|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,876 Year: 4,133/9,624 Month: 1,004/974 Week: 331/286 Day: 52/40 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
randman writes:
quote: Huh? Divorce laws aren't based on the sex of the people involved. They haven't been for years. Hint: When two men are a couple, neither one is "the woman." When two women are a couple, neither one is "the man." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Please explain how you are a part of the neighbor's marriage. When they got married, were you forced to engage in any legally enforced action with regard to them? Were your children taken away? Were you forced to sell your car? Was your passport revoked? Be specific.
quote: How? How does someone else's marriage involve you? Do you make a habit of crashing weddings?
quote: But marriage is a civil contract. No religion involved. Why do you seek to deny equal treatment under the law to citizens?
quote: Incorrect. The only alternative is for you to come up with some term for your "special friendship" that has no legal meaning. Instead, everybody else will use the word "marriage" for the legal contract not only because it is the only constitutional option, but also because everybody knows what "marriage" means and there isn't a single person who would be confused by the use of the term "marriage" as applied to people of the same sex. You're the one trying to say that your "special friendship" is something different than a marriage. Therefore, the onus is upon you to come up with a new term. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
How did I know that unisex bathrooms would be brought up?
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: You really think that will be the result? If we allow people of the same sex to get married, you will be forced to go to the bathroom next to someone of the other sex?
quote: Ahem. You're not really allowed to do that in the men's room, either. You do recall that Larry Craig was arrested for just such behaviour.
quote: Right, because two people who love each is the same as somebody intruding into another person's private space while practically naked. That you have your own stall doesn't mean you're not intruding.
quote: Oh? So Lawrence v. Texas doesn't exist? The six consolidated cases before the California Supreme Court don't exist? Loving v. Virginia doesn't exist? Well, I suppose if one wants to be naive about it, of course it's "purely opinion and nothing more," but then that means the Constitution is "purely opinion and nothing more." And that is true. But as noted, it's a naive truth. The very same argument you are making, "Gay people have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people...there is no right to 'gay marriage'" was made in Perez v. Sharp when the California Supreme Court took up the case of interracial marriage. The charge was that "there is no 'right to interracial marriage.'" As the CSC put it:
In Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711 ” this court’s 1948 decision holding that the California statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional ” the court did not characterize the constitutional right that the plaintiffs in that case sought to obtain as “a right to interracial marriage” and did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge on the ground that such marriages never had been permitted in California. Instead, the Perez decision focused on the substance of the constitutional right at issue ” that is, the importance to an individual of the freedom “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” ” in determining whether the statute impinged upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right. (32 Cal.2d at pp. 715, 717, italics added.) It would seem that the Court actually considered your claim and rejected it. Oh, but that's "purely opinion and nothing more." That pesky Constitution...forcing opinions on the rest of us!
quote: And here we go. Nemesis Juggernaut, is that you? So gay people are sexual predators, animal abusers, and likely to threaten the safety of others? Hmmm..."special treatment under the law"...that'd be heterosexuals, then. After all, they want the special contract of marriage and not let anybody else have it.
quote: Gay people can't get married.Gay people can't serve in the military. Gay people can't be safe from being fired. Gay people can't be safe from being evicted. Gay people can't keep custody of their children. Gay people can't be free from torture. Yeah...exactly the same rights. Why is it you want your special right to get married? And let's not pretend that you actually think there shouldn't be a legal contract of marriage. As has been noted, you never seem to make such a statement until somebody brings up the topic of equal marriage rights. Since you were married three times, you clearly accept the idea of a legal contract of marriage. And since you claim to be an atheist, you clearly aren't talking about religious rites, either. So why do you feel you are deserving of special rights simply because you're straight?
quote: Because "straight marriage" is. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment specifically declares: Equal treatment under the law. The phrase is "liberty and justice for all." What part of "for all" are you having trouble with?
