Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

Your whole spiel is predicated on racial-discrimination principles.

---

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? 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:

---

Well, I would venture to say that Larry and Frank would be less likely to need an abortion than Jim and Jennifer would.

---

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:

---

Neither Larry nor Frank are NATURALLY endowed with a complete set of equipment for getting either one of them pregnant.

---

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:

---

Can't you see how ridiculous this "gay marriage" issue is?

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

Any special group can claim DISCRIMINATION if they want to make a legal issue over it.

---

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:

quote:

---

But where is the DISCRIMINATION if the law were to allow gays, as well as straights, to get civilly united, while making no reference to marriage, per se?

---

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:

---

They want the LAW to say they're "married," even if the LAW doesn't (or wouldn't) specify "marriage"”the word”in sanctioning heterosexual civil unions.

---

Huh? The law specifies "marriage" - the word. If you go to the county clerk office, you get a "marriage" license.

quote:

---

There's the acid test for bigotry.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

I suppose you expect me to google up all of laws and quotes you use to support your argument.

---

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:

---

Is that a 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:

---

Where's the link?

---

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:

---

Am I suppose to go chasing after it?

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to bluescat48:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So then change all marriage licenses to civil union licenses.

---

​

That is the only way I know of to resolve this issue fairly.

---

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:

---

Let the churches decide who gets married, and let the government decide who gets civilly united.

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

But I do care what the government does with its laws, since I am of them, by them, and for them, according to Lincoln.

---

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.

But during the time anti-miscegenation laws were in force, blacks were able to marry just the same as whites were. The only stipulation was they had to marry someone of the same race. So if we follow your argument, then there was no reason to revoke these laws.Note that there is no comparison of the plight these two groups have faced in the past, since discrimination is not decided by how much a group has suffered in the past. For example, we don't discriminate against Jews, does that mean we get to discriminate against Christians because they did not experience the horrors of the holocaust?As for the whole 'civil union' thing, how exactly would that work? If everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals, simply got a civil union would they all just refer to themselves as married, because that is basically what it is regardless of what the state puts on a piece off paper; or would they have to go through some sort of marriage service?
Could this be construed as discriminatory against atheists? Would people dismiss a couple as not being married because they did not recognise the church they used for the ceremony?

I have no problem with that. I'm not out to deprive anyone of his or her civil rights under the law. But am out to get "marriage" out of the law. That way the churches could decide who gets married and I don't have to be involved with it. It's so simple it's silly.”HM

Do you honestly believe the framers of the Constitution had "gay marriage" in mind when they framed it?A prediction: You will reply that the framers of the Constitution didn't have abolition of slavery in mind when they framed it. How you get from abolition of slavery to state-sanctioned "gay marriage" is a queer bit of reasoning, indeed. We're back to that elephant in the room again. Do you really believe that same-sex sexual activity is natural? It seems unnatural to me because if you take a closer look at the equipment you can see that NATURAL EVOLUTION has not provided for sexual intercourse between gays, only straights. If you can't see that then we need to talk and the birds and bees. Whatever is specified in the law affects me. Yes, I'm obsessed about protecting the rights and interests of heterosexuals who feel that "gay marriage" is not something the law should sanction. And I'm obsessed about giving gays their legal rights to have civil unions. And I'm obsessed about finding a way to accomplish both obsessions.You, on the other hand, are obsessed about forcing your opinion on the majority to accomplish a special-interest goal: "gay marriage." I still remain unconvinced that your POV has any merit. That is my opinion. And that is all anyone can have on this issue. If, after what I have written on this thread, you want to tag me as a bigot, go ahead. Your opinions seem just as bigoted to me. You are the intolerant one her, not me.”HM

That one left me blinking. I don't care what anyone refers to himself or herself as, so long as I don't have to be a part of it. But if the state should should decide to make such references a matter of law, then I care, because it affects me directly. Atheists are discriminated against. An atheist has about the same chance of being elected POTUS as a homosexual does.”HM

Kooties.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

I'm not out to deprive anyone of his or her civil rights under the law. But am out to get "marriage" out of the law.

---

No, you're not. If you were, you wouldn't say that you've been "married" three times.

quote:

---

That way the churches could decide who gets married and I don't have to be involved with it.

---

Huh? Marriage is a civil contract. What does the church have to do with it?

quote:

---

It's so simple it's silly.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe the framers of the Constitution had "gay marriage" in mind when they framed it?

---

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:

---

A prediction: You will reply that the framers of the Constitution didn't have abolition of slavery in mind when they framed it. How you get from abolition of slavery to state-sanctioned "gay marriage" is a queer bit of reasoning, indeed.

---

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:

---

Do you really believe that same-sex sexual activity is natural?

---

How could it not be?

quote:

---

It seems unnatural to me because if you take a closer look at the equipment you can see that NATURAL EVOLUTION has not provided for sexual intercourse between gays, only straights.

---

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:

---

It is patently ridiculous just how much are you fighting a process that doesn't affect you.

---

​

Whatever is specified in the law affects me.

---

But you never say how. Coming up on 400 posts and still you haven't managed to describe exactly how you are affected.

quote:

---

Yes, I'm obsessed about protecting the rights and interests of heterosexuals who feel that "gay marriage" is not something the law should sanction.

---

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:

---

And I'm obsessed about giving gays their legal rights to have civil unions.

---

"Separate but equal"? Didn't we already learn this lesson?

quote:

---

And I'm obsessed about finding a way to accomplish both obsessions.

---

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:

---

You, on the other hand, are obsessed about forcing your opinion on the majority

---

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:

---

to accomplish a special-interest goal: "gay marriage."

---

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 still remain unconvinced that your POV has any merit.

---

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:

---

You are the intolerant one her, not me.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to Meddle:

quote:

---

quote:

---

For example, we don't discriminate against Jews, does that mean we get to discriminate against Christians because they did not experience the horrors of the holocaust?

---

​

That one left me blinking.

---

Your argument has been that black people have suffered "real" discrimination while gays haven't. Thus, it is OK to discriminate against gays in the same way we used to discriminate against blacks.Of course, your argument falls apart on another level: The same laws that protect blacks, that were enacted because of the experience of blacks, also protect people who aren't black and never experienced slavery. You said that the Fourteenth Amendment is only about slavery. Surely those that were ratifying it weren't thinking about Hispanics or Asians.Somehow, we've never thought to restrict its protection to all races, not just those that experienced slavery.

quote:

---

I don't care what anyone refers to himself or herself as, so long as I don't have to be a part of it.

---

Obviously this isn't true or you wouldn't say that you've been "married" three times.If you don't want to be a part of it, then you are the one that needs to come up with a new name. You're the one with the problem. You're the one who needs to absent himself.If you want to talk about your "special friendships," then you go right ahead. The rest of the world, including the law, will continue to use the word that's been used for hundreds of years:Marriage.Nobody will be confused.

quote:

---

But if the state should should decide to make such references a matter of law, then I care, because it affects me directly.

---

How?Be specific.

---

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.

Hoot Man responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What are you so afraid of?

---

​

Kooties.

---

And that's your reason for pissing on the Constitution?We're still waiting to hear what these "rights and interests" are that will be violated if the neighbors get 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.

From Message 291: So then you'll go for "garriage"? Isn't that what you asked for? Are you saying that special laws for gays don't affect me? Come on, Rrhain, we've already covered this. Are you reading this thread carefully?”HM