Laughing City

Do you agree with the ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Yes
66%
 66%  [ 14 ]
No
19%
 19%  [ 4 ]
I don't know
14%
 14%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 21

Author Message
DRMS_7888
Vintage Newbie


You can read it here:
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL .pdf?tsp=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v_schwarzenegger

Reading this almost made it seem like a joke trial. The proponents of Prop 8 only presented two witnesses, both of which were largely unqualified and contradictory in their testimonies. Every argument they put forth was sounded defeated by mountains of carefully researched evidence that supports equality for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

Quote:
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows
conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private
moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex
couples.

_________________
EisleyForever wrote:
you're A-list in my heart!


MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


My arguments against same sex marriage & for civil unions don't line up with the rhetoric of the state of California, so the ruling and the issue don't address the controversy as I see it so I'm ambivalent.
_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9595 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES
Vintage Newbie


The decision to redefine marriage should be left to the people, not a single district court judge. Expect a stay of the decision on Monday or Tuesday, pending the appeal to the 9th Circuit. And for the record, Judge Walker should have recused himself. I assume his being homosexual biased his opinion. But you read into that 138 page ruling what you want to. Regardless of how flimsy the defense of Prop. 8 may or may not have been, the money for a proper defense is pouring in now, count on it. And he should have stayed the opinion himself. That is usually the case with such a big case as this is decided by 1 lower court judge. The decision should already be stayed, pending the appeal. But that isn't the case, which pretty much shows the judge to not be impartial. Activism from the bench once again trumps the will of the people. No big surprise.
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7524 | Location: Wisconsin
View user's profile Send private message
do not be afraid.
Lost at Forum


CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote:
The decision to redefine marriage should be left to the people, not a single district court judge. Expect a stay of the decision on Monday or Tuesday, pending the appeal to the 9th Circuit. And for the record, Judge Walker should have recused himself. I assume his being homosexual biased his opinion. But you read into that 138 page ruling what you want to. Regardless of how flimsy the defense of Prop. 8 may or may not have been, the money for a proper defense is pouring in now, count on it. And he should have stayed the opinion himself. That is usually the case with such a big case as this is decided by 1 lower court judge. The decision should already be stayed, pending the appeal. But that isn't the case, which pretty much shows the judge to not be impartial. Activism from the bench once again trumps the will of the people. No big surprise.

are you honestly saying that “the people” should be left to trample on our constitutionally guaranteed rights? and that a judge who simply sided with the constitution and years of legal precedent was somehow guilty of “bias?” give me a $#@! break…
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 | Posts: 1126 | Location: Temple Terrace, Florida
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES
Vintage Newbie


Rolling Eyes No, I didn't say that. But thanks for playing.
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7524 | Location: Wisconsin
View user's profile Send private message
tahruh
Vintage Newbie


"I assume him being homosexual biased his view."

BLOOD IS POURING OUT OF MY NOSE AND ONTO MY YSL.

I seriously cannot handle this forum/country some/most days.

"The will of the people."

...

THE
WILL
OF
THE
PEOPLE
.

I know I always consider the feelings of complete and total strangers/others, in general, when making my own decisions about my very personal life. How about you, Cubs? How many people did you consult when choosing your wife, and what, if I may ask, was your relationship with each and every person I'm certain you considered, in your very personal choice?

And Wil, I'd really love to hear/see why you support seperate but equa- I mean, civil unions? I hate to bring race into this, but really. The 'will of the people' and the manipulation of 'God' has certainly had it's fair share of faults in the past.

_________________
Albert Camus wrote:
Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth.
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 | 
View user's profile Send private message
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES
Vintage Newbie


do not be afraid. wrote:
a judge who simply sided with the constitution and years of legal precedent was somehow guilty of “bias?” give me a $#@! break…


The judge sided against many millenium of precedent. And 234 years of United States precedent. Try again.

With the constitution? His say is not the final word on that. I'm pretty sure 9 people on the U.S. Supreme Court, and not him, will decide that after the 9th circuit is done with the case.
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7524 | Location: Wisconsin
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


Video Games Are Art Razz

In other news...

Eventually they are going to have to address the constitutional conflict at hand:

Freedom of Religion vs. Equality as defined by contemporary culture.

For many people they take on faith that homosexuality is a sin and marriage should be a sacrament shared between willing adult heterosexuals, monogamously.

There a people who disagree with that view. But the law protects their right to have that view, and worship in a manner that perpetuates that view.

Marriage as an institution of the state challenges the sacred status of the institution by trumping the standards on which it's based. I'm not saying it's wrong, I don't have to, I'm just saying a state construct that is being given the title and significance of a religious one creates a constitutional conflict if it causes bias, ill will, or legal conflicts for a religious group that by basis of faith discriminates in who it marries. To my knowledge no such suit has been filed against a religious organization, and hopefully it never will.

