Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 316 of 448 (469250)
06-04-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by FliesOnly
06-04-2008 2:35 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
FliesOnly writes:
Hint...it's not necessarily about the "love"...
Then why did you bring it up?
...it's about the benefits that spouses are awarded as a result of the civil union called "marriage".
Why does a civil union need to be called a "marriage" under the law? Should the law call a civil servant a "boy" or a "maid"? Should the law call a supreme-court judge a "high priest"?
Get it, Hoot Mon..it's a not a comparison of the plight of African Americans to homosexuals...
Don't tell me that while you continue to make that comparison. It comes up again and again on this thread. For a recent example, Infixion in Message 314 countered my statement:
quote:
Why can't "marriage" be reserved for heterosexuals?
with:
Why can't the front of the bus be reserved for whites?
I'm afraid neither of you have been able to grasp the point here. You are comparing racial issues with sexual-orientation issues. It is a false and insulting comparison.
it's about equal protection under the law, as per the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.
And when I proposed we do just that by removing "marriage" from the law and relegating it to the churches, per the First Amendment, you disagreed. What's wrong with relegating "law" to the government and "love" to the churches? Doesn't the First Amendment even require it?
So let me make this suggestion to you again. Go back and read all the post that address this stupid issue (comparing Blacks to homosexuals), as well as your stupid "but I can't marry someone of the same sex either" argument.
Just by calling my arguments stupid doesn't sway the jury one least bit. In the end, all we have on this matter of "same-sex marriage" is opinion. We just disagree, that's all. No one is more morally correct than any other person. The only measure that counts on this issue is the WEIGHT of opinion accruing on either side of it. As such, your side is a lightweight opinion and you shouldn't be messing around with the heavyweights. But that's just my opinion.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by FliesOnly, posted 06-04-2008 2:35 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2008 11:55 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 321 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 4:31 AM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 323 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 11:56 AM Fosdick has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 317 of 448 (469301)
06-04-2008 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Fosdick
06-04-2008 7:54 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
I'm afraid neither of you have been able to grasp the point here. You are comparing racial issues with sexual-orientation issues. It is a false and insulting comparison.
DISCRIMINATION is DISRCIMINATION no matter who is being discriminated against. It doesn't matter whether it is racial, sexual, religious, ethnic, or any other classification real or imagined.
Edited by bluescat48, : spelling

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Fosdick, posted 06-04-2008 7:54 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Fosdick, posted 06-06-2008 12:24 PM bluescat48 has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 318 of 448 (469317)
06-05-2008 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Fosdick
06-03-2008 12:20 PM


How did I know that unisex bathrooms would be brought up?
Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
You may as well be calling for unisex (both sexes) public rest rooms, using the argument that separate-but-equal is unfair sexual discrimination.
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:
Maybe I would like to sit there and listen to a women tinkle.
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:
And anybody who says they’re wrong for being who they are is a big fat bigot!
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:
Rrhain, you and others here are advancing an argument that is purely opinion and nothing more.
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:
There is no inherently moral right or legal entitlement that empowers homosexuals, tinkle listeners, chicken abusers, voodoo cursers, or any group that wants special treatment under the law.
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:
And I say “special” because every homosexual, tinkle listener, chicken abuser, or voodoo curser has EXACTLY the same rights I do.
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:
You have not yet explained why “gay marriage” is worthy of special accommodation under the law.
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:
But if I have to sanction “gay 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 "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:
Let the homosexuals have their civil unions so that they can no longer claim to be legally disadvantaged.
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:
I have to be a part of that, though, 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."
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, being a noble person, I will move over to accommodate them, and I’ll do it gladly, IF THE LAW GETS OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF "MARRIAGE."
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:
I don’t object to civil partnerships.
"Separate but equal."
So you don't object to discrimination. How big of you.
quote:
But I’m not OK with an old lady “marrying” her cat in a legal ceremony at the county courthouse.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Fosdick, posted 06-03-2008 12:20 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 11:33 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 319 of 448 (469323)
06-05-2008 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Fosdick
06-03-2008 5:23 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
A legal opinion is supported by premises.
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:
Since homosexuals have the same rights I do they are already equal to me under the law.
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:
Well, I can't have a legally sanctioned polygamous marriage either, even if I wanted one. So why aren't you out there banging the gong for legalized polygamy?
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:
The law discriminates against polygamists. Why are you forgetting about them? They might want to call you a bigot.
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:
And maybe something should NOT be called "marriage" if it is supposed to legally unite two or more members of the same sex in a civil union. Why can't "marriage" be reserved for heterosexuals?
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:
Why do homosexuals feel the need to horn in on that?
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:
Then why not "marriage" for straights and "garraige" for gays?
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:
Prediction: The next big gay issue will be same-sex polygamy.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Fosdick, posted 06-03-2008 5:23 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 320 of 448 (469328)
06-05-2008 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Fosdick
06-04-2008 1:00 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
I'm reading. I'm reading. And I'm reading that the law has something to do with letting people marry who they "love." Does the law do that? I don't think the law has anything to do, or should having anything to do, with letting people marrying who they love.
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:
And if I were one of "them uppity Negros" I'd be furious as hell about your ridiculous comparison of my historical plight with that of the gays.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Fosdick, posted 06-04-2008 1:00 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 321 of 448 (469335)
06-05-2008 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Fosdick
06-04-2008 7:54 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
Why does a civil union need to be called a "marriage" under the law?
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:
You are comparing racial issues with sexual-orientation issues.
Of course.
To deny that blacks and gays have suffered similarly is false and insulting.
quote:
And when I proposed we do just that by removing "marriage" from the law and relegating it to the churches, per the First Amendment, you disagreed.
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:
What's wrong with relegating "law" to the government and "love" to the churches? Doesn't the First Amendment even require it?
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:
In the end, all we have on this matter of "same-sex marriage" is opinion.
Again, only in the naive sense. Damn that Constitution! Forcing them "opinions" on us!
quote:
No one is more morally correct than any other person.
Incorrect. The bigot is morally incorrect.
Denial of equal marriage to citizens on the basis of sexual orientation is bigotry.
quote:
As such, your side is a lightweight opinion and you shouldn't be messing around with the heavyweights.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Fosdick, posted 06-04-2008 7:54 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 322 of 448 (469381)
06-05-2008 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Rrhain
06-05-2008 3:08 AM


