|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: You are assuming, bluecat, that their is a single moral authority on this issue. All we have here are opinions and comparisons. First, there is an "s" in his name, after the "blue" part. Second, you are the one assuming a single moral authority. You assume that all people should conform to a single standard (as in a specific, narrow definition of marriage, or as in forcing everyone to choose one of several different opinions), whereas subbie, Taz, bluescat, etc. are not assuming that any single opinion or person is the moral authority, and that everyone should be given an equal right to follow their own moral compass--gay or straight, black or white, etc. I'm rather glad, too: a simple majority vote would render many of the things I enjoy in my life illegal (evolutionary biology, Mormonism, speaking Chinese in public, listening to 80's music, etc.). Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
In America we are duty bound to discriminate against any Mormon evolutionary biologist who speaks Chinese in public and listens to 80s music. It's just not American! I'm rather glad, too: a simple majority vote would render many of the things I enjoy in my life illegal (evolutionary biology, Mormonism, speaking Chinese in public, listening to 80's music, etc.). ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : oopsie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
No. DOMA doesn’t violate the constitution. All it does is define the word marriage and prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages. It violates equal protection by virtue of the simple fact that it excludes citizens from having a marriage which is recognised by federal government, purely on the basis of gender. US citizens have a right to marry, as defined in Loving v. Virginia. DOMA's definition effectively removes federal recognition of that right for same-sex couples. That sounds pretty unequal to me.
DOMA does not legitimize bans. But it does, albeit indirectly. A state ban on the recognition of same-sex marriage (26 states have such bans) would be fundamentally undermined if same-sex couples could marry in other states, go home and demand that their marriage be recognised in their home state, under the Full Faith and Credit clause. DOMA explicitly prevented this, thus legitimising bans that would otherwise have fallen foul of FFaC. That was the point of the act. That DOMA itself appears to violate FFaC is another argument.
That’s the thing though. If, without a definition of marriage, gay marriage were legit, then there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. But they’re not, so there is. If, without a definition of marriage, gay marriages were not legit, then there wouldn’t have been a need for DOMA in the first place. But they were, so there was. At least, it must have seemed like there was a need to all those folks who shudder at the mention of gay marriage.
What laws perpetuate those inequities and how does DOMA enable them? OK, I'll concentrate on the example of wills if that's all right with you. Let's take the example of two couples, couple A (gay) and couple B (straight). Both marry in, say, California. Both then move to Arizona. Subsequently, both couples suffer a death, leaving one partner alive. Now, Arizona is a "Community Property" state, meaning that most of the assets of married couples are considered to be the joint property of both spouses. It is thus illegal for a will to disinherit the surviving spouse. This is a clear example of a legal protection that is afforded to married people. The surviving member of Couple B is protected from being disinherited, should that be the effect of the will. The surviving member of Couple A does not enjoy the same protection, because Arizona does not recognise same-sex marriages. Why not? Because DOMA affords it the protection necessary to institute such a ban. Well, it does until such time as this whole sorry mess ends up before SCOTUS. This is a clear case of discrimination by the state and a breach of the Equal Protection clause.
I chose something very unimportant on purpose as a rub. Oh, I see. You choose to counter an argument that no-one had yet made with a deliberately trivial and patronising example, just to get a rise out of people. Well, that makes it all OK then. Edited by Granny Magda, : Slight change of wording. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: There is nothing in the Constitution about straight people and their equal rights to get married...but yet straight people CAN get married. So that's kinda the great thing about the Constitution, Hoot Mon. It Guarantees equal treatment under the law for everyone. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
There is NOTHING mentioned in the U.S. Constitution about gay people and their equal rights to get married. Hoot Mon writes: Bullshit, Hoot Mon. We're having this debate because they are not free to choose.
They are free to choose, just like me. Hoot Mon writes: I notice that even though many of us have defined what a "bigot" is to you, you still don't understand. By allowing gays the same rights as the rest of us, we are stopping bigotry. You, by wanting to limit the rights of others because of their sexual orientation, are being bigoted. Again, why are these simple concepts so difficult for you to grasp. My ten-year old niece gets it Hoot Mon, maybe you should repeat the 4th grade.