It bugs me that a lot of this is symbolic (and a lot money). Spouses get equal protection under the law as far as professional benefits and that's one of the issues. On the other hand, if it were a Civil Union, it loses that defiant "I have the same rights as you cause I'm MARRIED" appeal, that I think is couched in the rhetoric. People try to unhinge marriage as being a religious practice solely, which has some reasoning behind it, but still there is a strong sentiment derived from it being a symbolic victory of human actualization that the tradition of marriage and label is given to a homosexual couple.

I say, treat it like we do immigrants if you want legal rights, but want to take the religious taint off of it. Use a title other than Marriage, get your rights and protections under the law, and embrace what you have. Otherwise cop to it being a symbolic and semantic battle that tips the scales as far as passion is concerned and reap the bitter grapes of wraith.

An immigrant can fight in wars, but never be president, they can be a citizen, but some rights we have are only privileges for them.

I feel that way because separate but equal is alive and well right now. I live it in my city, where municipalities are stratified by Race and class, in some cases to the point of exclusivity. It's done across ethic lines just as well, but no one makes an issue, because where they are and how they live is enough for them, and it's those who want breach their self imposed limitations that have the issue. Those people are in the minority among minorities, but often they are the ones fired up.

I had a friend who was Catholic, and left the church because he didn't like that non-catholics couldn't take communion, and his GF couldn't be a priest. So he sought a similar yet different church to join. Do people want to be right or happy?

Also, being black, with some native american ancestry that no one cares about, I have not and will never accept Sexual Orientation as an analog to perceived race. My sexual actions, or lack there of, is personal and private. My orientation straight, but it has no baring on my behavior because I'm not sexual publicly. Racially, I'm always Black. It's like me being freakishly tall, there's nothing I can do about it. I'm a fan of being discrete. Being homosexual doesn't mean a person has to project their sexuality to the public to feel validated, any more than it's the case with a hetero. Get a room. I guess I can wear a mask and gloves?

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9595 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:58 am; edited 3 times in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES
Vintage Newbie


tahruh wrote:


BLOOD IS POURING OUT OF MY NOSE AND ONTO MY YSL.



You may want to look into that.


Edit: Ahhh, I see what you did there. Clever. Smile YSL did get his civil union a few days before he died, you may recall, even though the person he entered into the civil union with he had split up with many years before, and was no longer romantically involved with. Strange you would bring YSL up. If anything, an argument against gay marriage. But clever, yes.


tahruh wrote:
I know I always consider the feelings of complete and total strangers/others, in general, when making my own decisions about my very personal life. How about you, Cubs? How many people did you consult when choosing your wife, and what, if I may ask, was your relationship with each and every person I'm certain you considered, in your very personal choice?



I'm sorry, what does that have to do with this? Are you equating my marriage with gay people who want to marry? I don't care what people do in privacy, live and let live. Civil unions - sounds like a good idea, a lot of merit to that. But marriage is more than a legal agreement that protects the rights of people who love each other.





And THAT is my last post from work on this subject...
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7524 | Location: Wisconsin
Last edited by CUBSWINWORLDSERIES on Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:49 am; edited 3 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
DRMS_7888
Vintage Newbie


CUBSWINWORLDSERIES wrote:
The decision to redefine marriage should be left to the people, not a single district court judge. Expect a stay of the decision on Monday or Tuesday, pending the appeal to the 9th Circuit. And for the record, Judge Walker should have recused himself. I assume his being homosexual biased his opinion. But you read into that 138 page ruling what you want to. Regardless of how flimsy the defense of Prop. 8 may or may not have been, the money for a proper defense is pouring in now, count on it. And he should have stayed the opinion himself. That is usually the case with such a big case as this is decided by 1 lower court judge. The decision should already be stayed, pending the appeal. But that isn't the case, which pretty much shows the judge to not be impartial. Activism from the bench once again trumps the will of the people. No big surprise.


In fact, the opinion cites several precedents where marriage was redefined by judicial action on a civil level:

Quote:
25. Racial restrictions on an individual’s choice of marriage
partner were deemed unconstitutional under the California
Constitution in 1948 and under the United States Constitution
in 1967. An individual’s exercise of his or her right to
marry no longer depends on his or her race nor on the race of
his or her chosen partner.
a. Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967);
b. Perez v Sharp, 198 P2d 17 (Cal 1948).

26. Under coverture, a woman’s legal and economic identity was
subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage. The husband was the
legal head of household. Coverture is no longer part of the
marital bargain.


Also, I've never understood attacking Walker's ruling based on his sexual orientation. Should Thurgood Marshall's skin color invalidate his arguments against Brown v Board of Education? I realize they aren't entirely analogous situations, but come on.

_________________
EisleyForever wrote:
you're A-list in my heart!


MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


State vs. Church definitions = State says no discrimination based on what they think is discrimination, which is flexible vs. Church says we'll marry who we want, and if you don't like it, go get married at some other place.