quote: If I have to sanction "interracial marriage" because the laws require me to sanction it-because I am necessarily part of any law in a country whose laws are made "of the people, by the people, and for the people"-then I say bullshit. If I have to sanction "interfaith marriage" because the laws require me to sanction it-because I am necessarily part of any law in a country whose laws are made "of the people, by the people, and for the people"-then I say bullshit. You have yet to explain how you will be affected by same-sex marriage. You seem to be claiming that you have the right to live in a country that declares gays to be second-class citizens, strangers to the law, refused the same fundamental rights as other citizens. Do recall that Loving v. Virginia, Meyer v. Nebraska, and Griswold v. Connecticut declared marriage to be a fundamental right at the federal level. Too, Conservatorship of Valerie N. established marriage as a fundamental right at the California state level as did Williams v. Garcetti, Ortiz v. Los Angeles Polic Relief Assn., and In re Carrafa. So far, you've only managed to sputter nonsense about unisex bathrooms which even you don't really believe to be true. So out with it: How will your life change if the neighbors get married? Be specific.
quote: But a "civil union" is necessarily a civil disadvantage. The only way to achieve parity is to use a single contract. Not one of the state contracts for "civil union" achieved parity with marriage. Not one. So since a "civil union" is not the same as a marriage, then it is clear that the only way to ensure that they are the same is to abandon the idea of "separate but equal" and have a single contract for all. Marriage. If you don't like it, if you want to maintain a "special friendship," then you are free to avoid the contract of marriage and run a cafeteria-contracting of power of attorney, living will, final will, adoption papers, etc. Please be aware that this process will never achieve the same level of protection that an actual marriage will provide. And in the end, the fight for equality is not the naive one of simply demanding a piece of paper. As the California Supreme Court wrote:
Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes ” by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership ” pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry. As observed by the City at oral argument, this court’s conclusion in Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, that the statutory provision barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional, undoubtedly would have been the same even if alternative nomenclature, such as “transracial union,” had been made available to interracial couples. Accordingly, although we agree with the Attorney General that the provisions of the Domestic Partner Act afford same-sex couples most of the substantive attributes to which they are constitutionally entitled under the state constitutional right to marry, we conclude that the current statutory assignment of different designations to the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples and of same-sex couples properly must be viewed as potentially impinging upon the state constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. Later on:
As discussed above (ante, pp. 80-82), one of the core elements embodied in the state constitutional right to marry is the right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples. Even when the state affords substantive legal rights and benefits to a couple’s family relationship that are comparable to the rights and benefits afforded to other couples, the state’s assignment of a different name to the couple’s relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple’s relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled. Plaintiffs contend that in the present context, the different nomenclature prescribed by the current California statutes properly must be understood as having just such a constitutionally suspect effect. We agree with plaintiffs’ contention in this regard. Although in some contexts the establishment of separate institutions or structures to remedy the past denial of rights or benefits has been found to be constitutionally permissible, and although it may be possible to conceive of some circumstances in which assignment of the name “marriage” to one category of family relationship and of a name other than marriage to another category of family relationship would not likely be stigmatizing or raise special constitutional concerns,66 for a number of reasons we conclude that in the present context, affording same-sex couples access only to the separate institution of domestic partnership, and denying such couples access to the established institution of marriage, properly must be viewed as impinging upon the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. But oh, those are "just opinion." Damn that Constitution! Forcing "opinions" on us!
quote: So? You have to be a part of a country that does a lot of things you don't like. You don't seem to be complaining about those because you agree that equality requires that you allow people to do things you don't like because it protects you in doing things other people don't like. Why do you want special rights for straights?
quote: But you don't believe that. You've been married three times. Oh, by the way...the CSC took your issue up, too. The government isn't in a position to get out of it because marriage creates the family unit and it is in the government's interest to protect the family unit. And part of that interest includes equal protection for families with couples of the same sex as well as for those with couples of mixed sex.
quote: "Separate but equal." So you don't object to discrimination. How big of you.
quote: Right, because being gay is the same as having sex with animals. Why is it that when you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately have these fantasies about having sex with an animal? Nobody else brought it up. What made you think of it? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: So when the California Supreme Court took 120 pages with 73 footnotes to finally come out and say:
Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand. Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion. They were what, detailing their shopping lists? Are you saying not a single premise was proffered to support their conclusion?