But bigots like you have turned it into a comic strip.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FliesOnly writes:
I can't marry the wife of the guy who lives next door. And I can't get married to more than one woman at a time. And I can't use the ladies restroom. The law says I can't do these things, even if I don't want to. I'm no better off than gay people. In fact they have an advantage over me. They can solicit sex much better in public restrooms when they are segregated according men's and women's. We know from Sen. Larry Craig's queer foolishness that men's rooms in airports are nifty gathering places for inter-stall toe tapping. Not a bad way to score a BJ.
here is nothing in the Constitution about straight people and their equal rights to get married...but yet straight people CAN get married. So that's kinda the great thing about the Constitution, Hoot Mon. It Guarantees equal treatment under the law for everyone. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? I notice that even though many of us have defined what a "bigot" is to you, you still don't understand. By allowing gays the same rights as the rest of us, we are stopping bigotry. You, by wanting to limit the rights of others because of their sexual orientation, are being bigoted. Again, why are these simple concepts so difficult for you to grasp. My ten-year old niece gets it Hoot Mon, maybe you should repeat the 4th grade.
But there is a preponderance of opinion against yours. What gives you the right to call your other people bigots just because they disagree with your opinion. Isn't THAT closer to the true definition of bigotry? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: We (those of us in support of gay marriage) don't want to change the definition of marriage. You guys are the one wanting definition changes to be implemented based (currently) on sexual orientation. All "we" want is for gay people to be allowed to marry. No changes needed.
This is a reason for not simply changing the definition without considering the ramifications at all. Catholic Scientists writes: Well, I'm not so sure you are correct about you "consummation" law. Are you required, by law, to consummate the marriage or is the lack of consummation simply grounds for annulment if one party decides as such? There's a difference there, CS.
So now you’ve redefined consummation. Catholic Scientist writes: It doesn't matter CS...it's a meaningless argument. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. It supersedes other laws. An inconvenience is not grounds for denying someone their Constitutional rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
FliesOnly writes:
He's senile. Again, why are these simple concepts so difficult for you to grasp. My ten-year old niece gets it Hoot Mon, maybe you should repeat the 4th grade. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: In America we are duty bound to discriminate against any Mormon evolutionary biologist who speaks Chinese in public and listens to 80s music. It's just not American! Um... I'm not sure this helps your cause, Hoot. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: Yes you can.
I can't marry the wife of the guy who lives next door. Hoot Mon writes: And I think that you should be allowed to...so I'm in agreement with you here.
And I can't get married to more than one woman at a time. Hoot Mon writes: And this garbage supports your position on gay marriage how?
In fact they have an advantage over me. They can solicit sex much better in public restrooms when they are segregated according men's and women's. We know from Sen. Larry Craig's queer foolishness that men's rooms in airports are nifty gathering places for inter-stall toe tapping. Not a bad way to score a BJ. Hoot Mon writes: I'm gong to go R E A L S L O W here, try to keep up. It's not a matter of opinion...it's a matter of intolerance. But there is a preponderance of opinion against yours. What gives you the right to call your other people bigots just because they disagree with your opinion. Isn't THAT closer to the true definition of bigotry? It's the intolerance...Hoot Mon...and the inability of you to grasp this concept is simply baffling. Look, when the entire population of the planet thought that the Earth was flat and only one guy stated differently, guess what..the fucking Earth was not flat, despite the preponderance of opinion. So again. Hoot Mon...you are confusing the word "bigot" with the word "opinion"...two different things entirely. Edited by FliesOnly, : Fix a typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Libmr2bs Member (Idle past 5756 days) Posts: 45 Joined: |
Not kidding at all. If there's no contract there is no need for contract law. You insist on using the word marriage. Simply delete it. What changes when you do? If it changes your relationship you shouldn't be married.