Historically that's what most people have done, or they've just lived together and made the best of it if they really wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. Marriage is not a destination, it's a roadside attraction on a long journey.

Some people feel like they should be able to get into any attraction they want together, but at some Country Clubs, women can't join, blacks aren't encouraged to. The world continues to turn, no one here has done diddly to change discriminatory practices in places they don't think about of find any value in. I don't expect to be welcomed in a Mosque or Synagogue on general principle, to do my thing, whatever my thing is. I'm not going to try either, no need. It's not worth it, my ego is not that in need of stroking to "Fight the Establishment". I mean, who from the LC is going to go integrate the next New Black Panther Party Meeting in their region? It needs to be done in the interest of equality after all?

Sex Offenders can't come near my jobsite, but they are welcome in most churches if redemption is what they seek. I'm sure the Straight Edgers are looking for Chain Smoking Nymphomaniacs to balance out their ranks. Equality is mythology.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9595 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


The problem is that Prop 8 is not as big a deal as both sides make it out to be.
It is not the end all of gay rights.
There is so much more out there that it, to me, seems just like a drop in the bucket.

As long as ALL people are granted the freedom to express themselves then whatever the outcome is fine with me.

But imagine a day (call it fear mongering) when a buisness, or a church, gets sued for not allowing a couple to get married or whatever.

Oh wait, hold on, it happened. Already.

http://www.scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused- gay-wedding/

and that is the main issue. if gay people want the right to get married. then people should also have the right to disagree.

hell, my brother is hetrosexual and his church wouldnt marry him. no one cared about that.



another issue is this. if this case is overturned. it sets an example that, no matter how a vote comes out, a judge can make it anyway he wants it.

and that is scary.

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4826 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


mr pine wrote:

But imagine a day (call it fear mongering) when a buisness, or a church, gets sued for not allowing a couple to get married or whatever.

Oh wait, hold on, it happened. Already.

http://www.scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused- gay-wedding/

and that is the main issue. if gay people want the right to get married. then people should also have the right to disagree.

hell, my brother is hetrosexual and his church wouldnt marry him. no one cared about that.



another issue is this. if this case is overturned. it sets an example that, no matter how a vote comes out, a judge can make it anyway he wants it.

and that is scary.


Thanks for linking that article. Makes me think the notion that "the market will take care of it" i. e. supply & demand. If you are refused by one vendor another will pop up eager for your business etc.

I don't believe in "the market" correcting that sort of problem, but this method of intervention is pretty lame and rewards litigiousness by punishing the discriminating party. That's a hollow victory, like all the lawsuits that Morris Dees has won. The seem more vindictive and opportunistic than transformative to society.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9595 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DRMS_7888
Vintage Newbie


mr pine wrote:

But imagine a day (call it fear mongering) when a buisness, or a church, gets sued for not allowing a couple to get married or whatever.

Oh wait, hold on, it happened. Already.

http://www.scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused- gay-wedding/

and that is the main issue. if gay people want the right to get married. then people should also have the right to disagree.


Whoops. You are apparently confusing refusal of public accommodation with the 1st amendment freedoms that religious groups enjoy.

There are both federal and state laws that prevent businesses and other public accommodations from discriminating against people based on race, gender, disability, and most recently sexual orientation. Discrimination still happens all the time in housing, employment, and other sectors, but those business persons simply are better at hiding the discrimination than the defendant in the case you linked to. Many of the anti-discrimination laws on the books currently were born from the repeals of the Jim Crow laws. Fortunately, we have expanded these protections to Americans based on more than just skin color.

More facts from the ruling:

Quote:

62. Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of
those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to
Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize
marriage for same-sex couples.

a. In re Marriage Cases, 189 P3d at 451-452 (“[A]ffording
same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the
designation of marriage will not impinge upon the
religious freedom of any religious organization,
official, or any other person; no religion will be
required to change its religious policies or practices
with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious
officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in
contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”) (Citing
Cal Const Art I, § 4);

b. Tr 194:24-196:21 (Cott: Civil law, not religious custom,
is supreme in defining and regulating marriage in the
United States.);

c. Cal Fam Code §§ 400, 420.


Religious groups never have and never will have to change their beliefs or practices due to marriage equality. Churches are still just are free to deny marriages to interracial couples as they were in 1900.



mr pine wrote:
another issue is this. if this case is overturned. it sets an example that, no matter how a vote comes out, a judge can make it anyway he wants it.

and that is scary.


The Bill of Rights is designed in part as a check against tyranny of the majority, and the judicial branch of government is responsible (also required) for safeguarding the liberties guaranteed to American citizens.

_________________
EisleyForever wrote:
you're A-list in my heart!


MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


I wasn't really confusing it.

How is taking pictures at a wedding a public accommodation?

What about places that say "no shirt no shoes no service?"
Or "we have the right to refuse service to anyone?"

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4826 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group