quote: Except gay people can't get married. Since you have the right to get married and gay people don't, how is it you can claim that they have the same rights you do?
quote: Because that's a different argument. You're trying to argue a slippery slope. Sex is not number. The arguments for or against marriage restrictions on the basis of number will not be found in the arguments for or against marriage restrictions on the basis of sex. There may very well be good reasons to remove the restrictions on marriage to only two people, but it is not up to those of us who are arguing for equal marriage for all regardless of sexual orientation to show how they don't apply. It is up to those who advocate marriage for more than two people to explain why there is a problem. As a simple example: "Same-sex" marraige doesn't alter the substantive contract of marriage in any way. There are no rights that a "wife" has over a "husband" such that a "wife" having a "wife" would be denied or granted such. Similarly, there are no protections a "husband" has by dint of having a "wife" that he would be denied or granted were he to have a "husband." But with marriage between more than two people, we have to ask, "What do you mean by 'marriage'?" Specifically, and I use the terms that I used when discussing this with holmes all those years ago, do you mean a "hub-and-spoke" marriage or do you mean a "maximally interconnected" marriage? That is, when there are only two people, then to say that "A and B" are married necessarily means that A is married to B and B is married to C. But if we have A, B, and C, then there are a couple ways to look at it. A can be married to B and B can be married to C but A is not considered married to C. This is a "hub and spoke" concept. A "maximally interconnected" marriage would say that in order for there to be a marriage among the three, then all three have to be considered to be legally married to each other. Both cases raise issues with the execution of the contract. For example, suppose we have a hub-and-spoke of A-B-C with A divorcing B. How exactly do we handle "community property"? Since B is financially obligated to A and C and thus also has the rewards of both A and C, does this mean C can make a claim on A since B owns part of A and C owns part of B? I don't know. There may very well be a good answer to this, but the sex of the participants isn't really going to help us out here and it isn't covered by current marriage law. In a maximally interconnected marriage, this would seem to be answered (since they are all married to each other, they are all financially obligated and rewarded by the others), but what about the question of children in a divorce? Exactly what are the obligations and rights of the non-biological parent? Again, there may very well be a good answer to this, but the sex of the participatns isn't really going to help us out here and it isn't covered by current marriage law.
quote: Indeed, they might. But that is a fight for polygamists to take up. It is not the responsibility of gays to explain why or why not. That is shifting the burden of proof and a logical error.
quote: Because it is unconstitutional. "Separate but equal" is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which demands equal treatment under the law. Not one contract of "civil union" is equivalent to marriage. Not one. So since the Constitution requires equal treatment, we have long since learned that the only way to achieve that equal treatment is to have a single process. And since the full contract is called "marriage," then that is what we must call it for everyone.
quote: You mean why do gays feel that straight shouldn't be given special rights? Hmmm...since you seem to be upset over special rights, I think you already know the answer to this.
quote: Because nobody knows what "garriage" is. Everybody already knows what "marriage" is. That's what the contract is. Since the Constitution requires equality, then the only recourse is to allow "marriage" for all. Surely you're not saying that your objection is simply semantic? If so, then opt yourself out. If you cannot handle that your "special friendship" is being referring to as a "marriage," then it is your responsibility to come up with a new term for it. You're the one demanding special rights. You're burden.
quote: Right...cuz all them folks in the FLDS were gay, right? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Hmm. You say you're reading, but what exactly is it that you're reading? Are you reading the California Supreme Court's decision? They covered that.