Mother Nature doesn't like gays
Hi Rrhain,
Your posts Message 318, Message 319, and Message 320 contain undocumented quotes. I'm sure you are honest in your cut-and-paste quotations, but I have no way of verifying them. Could you provide some links, please?
Rrhain writes:
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.
Wrong:
Gay people can get married. (They can get married, just like I can.)
Gay people can serve in the military. (Don't ask, don't tell.)
Gay people can be safe from being fired. (At least as safe as I can be. Can anybody be safe from being fired? I was fired once for not being Catholic.)
"Gay people can't be safe from being evicted." (Who sez? I know of no evictions for gayness.)
"Gay people can't keep custody of their children." (Who sez? Show me where gays are having their children taken away.)
"Gay people can't be free from torture." (Hell, I can't be free from torture for being old. In fact, being old is its own form of torture. The young women I ogle would like to have their boyfriends cut off my nuts. And the young men I ogle would like to suck on them. Do you know how torturous that is?)
Rrhain, I believe you are sincere in your arguments. Could you tell me why so many people oppose your POV? You are in the vast minority, you know. Why do you insist that you're right when so many others say you're wrong?
Wouldn't it be better for all people involved if science discovered the cause homosexuality and found a way to cure it? Even Mother Nature isn't very friendly toward gays. I've never seen a single photograph of two male bears in the woods giving each other BJs.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 3:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 11:59 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 329 by Rrhain, posted 06-06-2008 2:40 AM Fosdick has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 323 of 448 (469390)
06-05-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Fosdick
06-04-2008 7:54 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
Hoot Mon writes:
Then why did you bring it up?
Because I knew you were going to bring up your ridiculous argument about how the Constitution doesn't guarantee us the "right" to marry someone we love...so I thought I'd use a preemptive strike. I see it failed.
Hoot Mon writes:
Why does a civil union need to be called a "marriage" under the law? Should the law call a civil servant a "boy" or a "maid"? Should the law call a supreme-court judge a "high priest"?
No...which is why so many of us see no reason to add all sorts of definitions for marriage either. Remember, until homophobes started making laws and/or amending State Constitutions, and until the homophobic republican party passed DOMA, there were no definitions of marriage that excluded homosexual marriage. You guys are the ones that want to add layers of definitions, not us.
Hoot Mon writes:
I'm afraid neither of you have been able to grasp the point here. You are comparing racial issues with sexual-orientation issues. It is a false and insulting comparison.
And I find it sadly hilarious that you have no apparent concept of our Constitution. We're not comparing the plight of Blacks in this Country with the plight of homosexuals. We're pointing out to you and yours that you are using the exact same argument to deny homosexual marriage as was once used to deny inter-racial marriages. Why is that so difficult for you to see?
Hoot Mon writes:
And when I proposed we do just that by removing "marriage" from the law and relegating it to the churches, per the First Amendment, you disagreed. What's wrong with relegating "law" to the government and "love" to the churches? Doesn't the First Amendment even require it?
Been covered ad nauseum. Go back and READ the posts. And pay special attention to those sections that explain the whole concept of "separate but equal".
Hoot Mon writes:
In the end, all we have on this matter of "same-sex marriage" is opinion. We just disagree, that's all.
Maybe you'd have a point...if only it weren't for that pesky Constitution thingie and all those decisions handed down by the Courts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Fosdick, posted 06-04-2008 7:54 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 12:25 PM FliesOnly has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 324 of 448 (469391)
06-05-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Fosdick
06-05-2008 11:33 AM