I can't believe that government is looking out for my best interests. Let me point out just a few laughables for you.1. Who seriously thinks that government is preventing aliens from coming into this country? 2. $500,000/year given to the Metropolition Opera? I don't speak Italian. 3. $14 billion dollars for a tunnel in Boston? 4. How about a multi-million dollar bridge in Alaska that serves 20 people per day? 5. Why would it be illegal in some states to eat horse meat - dog meat? 6. Preventing bars from being constructed within 1000' of a church but no restriction on a church building within 1000' of a bar? 7. Being accused of murder for shooting someone fleeing with my car? I could go on but it would be pointless and no one will convince me that government is responsible for my well being. Maybe vice versa or maybe versa will soon be vice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It violates equal protection by virtue of the simple fact that it excludes citizens from having a marriage which is recognised by federal government, purely on the basis of gender. DOMA doesn’t exclude anyone from having a marriage, it defines marriage. Gay marriage isn’t even a marriage, by definition (at least according to DOMA).
US citizens have a right to marry, as defined in Loving v. Virginia. DOMA's definition effectively removes federal recognition of that right for same-sex couples. That sounds pretty unequal to me. But it doesn’t remove any rights. It prevents non-marriages from being marriages. Not giving someone an orange is not the same as taking an apple from them.
A state ban on the recognition of same-sex marriage (26 states have such bans) would be fundamentally undermined if same-sex couples could marry in other states, go home and demand that their marriage be recognised in their home state, under the Full Faith and Credit clause. Outside of an explicit ban on gay marriages, states that simply do not recognize gay marriages as marriages are not violating the FFC clause, they are just adhering to the definition of marriage. An explicit ban seems to go against the clause, but maintaining the definition does not because it is the same definition for everybody. Everyone has to use the same definition of marriage, so the definition not including some things that some people wish it included does discriminate against anyone in particular. They just want to include something that it doesn’t.
OK, I'll concentrate on the example of wills if that's all right with you. Let's take the example of two couples, couple A (gay) and couple B (straight). Both marry in, say, California. Both then move to Arizona. Subsequently, both couples suffer a death, leaving one partner alive. Now, Arizona is a "Community Property" state, meaning that most of the assets of married couples are considered to be the joint property of both spouses. It is thus illegal for a will to disinherit the surviving spouse. This is a clear example of a legal protection that is afforded to married people. The surviving member of Couple B is protected from being disinherited, should that be the effect of the will. The surviving member of Couple A does not enjoy the same protection, because Arizona does not recognise same-sex marriages. Why not? Because DOMA affords it the protection necessary to institute such a ban. Well, it does until such time as this whole sorry mess ends up before SCOTUS. This is a clear case of discrimination by the state and a breach of the Equal Protection clause. It’s not discrimination because all four people have access to the “Community Property” benefit as long as they fulfill the requirement of being married as set by the state. Everyone must abide by the same requirements. That marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman doesn’t discriminate against anyone in particular, it just constrains what can be considered a marriage. I don’t think the federal government should force a state to change what they have set up as being a marriage. If couple A doesn’t like Arizona’s laws then they shouldn’t move there.
Oh, I see. You choose to counter an argument that no-one had yet made with a deliberately trivial and patronising example, just to get a rise out of people. Well, that makes it all OK then. And you took the bait, hook, line and sinker in an excellent display of your bigotry towards opposing opinions. You’d rather put words in my mouth and call me names than take my argument at face value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
DOMA doesn’t exclude anyone from having a marriage, it defines marriage. Gay marriage isn’t even a marriage, by definition (at least according to DOMA).Catholic Scientist writes: What sort of BS excuse is this? Define marriage as something between a man and women so you can later claim that you're not banning homosexual marriage? What a complete load of crap. Good luck with that defense. I mean, really Catholic Scientist...what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe.
But it doesn’t remove any rights. It prevents non-marriages from being marriages. Catholic Scientist writes: And this relates to gay marriage how, exactly? You're denying homosexuals the orange, Catholic Scientist. Not giving someone an orange is not the same as taking an apple from them. Or wait...are you now saying that an orange is and orange except if your gay...in which case an orange is defined as an apple...and therefore, you can deny oranges to gay people because you're really denying them apples..as per your pathetic definition?
