which sucks for those experiencing the inequality at present... but I suppose this is just the way things must progress within our systems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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. I think homosexuals should have the right to marry, but it gets shot down every time it is left to a popular vote. That's also bullshit. The People say they don't want gay marriage and then some activist judge strikes it down. I really wish the SCOTUS would just allow it once and for all to see if it could reasonably be considered an "inalienable right" to marry whomever you want. I think there is justification to assume such. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
I know of no human right issue in the past that passed via popular vote. If the populous at large recognizes the said issue as a human right violation, it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
I think homosexuals should have the right to marry, but it gets shot down every time it is left to a popular vote. That's also bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes: I really wish the SCOTUS would just allow it once and for all to see if it could reasonably be considered an "inalienable right" to marry whomever you want. I think there is justification to assume such. Yes, I think this is what everything is leading up to. But, these things take time. Why do they take time? I'm sure there's lots of reasons. But the main one I can see is that these things take time as an attempt to ensure that "non-important" issues don't clutter up the limited time that SCOTUS (or other top courts) have. That is, if the gay rights issues went right to SCOTUS, immediately, because you and I say it's important... then what's to stop Billy Bob's fight for allowing him to own 10 cows instead of only 8 cows on this farm from going right to SCOTUS, immediately, because he says it's "important"? SCOTUS can only do so many court rulings every year. There has to be a system in place to make sure that only those that are "really important" get through. The current system isn't perfect, and (as we see here) it actually slows down some things that should be hurried along. But the system does work to filter out all sorts of un-important things. Which, if they were included, I'm sure gay-rights would be looking somewhere 50-60 years from now instead of maybe 2-5. I'm not defending the current system, I just understand why it needs to be the way it is. Slow sucks. But without everything in place that makes this slow... in reality it would be even slower (so many other "non-important" issues would also suddenly flood into the system).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: It's actually a bit more complicated than that. Most Justices understand that they need to tread carefully, particularly when ruling on issues where there's a wide public interest with deeply held beliefs going both ways. Obviously, the courts are the least representative branch of government and, for the most part, rely on the other branches to enforce their rulings. While the Constitution tries to insulate the courts from normal political pressures, as a practical matter it's impossible to completely remove the courts from backlash when the public thinks they've gone too far. Google "the switch in time that saved nine" for a real life historical example. As I mentioned before, the Supreme Court does not have to hear any appeal in this case, if it gets that far. One criterion that it considers when deciding to take a case is if there's a split among the various Circuit Courts of Appeals. This isn't necessarily a wish to dodge a controversial issue, but instead a desire to get the issue more fully framed. To my knowledge, there hasn't yet been been a Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring gay marriage a fundamental right. So you are perfectly correct that these things take time. And, given the extreme division in the country about this issue, and what seems to be a general trend toward greater public acceptance of gay marriage, I wouldn't be shocked at all if the Court refuses to hear an appeal here, no matter how it's decided. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I was just looking through some vids on youtube and I found this puppy. Have you ever heard so much bullshit coming from someone on stage before? I haven't. It's great stuff: same sex marriage == 9/11.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
He actually said that gay marriage would increase crime, teen pregnancy, and abortion.
Gay marriage.
Abortion. No wonder they usually don't specify how gay marriage will harm society. EDIT -- Not to mention he's basing this on the idea that "marriages that are in trouble cause an increase in social ills." Wait...who says that gay marriages will mean that marriages will be in trouble? Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Gay people have been blamed for earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, starvation, famine, floods, etc. We can now add 2 more to the list. Pope blames gay people as a threat to creation and a threat to world peace.
You go you, catholics!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I know of no human right issue in the past that passed via popular vote. If the populous at large recognizes the said issue as a human right violation, it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Which is why I said that I wish the Supreme Court would review the case to make a determination on whether or not marriage can reasonably be construed as an inalienable right. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Correct it is bullshit. I live in Massachusetts and nothing has hurt conventional marriages here at all. Why shouldn't sex ed include gay lifestyles? I guess the fundies think that ignorance is bliss.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote: So Loving v. Virginia was the result of an "activist" court? It was the wrong decision? The unanimous decision should have been the other way? States do have the right to regulate the contract of marriage based upon race? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: They already did. You have read the Loving v. Virginia decision, yes? Even Scalia wrote that the Lawrence v. Texas decision, along with Romer v. Evans, means that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. Have you done any research on this topic at all? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote: And they already have. Multiple times. It really is a trivial question of getting them to pay attention to their own rulings. The Supreme Court in multiple rulings over the years has said time and again that marriage is the most important relationship a person can make and that it is a fundamental right. Have you done any research on this subject at all? Scalia has already said in a legal opinion that Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans necessarily means that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. Of course, I have no doubt that he'll try to weasel out of his own decision, but he has already stated that current jurisprudence requires the recognition of same-sex marriage. It's simply a question of getting them to have the courage of their convictions. That when we said, "liberty and justice for all," we really meant "all." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024