The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics. It is important both analytically and from the standpoint of fairness to plaintiffs’ argument that we recognize they are not seeking to create a new constitutional right ” the right to “same-sex marriage” ” or to change, modify, or (as some have suggested) “deinstitutionalize” the existing institution of marriage. Instead, plaintiffs contend that, properly interpreted, the state constitutional right to marry affords same-sex couples the same rights and benefits ” accompanied by the same mutual responsibilities and obligations ” as this constitutional right affords to opposite-sex couples. For this reason, in evaluating the constitutional issue before us, we consider it appropriate to direct our focus to the meaning and substance of the constitutional right to marry, and to avoid the potentially misleading implications inherent in analyzing the issue in terms of “same-sex marriage.” And later:
In discussing the constitutional right to marry in Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez), then Justice Traynor in the lead opinion quoted the seminal passage from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, 262 U.S. 390. There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ”[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added [“to marry” italicized by Perez], quoting Meyer, supra, 262 U.S. 390, 399.) The Perez decision continued: “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 714, italics added.) Like Perez, subsequent California decisions discussing the nature of marriage and the right to marry have recognized repeatedly the linkage between marriage, establishing a home, and raising children in identifying civil marriage as the means available to an individual to establish, with a loved one of his or her choice, an officially recognized family relationship. In DeBurgh v. DeBurgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, for example, in explaining “the public interest in the institution of marriage” (id. at p. 863), this court stated: “The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.” (Id. at pp. 863-864.) In Elden v. Sheldon, supra, 46 Cal.3d 267, in rejecting the claim that persons in an unmarried cohabitant relationship that allegedly was akin to a marital relationship should be treated similarly to married persons for purposes of bringing an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, this court explained that “ ”[m]arriage is accorded [a special] degree of dignity in recognition that “[t]he joining of the man and woman in marriage is at once the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime.” ’ ” (46 Cal.3d at pp. 274-275, italics added, quoting Nieto v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 464, quoting Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 684.) The court in Elden v. Sheldon further explained: “Our emphasis on the state’s interest in promoting the marriage relationship is not based on anachronistic notions of morality. The policy favoring marriage is ”rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities in organized society.’ [Citation.] Formally married couples are granted significant rights and bear important responsibilities toward one another which are not shared by those who cohabit without marriage. . . . Plaintiff does not suggest a convincing reason why cohabiting unmarried couples, who do not bear such legal obligations toward one another, should be permitted to recover for injuries to their partners to the same extent as those who undertake these responsibilities.” (46 Cal.3d at p. 275, italics added.) In Williams v. Garcetti, supra, 5 Cal.4th 561, a case in which a criminal statute that prohibited contributing to the delinquency of a minor was challenged on the ground the statute was unconstitutionally vague, this court stated: “Plaintiffs emphasize the fundamental nature of the rights at stake in matters of child rearing. We need no convincing of their significance; we have already recognized that ”[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government . . . extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not listed in the Constitution [as] the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” . . . ; the right to educate one’s children as one chooses . . . ; . . . and the right to privacy and to be let alone by the government in “the private realm of family life.” ’ ” (5 Cal.3d at p. 577.) And in Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995) 10 Cal.4th 594, in discussing the types of relationship that fall within the scope of the constitutionally protected right of intimate association (one component of our state constitutional right of privacy (id. at pp. 629-630)), we explained that “the highly personal relationships that are sheltered by this constitutional guaranty are exemplified by ”those that attend the creation and sustenance of a family ” marriage . . . , childbirth . . . , the raising and education of children . . . and cohabitation with one’s relatives . . . .’ . . . ”Family relationships, by their nature, involve deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs but also distinctly personal aspects of one’s life.’ ” (10 Cal.4th at p. 624, italics added, quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) 468 U.S. 609, 619-620.) The constitutional right to marry thus may be understood as constituting a subset of the right of intimate association ” a subset possessing its own substantive content and affording a distinct set of constitutional protections and guarantees. As these and many other California decisions make clear, the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice, and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual. And later:
Although past California cases emphasize that marriage is an institution in which society as a whole has a vital interest, our decisions at the same time recognize that the legal right and opportunity to enter into such an officially recognized relationship also is of overriding importance to the individual and to the affected couple. As noted above, past California decisions have described marriage as “the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime.” (Marvin v. Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 660, 684; accord, Maynard v. Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190, 205 [describing marriage as “the most important relation in life”].) The ability of an individual to join in a committed, long-term, officially recognized family relationship with the person of his or her choice is often of crucial significance to the individual’s happiness and well-being. The legal commitment to long-term mutual emotional and economic support that is an integral part of an officially recognized marriage relationship provides an individual with the ability to invest in and rely upon a loving relationship with another adult in a way that may be crucial to the individual’s development as a person and achievement of his or her full potential. And later:
Accordingly, we conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage. So why is it the Court knew all this and you didn't? You claim to be reading, but what are you reading?