Catholic Scientist writes: You guys really need to learn the difference between bigotry and opinion. Can you not grasp the idea of intolerance? Being inconvienenced, or having a differing opinion is not the same as being denied a basic fundamental right (as defined by our Constitution) because of you sexual orientation.
And you took the bait, hook, line and sinker in an excellent display of your bigotry towards opposing opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
CS, you're arguing the authority of DOMA to people who don't think DOMA should be considered authoritative. They all know what it says and provides. They want you to come up with a reason why keeping DOMA is morally, ethically and Constitutionally superior to scrapping it.
They know the legal reasons for enforcing DOMA, and they're good legal reasons. But, what is the ethical, moral and Constitutional reason for enforcing DOMA? If there isn't an ethical reason behind keeping DOMA, it implies that our laws are not based on ethics or morality. Are you okay with laws that do not have a moral reason behind them? Keep in mind that I am also opposed to gay marriage--I have said so in earlier posts--and I feel very icky and creepy about the whole thing. But, I have been unable to come up with a moral, ethical, Constitutional, or even biological reason as to why my view should be upheld over the views of other Americans. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Define marriage as something between a man and women so you can later claim that you're not banning homosexual marriage? No, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because that's the definition used when it was written.
I mean, really Catholic Scientist...what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe. Well I'm not a homophobe so.... Fuck you asshole.
And this relates to gay marriage how, exactly? You're denying homosexuals the orange, Catholic Scientist. Or wait...are you now saying that an orange is and orange except if your gay...in which case an orange is defined as an apple...and therefore, you can deny oranges to gay people because you're really denying them apples..as per your pathetic definition? It doesn't matter if their gay or not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The apple is marriage as defined. The orange is gay marriage. Granny claimed that DOMA removed the right to marriage from gays (took the apple). But it didn't. It does not, however, give them gay marriages (giving them an orange). Not giving them the orange is not the same as removing an apple.
You guys really need to learn the difference between bigotry and opinion. Can you not grasp the idea of intolerance? Yes. You are intolerant of my opinion. When you write things like:
quote: you are displaying your bigotry.
Being inconvienenced, or having a differing opinion is not the same as being denied a basic fundamental right (as defined by our Constitution) because of you sexual orientation. But gay marriage is not a fundamental right and they are not being denied it because of their sexual orientation (two straight men can marry each other either). They are being denied gay marriage because what they want to be considered a marriage is not a marrage by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: I can only hope you see how pathetic this excuse happens to be. You basically just wrote that the definition was defined by how it was defined? Circular perhaps?
No, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because that's the definition used when it was written. Catholic Scientist writes: Yeah...I see...you're not homophobic...you just don't want them to have the same rights as the rest of us. For some reason only you know...I guess...but you're not a homophobe.
Well I'm not a homophobe so.... Fuck you asshole. Catholic Scientist writes: Again...this is meaningless crappola. Why do we need two definitions for marriage? What is your, non-homophobic justification for thinking we need two definitions for the same fucking thing?
Not giving them the orange is not the same as removing an apple. Catholic Scientist writes: Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick, Catholic Scientist. I am expressing my opinion when I say "what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe." My opinion. Get it!! Now, if I were trying to deny you some basic Constitutional right because of how I feel about you...then I'd be a bigot. If I were to say we need a law preventing fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, assholes from being allowed to marry, then I'd be a bigot. Now do you see the difference? "Intolerance"...look it up.
Yes. You are intolerant of my opinion. When you write things like: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you are displaying your bigotry. Catholic Scientist writes: And here we go again with the BS double-talk. We can't deny them a marriage because we defined it as being between a man and women, so we're not discriminating because they don't fit the definition we came up with in order to deny them marriage. What a crock.
But gay marriage is not a fundamental right and they are not being denied it because of their sexual orientation (two straight men can marry each other either). They are being denied gay marriage because what they want to be considered a marriage is not a marriage by definition.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024