Re: Mother Nature doesn't like gays
Hoot Mon writes:
I've never seen a single photograph of two male bears in the woods giving each other BJs.
You're only further exposing your ignorance when you make claims such as this. Go learn a little biology. Homosexual behavior is most certainly NOT uncommon in the animal kingdom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 11:33 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 12:06 PM FliesOnly has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 325 of 448 (469394)
06-05-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by FliesOnly
06-05-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Mother Nature doesn't like gays
Any photographs to offer up on that, FliesOnly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 11:59 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 4:14 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 328 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 4:17 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 326 of 448 (469396)
06-05-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by FliesOnly
06-05-2008 11:56 AM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
FliesOnly writes:
We're not comparing the plight of Blacks in this Country with the plight of homosexuals. We're pointing out to you and yours that you are using the exact same argument to deny homosexual marriage as was once used to deny inter-racial marriages.
Are you aware, FO, that you have written a self-contradictory statement? The logical equivalent to this is: I'm not talking about A, I'm talking about B, and therefore A = B.
Been covered ad nauseum. Go back and READ the posts. And pay special attention to those sections that explain the whole concept of "separate but equal".
I agree. It sure does put a crimp on those heterosexual tinkle listeners who are bound by law to listen only to other men tinkle in public restrooms.
And I'm still awaiting a SCOTUS opinion on the matter. Do you think the high court will even bother to hear such a claim by homosexuals that they are being denied their Fourteenth Amendment rights by not being allowed to get married?
Hey, maybe SCOTUS will agree with them. It might help to reduce the number of abortions.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by FliesOnly, posted 06-05-2008 11:56 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Rrhain, posted 06-06-2008 2:54 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 331 by FliesOnly, posted 06-06-2008 7:26 AM Fosdick has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 327 of 448 (469437)
06-05-2008 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Fosdick
06-05-2008 12:06 PM


Re: Mother Nature doesn't like gays
Hoot Mon writes:
Any photographs to offer up on that, FliesOnly?
Photos of what...two bears giving each other blow jobs? None probably exist. So what? Seriously, Hoot Mon, does someone pay you to be a smart ass, or do you do it all on your own for free? If you want to stop being a smart ass, and want to learn a bit about how common homosexuality is in the animal kingdom...Google it. You'll find that by no means is your quote of ignorance
Hoot Mon writes:
Even Mother Nature isn't very friendly toward gays"
even remotely accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 12:06 PM Fosdick has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 328 of 448 (469439)
06-05-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Fosdick
06-05-2008 12:06 PM


Re: Mother Nature doesn't like gays
Duplicate post
Edited by FliesOnly, : Duplicate post..sorry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 12:06 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 329 of 448 (469566)
06-06-2008 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Fosdick
06-05-2008 11:33 AM


Mother Nature loves gays
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
Your posts Message 318, Message 319, and Message 320 contain undocumented quotes. I'm sure you are honest in your cut-and-paste quotations, but I have no way of verifying them. Could you provide some links, please?
(*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:
Gay people can get married. (They can get married, just like I can.)
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:
Gay people can serve in the military. (Don't ask, don't tell.)
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:
Gay people can be safe from being fired. (At least as safe as I can be. Can anybody be safe from being fired? I was fired once for not being Catholic.)
You don't get fired for being straight. Instead, you get fired for being gay.
quote:
"Gay people can't be safe from being evicted." (Who sez? I know of no evictions for gayness.)
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:
"Gay people can't keep custody of their children." (Who sez? Show me where gays are having their children taken away.)
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:
"Gay people can't be free from torture." (Hell, I can't be free from torture for being old. In fact, being old is its own form of torture. The young women I ogle would like to have their boyfriends cut off my nuts. And the young men I ogle would like to suck on them. Do you know how torturous that is?)
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:
Could you tell me why so many people oppose your POV?
It's called "bigotry." We've already established that.
quote:
Why do you insist that you're right when so many others say you're wrong?
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:
Wouldn't it be better for all people involved if science discovered the cause homosexuality and found a way to cure it?
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:
Even Mother Nature isn't very friendly toward gays.
Huh? There is no life span differential between gays and straights.
quote:
I've never seen a single photograph of two male bears in the woods giving each other BJs.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 11:33 AM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 330 of 448 (469568)
06-06-2008 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Fosdick
06-05-2008 12:25 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
It sure does put a crimp on those heterosexual tinkle listeners who are bound by law to listen only to other men tinkle in public restrooms.
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:
And I'm still awaiting a SCOTUS opinion on the matter. Do you think the high court will even bother to hear such a claim by homosexuals that they are being denied their Fourteenth Amendment rights by not being allowed to get married?
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:
Hey, maybe SCOTUS will agree with them. It might help to reduce the number of abortions.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 12:25 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Fosdick, posted 06-06-2008 12:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024