quote: Thus showing the bigotry goes all the way through to the bone. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Because to call it something else is unconstitutional. "Separate but equal" is neither. The only way to guarantee equality is to have a single contract for all.
quote: Of course. To deny that blacks and gays have suffered similarly is false and insulting.
quote: That's because you didn't believe it. You've been married three times. You're an atheist. Clearly, you aren't honestly arguing that "marriage" is a religious rite. Instead, you recognize that it is a civil contract.
quote: And as you have been told every single time you have made this claim, you're absolutely right. Marriage is a civil contract. No religion at all. So what's your problem? You were married three times. You claim to be an atheist. So why do you claim the term "marriage" when you apparently don't have any church connection?
quote: Again, only in the naive sense. Damn that Constitution! Forcing them "opinions" on us!
quote: Incorrect. The bigot is morally incorrect. Denial of equal marriage to citizens on the basis of sexual orientation is bigotry.
quote: Strange how the courts keep coming up with the "lightweight opinion" that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Damn that Constitution! Forcing them "opinions" on us! 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? First, what part of "the California Supreme Court's decision" do you not understand? Are you truly asking us to believe that you don't know which decision is being referred to? In a thread that is titled "Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban"? Just how stupid do you think we are? Second, are you telling us you haven't read the California Supreme Court's decision?
quote: No, they can't. If they could, they'd be married. Since gay people get turned away from the county clerk's office when they try to get married, it is trivially proven that gay people cannot get married. Besides, the CSC decision addressed this notion of yours that gay people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and thus have the right to "marriage":
In our view, the statutory provisions restricting marriage to a man and a woman cannot be understood as having merely a disparate impact on gay persons, but instead properly must be viewed as directly classifying and prescribing distinct treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the marriage statutes, realistically viewed, operate clearly and directly to impose different treatment on gay individuals because of their sexual orientation. By definition, gay individuals are persons who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex and thus, if inclined to enter into a marriage relationship, would choose to marry a person of their own sex or gender.59 A statute that limits marriage to a union of persons of opposite sexes, thereby placing marriage outside the reach of couples of the same sex, unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. In our view, it is sophistic to suggest that this conclusion is avoidable by reason of the circumstance that the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person’s sexual orientation. Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation. (Accord, Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 517, 533, 541, fn. 7.) 59As explained in the amicus curiae brief filed by a number of leading mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association: “Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is always defined in relational terms and necessarily involves relationships with other individuals. Sexual acts and romantic attractions are categorized as homosexual or heterosexual according to the biological sex of the individuals involved in them, relative to each other. Indeed, it is by acting ” or desiring to act ” with another person that individuals express their heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. . . . Thus, sexual orientation is integrally linked to the intimate personal relationships that human beings form with others to meet their deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behavior, these bonds encompass nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. [] Consequently, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic that can be defined in isolation. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of personal identity.” quote: Incorrect. Don't Ask/Don't Tell doesn't let gay people serve. If anybody finds out, and all it takes is somebody else saying something, you get discharged. Why? Because you're gay. If you are investigated, you are presented with two choices: 1) Tell the truth and get discharged for being gay.2) Lie and get discharged for lying under oath. When DADT was instituted, discharges went UP. If DADT let's gay people serve, why it is MORE people were discharged for being gay than ever before?
quote: You don't get fired for being straight. Instead, you get fired for being gay.
quote: And you are such the paragon of knowledge about the state of things. You spent over 300 posts in a thread named "Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban" and you didn't know what "the California Supreme Court's decision" referred to.
quote: You mean you don't know? You didn't bother to do any research? You came into a thread about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation without bothering to do any homework? And you think people should take your arguments seriously? As the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in Ex Parte H.H., 830 So. 2d 21 (2002) regarding a custody case, homosexulaity is an "inherent evil and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it." It then went on:
The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court and holding that there was no evidence indicating that the mother's homosexual relationship would have a detrimental effect on the children. From its earliest history, the law of Alabama has consistently condemned homosexuality. The common law adopted in this State and upon which our laws are premised likewise declares homosexuality to be a detestable and abominable sin. Homosexual conduct by its very nature is immoral, and its consequences are inherently destructive to the natural order of society. Any person who engages in such conduct is presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children under the established laws of this State. Id. at 37-38. And clearly you don't know about Bottoms v. Bottoms, 457 S.E.2d 102 (Va. 1995). It went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court that concurred that the mother, simply because she was gay, was unfit to have custody of her own child. A common restriction upon gay parents upon divorce is that they are not allowed to live with someone to whom they are not married. Well, since gay people can't get married, that makes things a bit difficult for the gay parent, doesn't it? Go forward and make an ideal home for your child in providing two parents who love the child...and the child gets taken away because you're not married. And are prevented from getting married. H. v. P., 643 S.W.2d 865 (Mo. App. 1982) restricted a gay father from taking his children to a church that welcomed gay people. As detailed in Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N.E.2d 733, 1998 Ind. App. LEXIS 2052 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), a gay father was denied custody because he was involved in a gay church and was a member of PFLAG: Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (a support group for families and friends of gay people).
quote: Huh? When was the last time you were strapped down and had electrodes attached to your genitals? It's called "reparative therapy" and is forced upon children by their parents.
quote: It's called "bigotry." We've already established that.
quote: Because rights are not a popularity contest. As Thoreau put it:
Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one. Are you seriously claiming that there are no rights other than what the majority agrees to? Then what on earth is the point of having a right? If nobody would ever dream of denying you your right, it isn't of much use, is it? Rights are there for things that are unpopular, the things that most people don't do, to protect the minority from the majority.
quote: You mean like "curing" dark skin, dark eyes, and kinky hair? That you seem to think that being gay is a "disease" to be "cured" shows just how deeply your bigotry goes.
quote: Huh? There is no life span differential between gays and straights.
quote: Then you need to read more. May I suggest Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Over 450 species examined and shown to have gay members, including grizzly, black, and polar bears. But bears are a difficult call since they are polygamous and only really come together specifically to breed and then part. However, grizzly females will often pair up to raise their young together. If one of the pair dies, the other will adopt the cubs of the mate. Once again, you decided to enter a discussion about sexuality without doing any homework on the subject? And you expect people to take you seriously? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Ahem. That's illegal. You do remember Senator Craig, yes? He wasn't busted for being gay. He was busted for lewd and lascivious behaviour. Hanging out in a public restroom to listen to others use the facilities is an invasion of their privacy.
quote: You seem to have forgotten Lawrence v. Texas and Scalia's dissent:
This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Since Lawrence v. Texas says you can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation and since Scalia claims that this decision means that same-sex marriage must then be allowed, it would seem that he is honor-bound to follow his own logic: Marriage cannot be denied to gays on the basis of their sexual orientation.
quote: Huh? What on earth does abortion have to do with anything? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Incorrect. It is predicated upon Constitutional principles. It just so happens that those principles apply both to discrimination based upon race as well as discrimination based upon sexual orientation. You can see this in the CSC's decision: The Perez decision was not about a right to "interracial" marriage. Instead, it was about the right to "marriage to the person you choose." And as the in RE case found, their decision is not about the right to "same-sex marriage" but rather about the right to "marriage to the person you choose." That is why this keeps getting pointed out to you that your reasons were rejected long ago in the fight over interracial marriage. While it was a case of racism that brought it up, the right transcends that basis. Didn't you read the decision?
As this court explained in Brown v. Merlo, supra, 8 Cal.3d 855, 862: “In determining the scope of the class singled out for special burdens or benefits, a court cannot confine its view to the terms of the specific statute under attack, but must judge the enactment’s operation against the background of other legislative, administrative and judicial directives which govern the legal rights of similarly situated persons. As the United States Supreme Court recognized long ago: ”The question of constitutional validity is not to be determined by artificial standards [confining review “within the four corners” of a statute]. This is the function of the court at that level: To interpret the Constitution such that it goes beyond mere trivialities as the specifics of one case. That's the entire point behind "precedent": The decision made there is to be looked to in application to other cases. To pretend that the judicial process involved in the various cases regarding miscegenation are only about race and have absolutely nothing to say about the point of marriage in and of itself is to show you simply haven't read the cases in question.
quote: Huh? Since Larry and Frank were never going to be rivals to Jim in Jennifer's affections, we're still left scratching our heads over how you think equality in marriage affects the abortion rate.
quote: Huh? Why the sneer-capitalization? You seem to be indicating that the only purpose for sex is procreation and that sexual activity between people of the same sex is "unnatural." And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Indeed. It is patently ridiculous just how much are you fighting a process that doesn't affect you. Despite repeated attempts to get you to be specific, you have yet to come up with a single example of how the neighbor's marriage affects you. Do you need to walk your dog on the other side of the street?Will you be forced to paint your house white? Will you be required to live only on the first floor of your home? Just what does the neighbor's marriage have to do with you? Be specific. You're obviously obsessed about something, so spit it out. What exactly are you afraid will happen if the neighbor's get married? And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Incorrect. Do you not know the difference between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny"? Under "rational basis," the burden of proof of discrimination is upon the one who is claiming to be discriminated against. Most characteristics you would care to name fall under this banner when it comes to the court system. "Strict scrutiny," on the other hand, reverses that: The burden of proof is upon the government to explain "not only that it has a compelling interest which justifies the law but that the distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to further its purpose" (Hernandez, supra, 41 Cal.4th 2). In legal terms, these are called "suspect classes." Laws that affect these "suspect classes" are necessarily examined under strict scrutiny rather than rational basis. So far, the only "suspect classes" are race, sex, and religion. The CSC was finding that sexual orientation is also a "suspect class" that necessarily requires strict scrutiny:
Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment. (Accord, Hernandez- Montiel v. I.N.S. (9th Cir. 2000) 225 F.3d 1084, 1093 exual orientation and sexual identity . . . are so fundamental to one’s identity that a person should not be required to abandon them”; Egan v. Canada, supra, 2 S.C.R. 513, 528 [“whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs”].) ... Instead, our decisions make clear that the most important factors in deciding whether a characteristic should be considered a constitutionally suspect basis for classification are whether the class of persons who exhibit a certain characteristic historically has been subjected to invidious and prejudicial treatment, and whether society now recognizes that the characteristic in question generally bears no relationship to the individual’s ability to perform or contribute to society. Thus, “courts must look closely at classifications based on that characteristic lest outdated social stereotypes result in invidious laws or practices.” (Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, 18, italics added; see, e.g., Arp v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 19 Cal.3d 395, 404-406.) This rationale clearly applies to statutory classifications that mandate differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. In sum, we conclude that statutes imposing differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation should be viewed as constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution’s equal protection clause. quote: In and of itself, none. But the contract isn't "civil union." It's "marriage." Once again, you seem to be claiming that the argument is semantic. If you really cannot handle the fact that your relationship and the neighbor's relationship is called the same thing, then it becomes your burden to come up with a new term for it. Oh, the law, because it's the law, will only have a single contract referred to by a single term, but you are free to call it whatever you want. If you want to have a "special friendship," then you go right ahead. Everybody else is just going to keep using the same word we've been using for hundreds of years: Marriage. Nobody is going to be confused by it.
quote: Huh? The law specifies "marriage" - the word. If you go to the county clerk office, you get a "marriage" license.
quote: Indeed. And the fact that you never seem to make this argument about heterosexual "marriage" indicates that you fail. Since you only ever seem to bother about the word "marriage" when the people wishing to acquired the same rights you have don't happen to be straight, it becomes clear that this is nothing but a smokescreen. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: Yes. We're having an argument about the law and what it requires. This necessarily requires that one be familiar with the various cases in question that affect the specific situation we're talking about. For you to enter such a discussion without bothering to do any homework on the subject shows disingenuousness at best. If you don't know what the law says, how can you possibly argue about what it says? If you aren't going to bother to investigate the cases, what on earth makes you think anybody should pay you any nevermind?
quote: It was in the quotation format, wasn't it? I gave the case reference, didn't I? I gave the author, didn't I? Let's not play dumb.
quote: You are incapable of typing "Lawrence v. Texas" into a search engine and finding it for yourself? You are incapable of copying the quotation I provided, pasting it into a search engine, and looking it up for yourself? Are you alloted only a certain number of mouseclicks and keystrokes per day otherwise you pay a fine?
quote: Yes. I am not here to do your homework for you. You were given all the information you needed to look it up for yourself. Why didn't you? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to bluescat48:
quote:quote: Huh? If the "fairness" trait is that the contract must have the same name regardless of the applicants, why are you choosing the method that requires the most amount of work and throws the status of all currently married couples in jeopardy? The number of laws and policies that reference "marriage" run into the thousands. All of them will need to be rewritten to reflect the change in nomenclature. And since other states either do not have or have a decidely unequal contract of "civil union," how are couples who have a "civil union" in California supposed to be treated when they move to another state? Do they count as "married" or not? The solution you are proposing, while achieving a single contract for all, winds up making a hash of everything. The best solution to achieve fairness is to use the structure that currently exists and simply apply it to all: "Marriage." The only thing that needs to be altered in the law is the recognition of same-sex couples.
quote: But marriage is a civil contract. Let the churches decide who gets "blessed." The government is the one to decide who gets married. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Nobody has ever said otherwise. But what has been asked of you is how you would be affected by the neighbors getting married. What are you so afraid of? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: No, you're not. If you were, you wouldn't say that you've been "married" three times.
quote: Huh? Marriage is a civil contract. What does the church have to do with it?
quote: Indeed. You get to have your "special friendship" or whatever you want to call it and the rest of the world, including the law, will keep the word it's been using for hundreds of years: Marriage. You're the one saying you have a problem. Therefore, you are the one who gets to absent yourself. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: What does that have to do with anything? Surely you're not about to invoke "originalism" as a valid Constitutional interpretation process, are you? The framers of the Constitution didn't have women in mind when they framed it, either, and yet they are just as protected by the Constitution as men are.
quote: Sorry to disappoint you. On two counts. First, slavery was explicitly encoded into the Constitution. It had to be removed via amendment. Second, the abolition of slavery weighed quite heavily on the minds of the framers of the Constitution. It almost didn't happen because of the problems regarding slavery.
quote: How could it not be?
quote: Then it should be impossible for gay people to have sex. Since gay people clearly have sex quite successfully, the idea that it is "unnatural" is proven false by simple inspection. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote:quote: But you never say how. Coming up on 400 posts and still you haven't managed to describe exactly how you are affected.
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. What "rights" and "interests" would be violated by the neighbor's marriage? How would your life change if the neighbors got married? Be specific.
quote: "Separate but equal"? Didn't we already learn this lesson?
quote: But since the former doesn't exist as far as you've been able to demonstrate and the latter is unconstitutional, one wonders where you think you're going. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Right, because the majority always knows what's best. When Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the country thought that marriage should be restricted on the basis of race. That's more than the current opinion regarding same-sex marriage. Even though miscegenation laws were overturned in 1967 (by unanimous vote), South Carolina and Alabama didn't get around to actually amending their constitutions until 1998 (SC) and 2000 (AL) and even then, about 40% of the population voted to keep interracial marriage banned. Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong in overturning the opinion of the majority?
quote: So when the SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, when the CSC rules that marriage is a fundamental right, they were wrong to do so?
quote: I've been quoting the CSC's opinion for you. It would be nice if you would actually respond to their justification. So far, all you've done is say that you are interested in protecting the "rights and interests" of straight people who don't want to have gay people married, but you have yet to explain just what those "rights and interests" are.
quote: Huh? On one the one side, we have a person who wishes to prevent citizens from engaging in their full rights as citizens by denying them access to the civil contract of marriage. On the other side, we have a person who wishes to allow citizens to engage in their full rights as citizens by granting them access to the civil contract of marriage. On one side, we have a person claiming that by allowing the neighbors to get married, certain "rights and interests" will be infringed. On the other side, we have a person waiting to hear what those "rights and interests" are but constantly getting nothing in response. On one side, we have a person claiming gays are "unnatural." On the other, we have a person blinking at the notion. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024